Types of Sources: Biased vs. Unbiased

I think it's okay to use a biased source only as an opening to debate.

I use the child trends data bank as a source one in a while. I think they are very objective.

0 Replies

Cornell University suggests asking the following questions when evaluating the objectivity of a source:

Quote:

1. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? It is not always easy to separate fact from opinion. Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts. Skilled writers can make you think their interpretations are facts.
2. Does the information appear to be valid and well-researched, or is it questionable and unsupported by evidence? Assumptions should be reasonable. Note errors or omissions.
3. Are the ideas and arguments advanced more or less in line with other works you have read on the same topic? The more radically an author departs from the views of others in the same field, the more carefully and critically you should scrutinize his or her ideas.
4. Is the author's point of view objective and impartial? Is the language free of emotion-arousing words and bias?

0 Replies

I think it's ok to use a biased source as long as number 2 applies. I use biased sources but try to acknowledge the bias and specifically point out the section of the piece that I am referring to. I try to make sure that, even if the piece is biased, the section I refer to is factual.

I think using propoganda as a source is reprehensible, but we can probably debate the definition of propaganda all day long.

0 Replies

I think, wandeljw, we should differ, wether we mean sources here on A2K (or the internet in general) or sources for a (scientific) paper, thesis etc.

Quotes here should give the sources, heh, that's for supporting my theory, my idea. :wink:

It's quite similar in the academic world. However, like your quotation noted, there are more (different?) 'rules'.
(I reviewed and marked some dozens of BA and MA thesises: I'm glad [for the students] that internet wasn't used that much in those days :wink: )

0 Replies

Walter,
I am primarily interested in sources used here on A2K. To me, A2K is an "information exchange" forum. I think that the quality of information we give each other can only improve if we give some thought to the sources we use. Of course, on A2K, the source is often the poster's own experience.

0 Replies

It seems enough to simply state a source when known. It would be better to acknowledge any known biases associated with the source, but they're not always known or considered a bias. Even the criteria from Cornell is subject to subjective interpretation.

If you state a source, people can usually check it out on the Internet and figure out pretty quickly whether or not it's a biased source.

0 Replies

Yale University Library suggests asking the following questions when doing research on the Internet:

Quote:

Who is the author of the Web site? Are the author's credentials listed?
What institution or organization is behind the Web site?
When was the Web site created or last updated?
Who is the intended audience for the Web site?
Is the information provided objective or biased?
How does information provided by the Web site compare to other works, including print works?

0 Replies

These are excellent questions to ask, but again we run into the problem of subjective interpretation.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

I think it's okay to use a biased source only as an opening to debate.

agree there. as an opening to a debate, as an opening to a disagreement or you can use it for analytical purposes.

0 Replies

every source is biased--there is no such thing as objectivity--

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K, r-magee.

I think it is possible to state information in an objective way, but the results are usually dry and boring. You can even take information reported subjectively and distill from that information -- facts that are objectively true.

0 Replies

BBB
bm

0 Replies

Upon wandeljw's kind invitation, I'll repeat here a post I made in another thread (with some added context):

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
tico said:
Quote:
If I post more links to conservative sites than you post links to liberal sites, does that mean I win? Or, if I post a greater assortment of sources of links than you, does that mean I win? I guess I'd be interested in knowing what you find out, but I'm not sure I'm going to be impressed.

I'm not sure about that either. It depends on what it is you are doing here in political discussions. If your primary goal/function is conceived as support for a political party or ideology, then nothing will much impress you outside of that which forwards this goal or function. If, on the other hand, your reach extends a little further, and you conceive that what we have available to us within our small community here is the means to expand our understanding of political issues through quality information, debate, reflection, careful analysis and honest objectivity, then 'impressibility' might be engaged.

If your point is that "Tico bestows a primarily conservative viewpoint upon those of us here at A2K," you should not waste your time trying to prove such an obvious point.

But if you suffer from some delusion that you, on the other hand, do something other than provide a consistent liberal view in your political posts, then perhaps you indeed would benefit from your exercise ... if only to have your eyes opened to the reality of your own political bias.

