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.
I think much of what universities put out there as ?'fact' is in fact opinion. I think most of us-okay SOME of us-are capable of distinguishing between logical and illogical, between spin and evidence grounded in fact. If opinion was inadmissable to discussion or debate, every professor at the university would be out of work.
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.
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?
This list is pretty good until the last two points. Whether the information provided is objective or biased is again only in the eyes of the beholder. And again, it is often the maverick with courage to state a different conviction or possibility that might break us out of a fixed mentality to one closer to the actual truth of a matter. I think very few of us put much faith in an uncredentialed, unproven source however.
In the end, it is all relative. Blatham cited writings of Augustine as superior to those of Jerry Falwell. The Confessions of Augustine are required reading for every Christian studying theology. Falwell's are required nowhere except possibly within his own group. But as much as I disagree with Falwell and as much as I resent him so often being the media spokesperson for ?'the Christian perspective', he is certainly more qualified to write on 21st Century state of affairs than would Augustine. For insights into basic Christian theology, I would certainly go with Augustine.
The problem is not bias because anybody with a brain is going to be biased about just about everything. The problem is whether one keeps an open mind or whether one requires everybody else to think like him/her or else the other is inferior or evil or stupid.
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. 
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace