Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    19 May '17 15:02
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So 'bias' in your meaning is deliberately lying in favour of a position? Given that you already know the flat earthers are factually wrong, why is it necessary to bring them on at all? What if you just paid someone to do a caricature of a flat earther (CNN style) so you can make fun of him? Would that be less or more biased?
    Your whole example simply doe ...[text shortened]... n't the sort of situation where bias is an issue given that you already know the correct answer.
    bi·as
    ˈbīəs/Submit
    noun
    1.
    prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

    A disposition toward factual and logical honesty wouldn't count as "bias", since there's nothing unfair about doing so.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 15:461 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    bi·as
    ˈbīəs/Submit
    noun
    1.
    prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

    A disposition toward factual and logical honesty wouldn't count as "bias", since there's nothing unfair about doing so.
    So prejudice against someone that is justified because they are stupid, is not bias because it isn't unfair because they are stupid?

    I still don't get why you thought it necessary to bring on flat earthers to your supposed program when you believe they are wrong (and are going to prove it in the same segment). What is the point?
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    19 May '17 16:092 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So prejudice against someone that is justified because they are stupid, is not bias because it isn't unfair because they are stupid?

    I still don't get why you thought it necessary to bring on flat earthers to your supposed program when you believe they are wrong (and are going to prove it in the same segment). What is the point?
    I like how you attribute words to me that I didn't say in order to make your point..

    I didn't say that flat-earth believers are "stupid". I said their beliefs aren't backed by science. This is not biased statement, that's just fact. A report on flat-earth beliefs can be just as unbiased, as can any news report.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 17:011 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    I like how you attribute words to me that I didn't say in order to make your point.
    I like how you attribute attributions to me that I didn't make to make your point.
    I didn't say that yous said that you believe flat earthers are stupid (nor even imply it, although you could of course read it that way if you tried hard enough).

    I called them stupid. And I did so because it is a fact. It therefore wasn't unfair, nor biased on my part at all.
    What is interesting is your strong bias in not wanting to admit their stupidity despite it being factual.

    I didn't say that flat-earth believers are "stupid". I said their beliefs aren't backed by science. This is not biased statement, that's just fact. A report on flat-earth beliefs can be just as unbiased, as can any news report.
    Yet you are still dodging the issues.
    1. You picked a topic that you believe one supposedly cannot be biased about anyway, as an example of where news reporters should avoid being biased.
    2. You suggested that it is important that the flat earthers views be heard - despite the fact that they will be shown to be wrong in the same segment. And you continue to avoid answering my question as to why you think it necessary to interview them at all.
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    19 May '17 17:20
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I called them stupid. And I did so because it is a fact. It therefore wasn't unfair, nor biased on my part at all.
    That's not a "fact", that's your opinion. I know flat-earth believers who are excellent at all things related to computer tech (I work with one). His beliefs are dead wrong, but he's not "stupid".

    You're basically trying to justify bias. This type of thinking is what's wrong with the media, and the world.
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 May '17 17:30
    Originally posted by vivify
    I like how you attribute words to me that I didn't say in order to make your point..

