J/K I agree with you. I think we should all respect, even though we don't agree with, each others opinions. State our own and move on.
Bias, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
" type of tone. 
reply posted on 14-3-2005 @ 06:00 PM by Gools
A discussion taking place in the context of this thread: POLITICS: Propaganda Report Finds
Bias in Iraq Coverage reminded me of this thread.
My original post was not meant as a rant but more of an observation of what I see happening all around me. People are choosing camps and battling it out.
"Objectivity" is an illusion (think back to Plato's definition of "truth") so the best thing to do is to strive for a consensus viewpoint supported by the facts. In law this is called building a case around evidence. There are always different possible theories that can explain the facts of a case and none of them are absolutely correct because they are all hearsay to someone who was not a direct witness or does not have access to "original" sources. How many times have you been witness to an event and the media coverage (both corporate and indymedia) have twisted the event to their own agenda? I have seen it happen more than once.
In this "information" age we are inundated with "facts" and different interpretations (note: information does not equal knowledge!). With the advent of electronic media and the ease with which it can be manipulated and the fact that disinformation is purposefully disseminated, I sometimes don't know what to believe anymore. I have to rely on personal and necessarily biased experience.
Each camp believes what they want to believe and defend their position to the death because the "other" camp refuses to accept any interpretation that does not fit their worldview. This is where willful blindness comes into the picture (as well as the lack of capacity to analyze and apply deductive reasoning).
So what do we do now that we have access to the biggest library of information ever devised? Fight over the validity of the facts?
What I don't see happening is consensus building on any level.
.
My original post was not meant as a rant but more of an observation of what I see happening all around me. People are choosing camps and battling it out.
"Objectivity" is an illusion (think back to Plato's definition of "truth") so the best thing to do is to strive for a consensus viewpoint supported by the facts. In law this is called building a case around evidence. There are always different possible theories that can explain the facts of a case and none of them are absolutely correct because they are all hearsay to someone who was not a direct witness or does not have access to "original" sources. How many times have you been witness to an event and the media coverage (both corporate and indymedia) have twisted the event to their own agenda? I have seen it happen more than once.
In this "information" age we are inundated with "facts" and different interpretations (note: information does not equal knowledge!). With the advent of electronic media and the ease with which it can be manipulated and the fact that disinformation is purposefully disseminated, I sometimes don't know what to believe anymore. I have to rely on personal and necessarily biased experience.
Each camp believes what they want to believe and defend their position to the death because the "other" camp refuses to accept any interpretation that does not fit their worldview. This is where willful blindness comes into the picture (as well as the lack of capacity to analyze and apply deductive reasoning).
So what do we do now that we have access to the biggest library of information ever devised? Fight over the validity of the facts?
What I don't see happening is consensus building on any level.
.
reply posted on 14-3-2005 @ 06:44 PM by Gools
Originally posted by soficrow
How does one work towwrds consensus building in that circumstance? How do I turn it around and play mediator?
You can't and that's why it's not happening. It's very easy to point a finger and yell BIAS! and very difficult if not impossible to defend against it. It's a tactic (even if used by the unwitting). Like calling someone who criticizes the US government "anti-American" or the Israeli government "anti-Semitic". You can scream "NO I'M NOT!" until you're blue in the face but it gets you nowhere and it has the added advantage of detracting attention from the original idea.
I don't have the answers (maybe someone else has some suggestions), I'm just really frustrated at the level of "discourse" (or lack thereof) going on in the public realm.
By the way, have you ever seen this? ATS Lessons
Plus ça change...
.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
