As Hayakawa has told us, slanting, bias, snarl-words and purr-words are prevalent in much of the "news" we read everyday.
But what if we could change that?
That's the premise behind a new website launched called SpinSpotter, at http://spinspotter.com/home. The website allows readers to go through pieces of news and mark the parts that have bias. This what SpinSpotter's website tells us: "Now there's a website and software tool that exposes news spin and bias, misuse of sources, and suspect factual support....the truth is back in town."
Sounds a bit too good to be true. The website actually crowd-sources its work, meaning that ordinary people like us can go onto the website, read pieces of news, and mark parts that have spin and bias implanted in them. For example, if we came upon needless snarl words and insults in an article, we could mark them using SpinSpotter and tell other readers exactly what types of biases are in the article. Come on, what are you waiting for? Go onto SpinSpotter and become a "truth monger and spin destroyer"!
Please, don't.
Everyone views biases differently: we even view bias with bias. What one person regards as blatantly liberal, another may consider perfectly rational. Thus, how can ordinary people go onto the site and mark elements of bias to remove if everyone views bias through his/her own intesional world?
For example, imagine that you saw an article describing Palin as a "right-wing nutjob". You might decide to mark this phrase as having bias against conservatives. However, another person might consider that phrase to be fair and justified. Bias is not the same to every person, so how can we even try to eliminate it by using imperfect people as the judges of bias? Who is judging the judges?
If anything, SpinSpotter could end up creating even more bias. Articles might be marked all over with labels that do not reveal anything factual about the article, but instead just show us the intensional viewpoint of the person who marked the "bias." We'd probably find out more about the intensional worlds of the markers than the extensional world the article is describing.
But who knows: maybe SpinSpotter will end up being the salvation of mankind. I highly doubt its efficacy, as human beings already view bias with bias. Today, we might have laughed at McCain's definition of "fundamental", but another group might consider the revision well-deserved and long overdue. SpinSpotter is flawed in its fundamentals.
Any thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
10 comments:
If someone who believed that Palin was a right wing nutjob and they encountered "proof" that this was a biased view via SpinSpotter, would it even change their opinion?
While the site may be putting a bias on bias, so does everyone else in the world. If all reports are biased, and everyone creates and encounters report of reports etc., wouldn't SpinSpotter be just a drop in the vast ocean of furthering biases?
We choose what biases to keep and to disregard. While SpinSpotter does seem paradoxical, as far as I know, it is not inherently bad.
Grace Yuan
But there is a difference: SpinSpotter is professing to actually reduce the bias present in the news today and masquerade as an objective authority.
In addition, I do not agree that "all reports are biased." As Hayakawa explained, we have non-biased statements as "The girl is five feet tall", ones with an extensional basis that can be easily resolved.
How can SpinSpotter hope to succeed in its noble goal of reducing bias if it creates some itself?
It could reduce bias in an indirect way. Many people are not aware that bias is so prevalent.
I'm not really familiar with the site, but I'm guessing it is set up like Wikipedia. So I'm hoping that people will regard it as a starting point for thought but not a "be all, end all" (is that the right expression?) on bias. It has its merits, however few they are. :)
Why is the girl not 60 inches tall or 152.4 cm? Each number has a different affective connotation. (I don't know if this is really far off, but the practice of pricing at $4.99 instead of $5.00 comes to mind).
Grace Yuan
"[The] network of cooperation is intricate and complex, and it has been relatively effective. But beacuse it rests so profoundly upon human agreement, it is also fragile." (Hayakawa 9)
Just as Mr. Lazarow started off our notes on the Toulmin Model of Argumentation with the slide "First, let's all agree...", society functions upon the existence of agreement and cooperation. Definitions may not be law and dictionaries are not the absolute authority, but the existence of both entities demonstrates our willingness to agree upon the general context and way in which words should be used.
