I heard this on my way home from work yesterday:
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/news-0
It reminded me of this:
I thought about what it is we hear on the "news". How is it presented? Who gets to make the decisions about what is presented and how? What is their agenda/bias?
One of the things that came out of the radio talk show that I thought was interesting was regarding the idea of bias. The guest suggested that bias is universal and unavoidable, and that as a solution to the bias of the presenter, a contrary bias should be sought and presented along with the original. This would give the listener/observer the opportunity to decide, having both sides of a particular idea.
This is interesting to me because people often feel that presenting opposing points of view lends a sense of credibility and balance to the discussion. But, in reality, the balance is somewhere in the middle. So perhaps the presenters should have at least three points of view - left, right, and center. Or rather than center, perhaps someone who maybe hasn't come to a certain conclusion, someone who may be persuaded or informed further by the discussion. The thing is, most of us lie in the center on most issues. So perhaps that's why they don't put middle of the road folks on the news - it's not dramatic, and it doesn't sell newspapers. But if the desire is to represent a balanced, comprehensive approach to a story, perhaps drama should be avoided anyway...
It was a very interesting program. If you've got an hour to listen I'd recommend it.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/news-0
It reminded me of this:
I thought about what it is we hear on the "news". How is it presented? Who gets to make the decisions about what is presented and how? What is their agenda/bias?
One of the things that came out of the radio talk show that I thought was interesting was regarding the idea of bias. The guest suggested that bias is universal and unavoidable, and that as a solution to the bias of the presenter, a contrary bias should be sought and presented along with the original. This would give the listener/observer the opportunity to decide, having both sides of a particular idea.
This is interesting to me because people often feel that presenting opposing points of view lends a sense of credibility and balance to the discussion. But, in reality, the balance is somewhere in the middle. So perhaps the presenters should have at least three points of view - left, right, and center. Or rather than center, perhaps someone who maybe hasn't come to a certain conclusion, someone who may be persuaded or informed further by the discussion. The thing is, most of us lie in the center on most issues. So perhaps that's why they don't put middle of the road folks on the news - it's not dramatic, and it doesn't sell newspapers. But if the desire is to represent a balanced, comprehensive approach to a story, perhaps drama should be avoided anyway...
It was a very interesting program. If you've got an hour to listen I'd recommend it.
Comments