    I didn't say that flat-earth believers are "stupid". I said their beliefs aren't backed by science. This is not biased statement, that's just fact. A report on flat-earth beliefs can be just as unbiased, as can any news report.
    did you call you a liar yet?
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    19 May '17 17:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    1. You picked a topic that you believe one supposedly cannot be biased about anyway, as an example of where news reporters should avoid being biased.
    2. You suggested that it is important that the flat earthers views be heard - despite the fact that they will be shown to be wrong in the same segment. And you continue to avoid answering my question as to why you think it necessary to interview them at all.
    Flat-earthers are making a comeback, for some reason. Covering the story and why their beliefs are wrong could help other people from falling into this thinking, since the flat-earth movement is driven largely by conspiracy theorists. Biased reporting would only serve to make such people dig their heels further into their beliefs, since media bias only fuels conspiracy theorists.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 May '17 19:58
    Originally posted by vivify
    Flat-earthers are making a comeback, for some reason. Covering the story and why their beliefs are wrong could help other people from falling into this thinking, since the flat-earth movement is driven largely by conspiracy theorists. Biased reporting would only serve to make such people dig their heels further into their beliefs, since media bias only fuels conspiracy theorists.
    they aren't making a comeback, they were always here. they now just have an easy way to be a flat earther in everybody's face through the internet.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 21:49
    Originally posted by vivify
    Flat-earthers are making a comeback, for some reason. Covering the story and why their beliefs are wrong could help other people from falling into this thinking, since the flat-earth movement is driven largely by conspiracy theorists. Biased reporting would only serve to make such people dig their heels further into their beliefs, since media bias only fuels conspiracy theorists.
    And still you haven't answer either question.
    Why would it be necessary to interview a flat earther when reporting on their beliefs? We know what their beliefs are, and we can report on that. There is no need whatsoever to give them a platform.
    And now, you introduce a new question:
    What would biased reporting about them look like? You have already stated that stating that they are wrong is not biased.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 21:52
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    In that case i don't mind explaining it again and again, in increasing condescending manner.

    did you call you a liar yet?
    You gave up rather quickly.

    Now its on to taking side swipes at me by talking to other people?
    Whats the next 'debating tactic' or are you all out?
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 May '17 21:591 edit
    Originally posted by vivify to Twhitehead
    I strongly disagree with this. News sources should follow journalistic integrity, which includes impartiality. I see with nothing wrong with presenting both sides of a story, as long as reason is used to balance out the facts.

    For example, if I was a reporter covering flat-earth believers, I'd do my best to present what they believe and wh ...[text shortened]... why it's not accepted scientifically. This can all be done without bias, so can any news story.
    "I see with nothing wrong with presenting both sides of a story, as long as reason is used to balance out the facts."
    --Vivify (to Twhitehead)

    A story may have more than two sides.

    Does Vivify believe that 'Holocaust deniers' should be given equal time to present their beliefs?
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 May '17 22:19
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You gave up rather quickly.

    Now its on to taking side swipes at me by talking to other people?
    Whats the next 'debating tactic' or are you all out?
    You gave up rather quickly.

    one tends to do that when the other is an idiot that has no wish to debate. (the "don't answer this, it's rhetorical " post, remember?)
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 May '17 22:551 edit
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/roger-ailes-nightmare-world-fox-news

    "Roger Ailes's life achievement? He helped create this nightmare world."
    --Arwa Mahdawi

    "Murdoch diplomatically forget to mention the many women, on both sides of the camera,
    who Ailes allegedly harassed, exploited and, to use the words of one former Fox News
    employee, “psychologically tortured”.

    Ailes stepped down as the CEO of Fox last July after more than 20 women came forward to accuse
    him of sexual harassment; he will certainly be remembered by all of these women, but for the wrong reasons."
  14. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    19 May '17 23:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And still you haven't answer either question.
    Why would it be necessary to interview a flat earther when reporting on their beliefs? We know what their beliefs are, and we can report on that. There is no need whatsoever to give them a platform.
    Who said anything about interviewing them? I didn't.


    And now, you introduce a new question:
    What would biased reporting about them look like? You have already stated that stating that they are wrong is not biased.

    You apparently need to Google the word "bias", since you apparently don't know what it means. This is the second time you need it explained to you that simply stating something factually accurate isn't bias, because there's no unfairness in the act.

    Honestly. This must be how world leaders feel when they explain things to Trump.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 May '17 08:071 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    You gave up rather quickly.

    one tends to do that when the other is an idiot that has no wish to debate. (the "don't answer this, it's rhetorical " post, remember?)
    But its you that clearly didn't wish to debate (the "It's a rhetorical question, i don't need the answer. " post, remember?), so are you calling yourself an idiot?
Back to Top