Skip to main content

Framing the News

This article, Two Views of the Same News Find Opposite Biases, by Shankar Vedantam was in the Washington Post Online this week. I'm often frustrated by the constant complaining about the "liberal" or "conservative" media. For the record, I think that media consolidation can only harm, that mainstream media is biased, not so much to the left or right (except for, of course, Fox News), but toward the status quo, and that mainstream media depends too much on an episodic, rather than systematic, frame for the stories it cover. But that's not the point of this post. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last to rant about these issues on the web.

This article described a study that showed that partisans on either side of an issue, when shown the exact same media clips, each find bias in favor of the other side. Kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation they call the "hostile media effect." The most interesting part for me:

"...The best-informed partisans were the most likely to see bias against their side... [because they]... often feel the news lacks context. Instead of just showing a missile killing civilians, in other words, partisans on both sides want the news to explain the history of events that prompted -- and could have justified -- the missile. The more knowledgeable people are, the more context they find missing."

I didn't see the conclusions as depressing. Okay, they're depressing, but I finished the article thinking, "Well, this is only knowledge that can help." Yup, I guess I really am ready to dive in. My first day of school is in exactly a month.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Busy signal...

Today I joined not one, but two social networking sites-- Pownce and Ravelry . I'm geeking out, even though I'm on dial-up, and am probably going to end up spending the entire weekend adding my knitting projects to Ravelry. Oh, I didn't mention is was a knitting network? Yeah, I meant it when I said I was geeking out. But not before I finish Harry Potter...

Foodies vs. Libertarians, Round Two

Round One wasn't really a fight, but whatever. Caught your attention, right? Elyzabethe posted about Montgomery County's trans fat ban, which inspired my post last week on the Guerrilla Nutrition Labels, which inspired her response . Well, over on my new favorite website, Culinate, there is a review of a --I guess you could call it a debate--between food and agriculture writer Michael Pollen, and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. Apparently, Mackey impressed the Berkeley crowd with his commitment to reforming the food system. I have no doubt he's genuine, either, but this article points out some of the facts he left out of his (seriously) PowerPoint presentation. What got me especially (no surprise to anyone who heard me ramble on about Spinach and e.coli last semester) was his classification of Earthbound Farm as a group of small organic farms banding together under one brand name, allowing him to say that 78% of Whole Foods produce comes from small farms. I call bull

Food is...

It will come as no surprise that my first post here in forever is about food. I ran across this at the Ethicurian . The Accidental Hedonist outlines her food beliefs , which match up pretty closely with my own: 1. Food is Life - This is pretty straightforward. You need to eat to live. 2. Food is Cultural - What you eat represents who you are as well as the environment in which you inhabit. 3. Food is Class - What you eat is defined by the allotment of resources available to you. 4. Food is Politics - The food choices you make within your resources give credibility to the producers and suppliers of said food. I'd probably add "Food is Medicine" based on my own personal experiences recently, but this list pretty much saves me from having to think of my own. That and Michael Pollan's " Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants " make up my elevator speech on the topic.