Everyone has preferences and biases, myself clearly included. But does it follow from that truth that therefore all instances of political discourse are equal in worth to all others? Are Baldimo or blatham as worthwhile to read and ponder as Lincoln? Are McGentrix's contributions to political thought as worthy or helpful or illuminating as are the contributions of William F. Buckley or Plato? Will Jerry Falwell match the writings of Augustine? If not, how not? What are the differences?

What if a poster did nothing at all in these political threads other than paste in the columns of a single writer, say, Maureen Dowd? Some value would be gained surely, but how much? What if that poster read nothing but Maureen Dowd's columns? How much learning would you posit is going on with that individual? Would you even consider that that person really wants to educate himself or herself or would you consider it more likely that that person merely wishes to validate his or her own certainties? What is the difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination'?

Variety of sources and viewpoints is probably the fundamental criterion for learning, and singularity of sources is probably the fundamental barrier to learning (and it is usually attendent with the notion that one already knows it all or already has adequate authoritative truth to hand - "Look no further, the TRUTH has been found!" as a Scientology billboard has it).

How are you and I different? I belong to no political party either in the US or in Canada and never have other than when I was 18 and could not vote. Then, I nailed up posters around my home town for Pierre Trudeau (Liberal party). On the front lawn of our home were two large signs - one for that Liberal candidate and another for the further left candidate my father supported. When a union buddy got on dad's case for allowing my sign on the lawn, dad weighed into the fellow with some needle-sharp comments on free speech and the intellectual whoredom of indoctrination. I have never been on any politcal or activist mailing list up until two months ago when as a consequence of signing a petition the folks at moveon got my address. I read, at most, one third of what they send me. I have pasted nothing from them here. I source or reference with considerably greater variety and breadth than do you and I do not draw from sources which maintain or forward NOTHING BUT liberal commentary as is the case with your NewsMax, TownHall, and National Review sourced contributions.

You are not a bad guy, Tico...more careful and thoughtful than many here, considerate in the main, and likely a fine fellow to chum about with. But your partisanship and your self-chosen range of sources for information and contribution are further evidence of the paltry level of discourse so many of you in the US have fallen to. I suspect you like this idea of a 'culture war' with black on one side and white on the other.

You have yet to elucidate this "breadth" of sources you often allude to in reference to your postings. I'm not saying unequivocally it doesn't exist, but frankly I only recall seeing your posting from salon.com or the New York Times Review of Books site. Can you point out the many conservative postings you've made?

I belong to a political party, and have since I could vote. I don't always vote Republican, but do vote for the best candidate -- which is usually a Republican. Wink

I'm not on any political mailing lists. I do draw frequently from sources that are unabashedly conservative, and which don't try and pretend to be something they're not.

I think that you have chosen to post, on the whole, liberal thought here at A2K ... and that is probably a conscious decision you've made. It's what you believe, so it's what you post. I, on the other hand, post primarily conservative thought and views. While it might be a wonderful thing for either you or I to post a view we don't agree with here -- in the interests of expanding our or other's learning -- it isn't likely to happen. The probable reason is because we are both very much aware that in this arena, much like in a courtroom, there are advocates that drive the ship. You advocate liberalism; I advocate conservatism. In a courtroom, the defense attorney makes his arguments and argues strenuously on behalf of his client; the plaintiff's attorney argues and zealously advocates for the other side. The idea, of course, is that the "truth" will win out, and it's somewhere in the middle. This system doesn't work if one side is not doing their part.

Do you think that A2K will be better off if I posted some liberal musings? Don't you agree that there are plenty of liberal postings at this site, and my effort in posting a conservative slant is but a drop in the bucket of liberalism that abounds here? And why would I post something I don't believe in? (Actually, I've done that if I've found the article interesting, even if I don't agree with the overall thesis.)

If I didn't enjoy the give and take, or reading the bizarre and frequently wrong views of liberals, I wouldn't spend so much time in the political fora here, where I'm quite likely to end up reading a post from you citing a "non-liberal" website that has a decidedly liberal spin on things. I'd be off at some mainly conservative forum, among my peeps. I'm unapologetically conservative. You might find that to be a bad thing, but I think it's better to own up to who you are than to try and pretend to be something or someone you're not.

So for the reasons above-stated, I respectfully reject the notion that I should post liberal beliefs here at A2K, or that by not doing so I'm stunting my growth. To do so would interrupt the delicate balance of things. Beyond that, I'm watching with great interest to see if you will follow your own advice, and begin posting any conservative writings.

