%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |   A journey of self-improvement - or not. |
|
Sup? I'm Char. You may know me from timeless classics such as
and
I blog for things like
[Embed For Use By Upgraded+] Believin' all the lies that they're tellin' ya Buyin' all the products that they're sellin' ya They say jump and ya say "how high?" Ya braindead, ya got a fuckin' bullet in ya head |
Artist: Germs Song: Media Blitz [Embed For Use By Upgraded+]  "30-Day Blogging Challenge ON HIATUS"  Prompt: Is there such a thing as “unbiased reporting?” (Consider not just journalism, but storytelling - is it possible to tell a story without bias?)I had to go straight to the definition of biased for this one, because I feel like in recent years the word 'biased' itself has gotten a bit diluted. Often, I feel like people call something 'biased' when there is even a hint of personal opinion in the matter, but I'm pretty sure that's not the actual definition of biased. Merriam-Webster definition for bias is "an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICESo, an opinion could make someone biased, if that person's opinion held prejudice against alternative conclusions. Having an opinion alone doesn't = biased. You can have a general opinion on a topic without having a foregone conclusion on the matter. Everyone has opinions and if an opinion alone was biased, then the answer to the prompt would likely be that no, there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. I do think it's difficult to find unbiased reporting, especially with the current state of things. Everything is sensationalized. I don't know how many times someone has thrown a 'fact' in my face and been totally outraged, only for me to open up google, search it, and realize within 15 seconds that someone made up that 'fact' on Twitter and now it's just everywhere. On one hand, I always feel bad correcting the person. Feel like a dick every time I say, "Well, actually, nothing you're talking about happened. There's no reason to be upset because this situation didn't occur. So, yeah..." Quick way to end conversations, when really what I'm trying to say is, "Hey, maybe don't believe everything you read on a random internet meme whose source is a 14 year old on social media." Kinda feels like something I shouldn't have to explain to adults, but ok.  And this is on every 'side' by the way. I've firsthand witnessed this happen with people of all different belief systems. There's an absolute outrage culture everywhere. If someone wants to believe something hard enough, they can easily find 'sources' to fuel their rage. It's an absolute embarrassment though when someone sends me something all outraged and it's like, "Cool, so, that literally didn't happen and now you're upset for no reason. Awkward." People rarely fully back down from these situations too. They hardly if ever say, "Well, fuck me, I looked too quickly without checking out the source. Sorry for spreading misinformation. I'll make sure I do a quick google search before getting all worked up next time." It has happened ZERO times out of all the times I've confronted someone for propagating fake news. Best case scenario, the person blames it on the source. "Well, I saw it on Facebook and it had like 50K shares so I dunno..." Or, "Well, there was something else very similar to this that did happen so it's not a stretch to believe it. I guess this one wasn't real, but there's a lot of real ones like this." Worst case scenario, they become infuriated and double down to the point where I just end the conversation because it's not worth having. Just to reiterate, I've had this happen with every side of politics/belief systems. Just as an example of what I'm talking about, back at the beginning of quarantine, my mother messaged me and said that there was breaking scientific evidence that heat killed the virus. Of course, I was like, "Oh wow, seriously? Where'd you hear that?" So she sent me a link to a website that she saw somewhere on social media. It was a straight up Russian propaganda site. We're talking soviet hammer & sickle, all red background, the 'about' section was all in Russian even though the article said that US scientists had found that the virus dies with hot temperatures. Just for reference, not that it matters, but my parents absolutely hate Trump and vote democrat. The reason I say that is because Trump also said that the virus would die with heat, so just pointing out that this was not someone who was directly believing Trump and using a shady website as reference. This was someone who actually loathes him. Anyway, the last thing you want to do in these situations is shame the other person. People don't learn when they're humiliated, it just adds to a pile of rage that will build up inside of them over time. Even though I've been condescending here and there in this entry, I'm not like that at all when a situation like this arises. I just pointed out that I wasn't sure about the reliability of the website and asked her what she thought. She then came back a minute later saying, "Oh, hmmm. Yeah, not sure if the site is a good source but my cousin just posted it. That would be good if it did disappear with heat though. Fingers crossed!" Since then every time she has breaking news she jokes that the source isn't in Russian.  As far as news sources go, I think the Associated Press does a fairly good job of just laying out the facts without twisting their headlines or using sensationalist terminology to rile people up. I don't check out the news too frequently, but I'll check in with the AP occasionally just to see what's going on. That doesn't mean there's no biases in their reporting, but their headlines certainly seem more straightforward and less dramatic than the average news source. People's perspective, their history, their experiences, their personality... all of that plays a role in the reliability of their reporting. There's a reason eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Whether it's the news or a personal retelling of a story (e.g. the fish was this big!), we can't strip away people's perspectives and potential biases. In order to be reliable reporters, we need a couple things, in my opinion: 1. The willingness and capability to change our minds when presented with new information. 2. The self-awareness to recognize our own blindspots. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a ton of interest in those two things. But it makes sense. We live in a world where people want to sell a story, whether it's for ratings/money (hello, media) or as a means of pushing their ideologies onto others (hello, random citizens). My rule of thumb is to not believe anything I hear until I've investigated it myself through a variety of sources. I've got television I've got supervision No decisions for you Media blitz, media blitz |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
