Reality has a left bias.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 day ago
But what if that person is bad and stupid? Is anti-Trump news “biased”? To me (and most of the world) it’s just common sense.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Anti-anything in journalism is still bias, even if you think it’s common sense. Bias just means the outlet has a consistent slant or preference - it doesn’t automatically make them wrong.
That’s why it’s actually useful to notice bias. If Fox News and the New York Times - outlets with very different biases - both criticize Trump for the same thing, that convergence makes the criticism harder to dismiss. Recognizing bias doesn’t mean ignoring the point; it helps you weigh it more accurately.
oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think the point was more along the lines of “what if the person you’re reporting on always looks bad, do you need to go out of your way to achieve ‘balance?’”
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 22 hours ago
That’s definitely part of what I meant. A mistake (not only in my opinion) many European media outlets made wrt far-right populism.
myplacedk@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Then represent the person like that, but not worse.
Plenty of people in history is presented as pure bad, but reality is more complex.
For example, we know Adolf Hitler as one of the worst people in history (at least here where I live). But he did a lot of good for Germany. At the time, this is what he was known for, and that is why he was popular enough to be democratically elected.
But if we only know him as a purely bad person, we will not recognize the next Hitler before it’s too late. We will see a person doing good stuff, but with signs that too many people will ignore.
There’s also the idea that when you do good, you deserve to be recognized for that, no matter what else you’ve done. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but also to encourage more of that.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 minutes ago
Biased towards reality.