Entry 2114, on 2021-03-20 at 12:41:24 (Rating 2, News)
They say there are two sides to every argument. That is almost certainly true; in fact there will often be more than two. The problem is that some sides are just better than others. So in discussions of potentially controversial subjects in the media, how could the points from more than one side be taken into account, and even if the could be, should they be?
Here's some examples: should the advantages and disadvantages of 1080 (a controversial pest-control poison used in New Zealand) both be explored; when discussing vaccinations, should the anti-vax people be able to comment; if a new discovery is made about evolution, should creationists be able to offer a contrary opinion?
In all of those cases, many people might say that the side against the mainstream opinion deserves no right to comment. But what about the 1080 question? That is slightly more nuanced, and a moderately rational case can be made against it, although I personally think its use is justified.
So here's some examples where the two sides might be a bit closer together: are lockdowns a good way to fight minor COVID outbreaks, or are less severe measures better overall; is systemic racism a genuine, widespread phenomenon, or are individual anecdotes and misinterpretation of statistics a more likely explanation; are the actions of any controversial leader (Donald Trump being the prime example) reprehensible, irrational, racist, etc?
I would say those questions are completely open, and no obvious answer exists on either side, yet the mainstream media tends to present those from only one perspective: lockdowns are good, racism is a big problem, Trump is always wrong. Admittedly, there are some "alternative" sources which do take the contrarian views more seriously, but they often unnecessarily reject the consensus, so you still don't hear both sides.
Anyone who genuinely wants to evaluate all the evidence and form a rational opinion, instead of just accepting what the media tells them, can look at both mainstream and alternative sources, but most people don't do this. Instead they choose the source which suits what they want to believe and ignore the rest.
On occasions I am pleasantly surprised with what I hear from sources which are often biased, such as state radio broadcaster RNZ here in New Zealand. Sometimes, just sometimes, they present both sides and might even have two people debating each other's points. One program which does this regularly (and I always enjoy listening to) is their weekly politics program which has a commentator from the left and the right discussing their views of the week's political events.
I also remember a program discussing cannabis law reform which presented both sides really well. But the fact that I have to try so hard to think of examples of news done properly is a sad indictment on the news media overall.
So my first point is this: instead of having a single person presenting one side of a controversial view, let's hear both sides debating the points fairly. This requires a competent and unbiased mediator, of course, which is certainly a potential flaw in my idea, but I don't think it is insurmountable.
I think having both sides discussing ideas in "real-time" is better than having one side presenting its ideas, followed by the other at a separate time. First, people might hear one side without the other; and second, the person speaking second gets a chance to refute the ideas of the first person without any chance of rebuttal in turn.
But what about the "edge cases"? That is situations where there is a strong consensus and the alternative view is considered fringe, conspirational, or irrational. Should alternative views be aired there, especially if they might result in harm? For example, is vaccine denial OK? Is rejecting climate change OK?
I say those views should still be presented, for two reasons...
First, they are available elsewhere anyway, so by suppressing them on mainstream media all that is achieved is to encourage people to go elsewhere to get that view. And in those cases they will still only hear one side, plus that person might stay at the alternative news site and never hear the consensus opinion.
Second, who decides who is worthy of being allowed to participate in discussion and who isn't? Given that most mainstream media sources are hopelessly left biased (and some hopelessly right) it is clear that they cannot be trusted. So the safest option might be to allow all opinions, no matter how apparently untrustworthy, to be presented, as long as they aren't immediately harmful, such as presenting direct incitements to violence.
In those situations we would expect that the side with the weaker opinion would be shut down fairly quickly. For example, any creationist should be destroyed easily by anyone even moderately competent in the science of evolution. Or maybe they wouldn't be. Maybe they would make some really good points we hadn't heard before, and we would all be converted. Yeah, most likely not!
But it would be possible that the alternative view might become weaker after it was competently criticised in a well-run debate (the mediator should not allow unfair tactics such as the "Gish Gallop"). So by having the alternative view presented, assuming it was without merit, it might actually become weaker, rather than stronger as we might initially assume. And if it had merit, surely it should be presented anyway!
The counterargument is that by presenting alternatives it just draws attention to them and gives them undeserved credibility. Superficially this seems like a good point, but the fact that a weak argument should be easily refuted in a fair debate would seem to contradict this, and many alternative views already have significant exposure.
So I say, let's hear both sides of every issue, no matter how controversial they might be. Let the listener or viewer decide what the truth is, instead of it being dispensed by grossly biased sources on both sides. Forget about the interviews and monologues, and give us debate instead. This idea goes all the way back to the idea of the dialectic in Greek philosophy, and is too important a principle to be ignored any longer.
Lots of good comments here. I personally think that in general the media instead of reporting facts
(as I believe they originally set out to do) and letting the reader/listener make their own decisions, have
become very biased in their individual outlooks. And of course in most cases we will either agree or disagree with their reporting ( their personal slant on the matter ) depending on our own beliefs.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-03-21 at 12:34:06:
Yes, the media tend to have an agenda, which their reporting must fit within. So they either change the facts to suit that, or (more often) only report the facts which fit while ignoring the others. Also, they tend to only interview people who agree with their perspective.
For example, RNZ's so-called correspondent from the US commenting on politics had a very clear anti-Trump bias, so we never heard the whole story. Whenever I heard those reports I felt like I was being manipulated. That's why I am so critical of the media: they're trying to tell me (and everyone else) what to think.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2021-03-22 at 09:50:31:
"RNZ's so-called correspondent from the US commenting on politics had a very clear anti-Trump" What rubbish. Did you ever hear Lenny McAllister being interviewed on National radio? I have - many times. I think you are doing exactly what you are accusing RNZ of - selective reporting of "facts" and going into a discussion with a fixed view.
