LogFAQs > #882959538

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	It looks like Snopes is getting fed up about being labeled HYPER-LIBERAL lately.
shipwreckers 07/15/17 12:50:17 PM #5:	ParanoidObsessive posted... shipwreckers posted... Granted they're not trying to defend him, per se. But, as a TL;DR - They're just pointing out that the "confirmation bias" cuts both ways (from each side of the political fence; left or right). The problem is, when you only publish that as an attempt to "prove" that you're not biased, after you've already been accused of bias, it doesn't really prove much of anything at all. Now, if they could have gone back and pointed out previously published articles from before/during the accusations that show lack of bias, they'd have a better case. But honestly, regardless of their "it's critical to make sure you have no bias or slant" line, the problem is that everyone has a bias. And plenty of times, those people don't even notice their bias (or the bias of people with similar biases to them). If anything, their panicked "Look, we can shit on the other side, too!" defense just makes me assume they have bias even more than I otherwise would have. Because now they just look way more guilty. It does seem like a desperation move on their part. As you said, the bias is going to be there whether they admit it or not. Pretty much every news / info source out there is going to CLAIM to be unbiased (even the likes of CNN and Breitbart). But, since confirmation bias is something that happens in a natural, often undetectable manner, I sometimes wonder if it's even humanly possible to ever have a truly OBJECTIVE information source. Heck, even our dictionaries have bias (comparing the same exact word between Webster vs. Oxford vs. Caimbridge, etc.) --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:882959538] in It looks l... [t:75561203]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote><cite>shipwreckers posted...</cite> <quote>Granted they're not trying to defend him, per se. But, as a TL;DR - They're just pointing out that the "confirmation bias" cuts both ways (from each side of the political fence; left or right).</quote> The problem is, when you only publish that as an attempt to "prove" that you're not biased, after you've already been accused of bias, it doesn't really prove much of anything at all. Now, if they could have gone back and pointed out previously published articles from before/during the accusations that show lack of bias, they'd have a better case. But honestly, regardless of their "it's critical to make sure you have no bias or slant" line, the problem is that everyone has a bias. And plenty of times, those people don't even notice their bias (or the bias of people with similar biases to them). If anything, their panicked "Look, we can shit on the other side, too!" defense just makes me assume they have bias even more than I otherwise would have. Because now they just look way more guilty.</quote> It does seem like a desperation move on their part. As you said, the bias is going to be there whether they admit it or not. Pretty much every news / info source out there is going to CLAIM to be unbiased (even the likes of CNN and Breitbart). But, since confirmation bias is something that happens in a natural, often undetectable manner, I sometimes wonder if it's even humanly possible to ever have a truly OBJECTIVE information source. Heck, even our dictionaries have bias (comparing the same exact word between Webster vs. Oxford vs. Caimbridge, etc.) --- Money is overrated...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1