dust1n
Zindīq
Sure, I get that. But considering contexts, I still fail to see how all of journalism is biased in one way or another.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the media coverage of the Church really fair and unbiased?
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
Sure, I get that. But considering contexts, I still fail to see how all of journalism is biased in one way or another.
I'll clarify that not every single article will have detectable bias.
But it appears generally true that bias is pervasive. A test:
Find some articles about economics, crime, race or religion,
& see if any are unbiased.
LemonGrenade
Member
When considering context we are considering those who set the criteria for what is to be considered newsworthy. It is perfectly natural that this process should be informed by such things as the need to turn a profit, personal political/religious views, and so on.
I'll add more biases of the writer: religious, political, cultural, national, ethnic, empathetic, mood.
dust1n
Zindīq
Sure, I agree. Again though, none of this implies every writer is biased, or any article is biased. If you are holding news up to some impossible degree of informed presentation of facts, than sure everything is biased. But that's not what it means to be biased. Every writer plays in the system. It just doesn't mean everyone and everything is biased.
Bias is easier to avoid in simple matters which are devoid of things which influence how we feel, eg, metallurgy, mathematics.
But introduce any topic which relates to the writer's values, agenda, desires, religion, philosophy, family, etc, & you will have
a 99.9% (+/- .1%) probability of detectable bias.
dust1n
Zindīq
I'd rather take it one at a time, and since this is about churches and all that, what is biased about this article?
Benedict XVI returns to Vatican for first time
It struck me as biased in favor of portraying the pontiffs positively.
I imagine that someone more knowledgeable would see other biases.
dust1n
Zindīq
How so?
Is the negative aspect of pontiffs, whether ever they may be, relevant to the story?
The 500 pound gorilla is the prior pope's cover up of child sexual abuse.
The writer completely ignored any negative issues involving popes & the church.
LemonGrenade
Member
Indeed, it is impossible not to be biased in some way. This is not to say that the writer is conscious of it.
In what way is it incongruous with the definition you gave earlier?
dust1n
Zindīq
But the writer does not say anything positive about the church. There literally isn't a single endorsement for the old Pope or the Catholic church in general. Nor is there a criticism. The story is about the Pope coming back to the church for the first time, not about the Vatileaks scandal. It's a news piece, not an opinion piece.
dust1n
Zindīq
"Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups. Anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry."
This would seem to indicate to me that things lacking an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups would constitute pieces of unbiased material.
Bias does not mean subjective.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I do not think that most news is biased against Christianity.
I think that while the no News should ignore some issues
I think that while the news may highlight goods which different Christian churches do, they also report about problems in specific churches. A sex scandal is national new, while a food drive is local. National news will get more story time because it effects a larger group and therefore increases ratings. And finally, people have a tendency to remember that which shocks us over that which is mundane. Thus, people who feel there is a news bias remember the news and view the news in a biased manner.
I think that while the no News should ignore some issues
I think that while the news may highlight goods which different Christian churches do, they also report about problems in specific churches. A sex scandal is national new, while a food drive is local. National news will get more story time because it effects a larger group and therefore increases ratings. And finally, people have a tendency to remember that which shocks us over that which is mundane. Thus, people who feel there is a news bias remember the news and view the news in a biased manner.
LemonGrenade
Member
Yes, we've both understood the definition then. Good
Alas - the question remains unanswered. I'm happy to rephrase it in light of the above: Where are those 'things'?
dust1n
Zindīq
Yes, we've both understood the definition then. Good
Alas - the question remains unanswered. I'm happy to rephrase it in light of the above: Where are those 'things'?
Go to post 47 for a link I've referenced as something unbiased.
Really? I reluctantly got the warm fuzzies when reading about the humility & humanity of the new guy.
Manipulative news, since they chose to dwell so much upon his positive qualities.
dust1n
Zindīq
Neither words are used. Perhaps a quote is in order...
I can't assume what, exactly, you are referring to.
From the article....
Hardly newsworthy at all, yet it conveys a very positive image.
Perhaps you're too pro-Catholic to see the bias.
Perhaps I'm so anti-Catholic that I see the most miniscule bias.
dust1n
Zindīq
I guess so... I don't even know anything about Catholicism and I fail to see bias. When I read, "Francis' gestures to Benedict during that March 23 visit were also remarkable: He refused to pray on the special papal kneeler in the small chapel of Castel Gandolfo, preferring to join Benedict on a kneeler in the pews, and referring to his predecessor as his "brother."" I don't see any bias. If you think the usage of 'remarkable' 'is biased,' it's not, though colloquially you hear 'remarkable' used as a way to express some positive attributes. In AP, it denotes what the dictionary would have it do so.
adjective
worthy of attention; striking:
Definition of remarkable in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
I'm not Catholic, so I don't know, but I imagine a story about the Pope, one that would pretend to be rather learned on the subject for the sake of the story, but obviously, it's a big deal, what he did, and is out of the norm. Therefore, it's remarkable...
Not to mention, as everything previous is a side note, what Francis' did gesture to Benedict in some lame, Catholic ceremony is not a matter of opinion, you know, bias. It is a fact that Francis made the gestures towards Benedict. Journalism is about reporting facts, not opinions, about what every individual should be considering in every eye and context imaginable.