Similarly, the biases and spin present in media usually involve words with purely affective connotations - things that are utilized for the personal feelings they arouse and convey little to no information. Calling Palin a "right-wing nutjob" is taking advantage of the affective connotations of the word "nutjob". This word that has, over time, developed a relationship with a negative connotation. We, as a society, have agreed to recognize this and thus the word "nutjob" has the affective connotations associated with it today.
The key to discovering one's bias lies in not just the avoidance of slanting in itself but the concept of being impartial. Someone whose biased views are deeply ingrained in them may fail to see something - such as Palin's character - from different points of view by themselves. Yes, someone may agree with the "nutjob" statement and find it to be both deserved and fair, but they will still recognize that they are being juvenile in using such a word. It they are rational, however, when presented with a multi-dimensional and solid analysis of Palin, will most likely see some truth. Such acceptance is not contingent upon opinion, instead it relies upon the human capability of understanding.
In the end, SpinSpotter will be subject to human error, but for the most part - barring misuse of the system - it should be a semi-adequate tool for those looking for a starting point in analyzing the biases, slants, purr/snarl words etc. they are being influenced by.
I have to agree with Eric.. Some things just can not be biased. Previously, Taylor gave the example, "Taylor Burke has five fingers." I can both touch and see Taylor's hand. I can count his fingers; one, two, three, four, five. If I notice that he has an extra thumb, then I have reason to believe that his former statement was biased (or in better terms, simply incorrect). Does this make sense?
(Sam Maliha)
I just read Tiffany's comment after posting mine.
If we ALL agree that the word "nutjob" has a negative connotation, is there not an underlying universal warrant? Or is that too much of a stretch? Thus, with an agreement on the warrant, either outwardly or internally, are we, as a society, helping in eliminating at least a bit of the potential bias a report withholds?
(Sam Maliha)
I think that this site is a good way to see all the bias in news articles and such and give them to think a little more about the words we use, but I don't think that this sight will eliminate such bias. Even if people are aware, are they going to stop using biased words. I have to say no, seeing as it has become almost a habit to use such words to convey what you feel.
I have to agree with Grace when she says that every word has a bias. Although I think that it is with most cases, as Sam points out an exception.
Concerning Sam's last post, I agree that a word like 'nutjob,' would be a sort of universal warrent. It's a ground on which everyone understands: you're stating that the person is basically crazy for thinking of something in some way. However, I do not agree that an agreement on the warrant doesn't help in eliminating the potential bias a report withholds? Even if everyone knows where a word comes from and how it is bias, it doesn't mean that the affective connotation with the word will disappear. If anything, I think it will allow people to better understand where the author of the article is coming from.
If some statements seem biased to one person and justified to another, are there really snarl and purr words? Do those words depend upon our perception of the topic? Then doesn't this go back to the what is reality? Is this really true even though I don't agree with it?
Am I going insane? Does this make as much sense to anyone as it does in my mind? Will I include a declarative statement in this entire post? Who knows?
(Megan West)
I apologize in advance for this post. It is basically my train of thought...
I am drawn to Eric's statement that "we have non-biased statements as 'the girl is five feet tall'." Well, is that truly unbiased? What if the one person doesn't know Jill, and just calls her "the girl", taking away her identity, in a sense. Is that not in itself bias? This person is placing Jill in a group with every other girl in the world that he doesn't know. On the other hand, this person could go up to Jill, ask her name, showing that he cares who she is and acknowledging that she has an identity, and then his bias would be different now that he knows who Jill is. Maybe this person would rephrase the statement to say "Jill is five feet tall," implying a recognition of the person. That is a confusing, round-about way to pose the question, doesn't every statement have a bias? (Sorry if that's confusing.) In addition, if something doesn't have a "negative bias," isn't that in itself a bias of approval or apathy? That's confusing, too, sorry. I guess all of this depends on perspective. Side note... what is the meaning of "impartial"? I would propose that it means being able to see one report from many perspectives, because it is very difficult to find a "middle ground." Is it impossible to eliminate words with affective connotations? Doesn't every word have a different affective connotation,and a different affective connotation for each person, at that?
Sorry, that last comment was mine (Emily T.)
Post a Comment