0 Replies

Tico,

Thanks for re-posting that discussion. You and blatham are examining the very issues that I was interested in when I started this thread.

0 Replies

r-magee77 wrote : "every source is biased--there is no such thing as objectivity-- ".

i would agree with that. it's not much different than listening to or reading the news. i usually have an idea how slanted to the left or right a report might be. so i draw my own conclusions. and to be fair, i would have to say that i usually - but not always - discount right-leaning reports more than left-leaning reports (i try to avoid what i personally would view as outright lies - but here again, it's my opinion. someone else might see a lie in something i agree with). i think we all have our own ways of determining "objectivity".

it's somewhat like listening to "the latest medical discovery". it often turns out to be wrong, or at the least not fully supported by peer review.
it's"buyer beware" - whether in politics, medical science, or when buying a hot dog. hbg

0 Replies

If we cannot use biased sources, however, I think we will be able to use no sources at all past the opening thread starter.

Some sources are better than others to make a point in a forum like A2K. I try to post from sources I believe to be objective. I do not think any of them, however, are unbiased. Bias in itself is a quite normal thing.

I frequently post excerpts or entire essays written by William Raspberry because I appreciate his unique and non malicious approach to many subjects and he has given me a different perspective more than once. He has a college degree, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and is quite clear that his pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro gun control, pro higher taxes self is about as liberal as they come.

I also frequently post excerpts or entire essays from Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell because both generally focus on timely issues, write short easy-to-read essays, and both have a way of cutting through the crap and getting to the heart of the matter in an unpretentious and easy-to-read style. Both have PhDs, impressive academic credentials, and both are conservative libertarians.

I don't' think any of these three gentlemen would agree that academia is the best place to look for unbiased objectivity.

Wandel posted criteria used for bias analysis at Cornell

Quote:

1. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? It is not always easy to separate fact from opinion. Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts. Skilled writers can make you think their interpretations are facts.

Quote:

2. Does the information appear to be valid and well-researched, or is it questionable and unsupported by evidence? Assumptions should be reasonable. Note errors or omissions.

No quarrel with this. It is reasonable and good advice to suggest people should be able to argue both sides of any issue. It is also not unreasonable for people to see that the argument of one side has more strength and basis in fact than the other.

Quote:

3. Are the ideas and arguments advanced more or less in line with other works you have read on the same topic? The more radically an author departs from the views of others in the same field, the more carefully and critically you should scrutinize his or her ideas.

Here is where I (and my three heroes mentioned above) part company with Cornell. In a cookie cutter, copy cat world of journalists, scientists, academics, and politicos, somebody puts a crackpot or intentionally misleading notion out there and everybody else jumps on the band wagon and tries to present it as their own idea and/or belief. Sure there are nut cases who hear their own drummer only, but it is the also often the courageous one who is willing to state a different opinion or point of view that moves a mob mentality screw up back to one more grounded in reality. In other words, an idiotic conclusion is an idiotic conclusion no matter how many people profess to having arrived at it.

Quote:

4. Is the author's point of view objective

The only way to assess objectivity is whether a statement can be supported with logic, reason, or verifiable facts. In this world, however, too often it is objective if you agree with it. It isn't if you don't. Smile

and from Yale re doing analysis of credible internet sources

Quote:

Who is the author of the Web site? Are the author's credentials listed?
What institution or organization is behind the Web site?
When was the Web site created or last updated?
Who is the intended audience for the Web site?
Is the information provided objective or biased?
How does information provided by the Web site compare to other works, including print works?

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

These are excellent questions to ask, but again we run into the problem of subjective interpretation.

And what is that problem again?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
These are excellent questions to ask, but again we run into the problem of subjective interpretation.

And what is that problem again?

Judging whether or not a source is objective is, in and of itself, subjective regardless of what questions you ask yourself while judging it. My point has been that it's enough to cite the source whenever possible so that the rest of us can judge it for ourselves (and, if necessary, debate its objectivity and/or merit).

0 Replies

Well stated indeed, Mills. Now do you have any clue how to get people to debate its objectivity and/or merit apart from whatever bias they have about the source regardless of the information presented?

0 Replies

Types of Sources: Biased vs. Unbiased

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know