Comment 4 by Anonymous on 2021-03-22 at 09:52:37:
Some, not many, good points here, and also some complete rubbish. What seems to be a pattern on this site is a complete absence of solutions. It's easy to tear everything down isn't it, but I don't see anything constructive...
Comment 5 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 11:38:14:
Regarding comment 3: Maybe I don't listen to RNZ enough to have heard anything like what you are saying exists. I probably listen to it for 30 minute to an hour per day and I don't remember a single interview involving US politics during his term as president which could be said to be positive about Trump, or even neutral. I only listen to Morning Report, and a few podcasts occasionally.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 11:40:24:
Regarding having nothing positive to say (comment 4): Thanks for saying I had some good points, at least! :) I thought my suggestion of having a representative from both sides of any controversial issues debating each other and correcting any misleading statements was a fairly constructive one.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 11:43:23:
BTW, it would be easier to keep track if you left your name with comments. If you're a bit shy, that's OK: just make one up!
Comment 8 by Anonymous on 2021-03-22 at 12:09:59:
My point is that your suggestion is already happening and you have less of a case for complaint than you think you do. If you listened more to RNZ you would hear those other views. What you MAY find is that the "fringe views" are represented LESS than other views...
Comment 9 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 12:14:11:
That is possible, but the fact that I listen to it every day for at least 30 minutes, and still can't remember a single instance of an "alternate view" indicates to me that they are very rare, even if they do exist (as you claim). To the average listener, that other view would be easily missed amongst the vast amount of anti-Trump rhetoric.
Comment 10 by Anonymous on 2021-03-22 at 13:01:52:
"but the fact that I listen to it every day for at least 30 minutes, and still can't remember a single instance of an "alternate view" indicates to me that they are very rare"
That's rubbish and a lazy argument. If you duck in and out of a media channel, you are unlikely too hear a representative sample - simple science.
Comment 11 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 13:07:03:
Not really. I think most people only listen to small parts of any program or channel. And, as you know, a sample from a bigger "population", should give an approximation to the whole... simple science.
Comment 12 by Anonymous on 2021-03-22 at 14:57:35:
"a sample from a bigger "population", should give an approximation to the whole"
Sorry, what or who exactly is this bigger population you mention? Sounds suspiciously anecdotal.
Comment 13 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 16:18:22:
Yeah, I can see how that would be confusing. I put population in quotes because I was referring to how stats can be used to take a sample and approximate the true values of a phenomenon in the total population.
So, if 10% of the news articles about American politics are friendly to Trump, I would expect to see that in my sample too, at least approximately. I listen to 10 articles per day for 7 days a week, yet I see no Trump-friendly material. This indicates that either it is very rare, or not evenly distributed through the day, so maybe I'm just listening at the wrong time. That seems unlikely.
Comment 14 by Anonymous on 2021-03-22 at 16:58:53:
I see you argument, just don't agree with it... by the way, why should 10% of articles be "friendly" to trump?
Comment 15 by OJB on 2021-03-22 at 17:43:38:
By "friendly" I mean mentioning his positive achievements, not making his errors worse than they really were, not making up lies about him, not blaming him for events which were just as bad under other presidents. All of those things were rare. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm not a Trump hater either. I just want fair, rational discussion, not biased hysteria like we tend to get from the media.
Comment 16 by Anonymous on 2021-03-23 at 09:07:09:
Funny, I heard all about his accomplishments (and whether ANY president really can really take credit for economic improvements during their terms), and the comparisons to Bill Clinton's behaviour on RNZ. Perhaps you weren't listening then. This needed to be put in context of his, on balance, reprehensible behaviour.
Comment 17 by OJB on 2021-03-23 at 09:34:42:
Well, sure. The problem here is we are both speaking in anecdotes. You have been listening at the right time to hear some (allegedly) positive stuff, I haven't. I think my listening (less than an hour a day, in the morning) might be quite typical, so I think my experience would be shared by many, but who really knows.
It sounds like you might be talking about a single item (comparison with Clinton), and since I didn't hear it I have no idea how unbiased it might have been.
BTW, I don't think his behaviour is significantly more or less reprehensible than any other president.
Comment 18 by Anonymous on 2021-03-23 at 09:51:37:
No, I'm not talking about a single item (Clinton comparison) - it was given as one example in response to your claim that RNZ does not provide the counter view. I heard multiple people defending his economic and social programs - all on RNZ believe it or not.
BTW, because you continue to cite him, I think Trump is, on balance, worse than other presidents, however his child-like personality means he has no filter on his speech and behaviour so he is perhaps a little more honest than others might have been.
Comment 19 by OJB on 2021-03-23 at 11:12:43:
OK, well we are just exchanging anecdotes now, so I don't think this is going anywhere. I guess a proper analysis would be the only way to resolve this, but even that would be partly subjective. I didn't mean to suggest there was no balance from RNZ, by the way, just that they were biased.
I think your analysis of Trump is very accurate. That's exactly what I say: he has no filter. When I listen to Obama, I know I'm hearing a carefully prepared bit of propaganda which I can't believe. When I hear Trump I know I'm hearing whatever BS comes to mind at that moment. Which is worse? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but I prefer the crazy but honest approach.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE