BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The advantage of bias

14 comments on The advantage of bias

The advantage of bias

: Getting ready to go on Brian Lehrer’s show, I was thinking about the advantage of bias.

We’re always painting a refusal to admit bias as an underhanded secret, a lie of omission, as I’ve called it lately.

Well, partly that’s because “bias” is loaded; it’s a perjorative. So let’s call it “perspective” instead.

I’ve been saying that transparency about your perspective is a good thing. Hell, I said it yesterday about FoxNews on FoxNews. It’s a refrain I’ve sung in this blog often but it was fun to blurt it out on Fox: Not to suck up to the air on which I’m appearing, I said, but FoxNews is No. 1 because it has a perspective — label it what you want — and the audience wants to see that perspective, to know what it is and judge what is said accordingly.

Perspective is context.

This morning I thought of another example: A few days ago, I praised Ira Glass’ This American Life on NPR (PRI) for a surprising show about the Republican Party as the party of the big tent.

Now I don’t know that Glass is liberal. But I think it’s a safe assumption he is. And even if he’s a closet McCain supporter, you can bet that a lot of his NPR (PRI) coworkers are blue-staters.

So that’s what makes the story they did praising the Republicans’ efforts to open their tent — and criticizing the PC Democrats for closing theirs — all the more noteworthy. If I heard Bill O’Reilly talking about the GOP tent, I’d discount it. But hearing Glass go on about it, I said: Wow, there’s a real story here. This is something I should pay attention to; this perception (or reality) is why the Republicans are winning right now. Thus this is something the Democrats listening to certainly pay attention to.

My point is that Glass’/NPR’s perspective (bias) added a lot to that report. I judged what they said in that context and it helped the story; it gave it more credence and importance.

My colleagues in journalism mostly act deathly allergic to the notion of revealing their own perspective. I say they shouldn’t be. Being transparent about your perspective, when you have one, adds to the trust and credibility of what you say; it respects the audience and gives them more information to let them judge what you say. It’s about telling the truth. And isn’t that supposed to be what journalism is supposed to be about?

Are you listening, Dan Rather?

14 responses to “The advantage of bias”

  1. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    I fully agree, and have often tried to express as such in these comments. We need let go of the fallacy of objectivity and learn to identifiy bias (perspective), understand it, and deal with it.

  2. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Great point. Just as when Sullivan noted Peter Bergen’s positive take on things in Afghanistan.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/opinion/23bergen.html
    But I’ll make one objection to your great point:
    We’re sometimes not aware of our bias – er, perspective. Or if we are, we don’t want to admit it because it sours our reputation.
    Rather has said in the past that he is centrist (ha!). Network anchors can’t come out and say that they want the president to lose the election. But that would be the truth for Dan.
    I still say that in addition to knowing their take on their perspective, we need an eBay-like rating system – the “Tilt-o-meter” – to let us have our say about it.

  3. pdq332 Avatar
    pdq332

    That’s a really good point, Jeff. And it goes way beyond the “even the liberals admit such and such” gotcha crap. It means that Ira Glass is honest about his own perspective. But more than that, he treats his audience with dignity and doesn’t clobber them with it. That’s the difference between a person and a partisan.

  4. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Listened and enjoyed what you had to say on Brian Lehrer’s show this morning. Didn’t get a chance to call in though. I pretty much agree with the sentiment about bias being made more open.. but what happens when everything is more blatantly biased (i.e. blogs) and people only go to the news sources with which they agree to find out their news? the whole echo chambers idea. Is there any way to deal with this problem? Thanks!

  5. Michael Tippett Avatar
    Michael Tippett

    Jeff, with all due respect, I think you have it backwards here. What you’ve shown is the value of *overcoming* bias. If Glass was truly bias then presumably his reporting would be skewed accordingly. If he can produce a piece that approaches the truth then although he may have a perspective, he didn’t allow it to bias his story.

  6. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Jeff, there may be an additional advantage to “perspective” transparency than just the credibility it brings to judging individual stories (such as an unexpected outlyer in this case, or the “what did you expect” story context).
    That is being able to discuss changes in perspectives, refinements and blatant admissions of having been wrong. It makes visible learning, maturing, social evolution, etc., and should – in the process – make it acceptable. Pig-headed partisanship becomes foreign, abnormal, to what mass communication is putting on display.
    In other words, the component missing from the press is “I don’t know for sure”, “This is my interpretation from my perspective”, “I could be proven wrong in the future”, “Your guess is as good as mine”, “Here’s a different perspective from mine”, “I wasn’t expecting this outcome when I began researching it” and “This is contrary to everything I know about my worldview, but seems to be true”.

  7. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    I find Michael Tippett’s point provocative. After some thought about it, I think that when a person of a known perspective reports something as fact that seems contrary to their perspective, we have higher respect for both the person and the report.
    In other words, both Michael and Jeff have it right.
    To Mike’s point, people tend to home in on those facts that confirm their view of the world or with which we are familiar. If it’s not in our experience or in our perspective, it stands a higher chance of being ignored.
    We all have more respect for Ira Glass and for Peter Bergen. Who decided that? We did. Based on Jeff’s assessment and Sullivan’s assessment of the reporter, I have higher respect for their reporting.
    That’s the “Tilt-o-meter” at work.
    Always a byline, for both headline and for story. Always access to their reporter’s worldview (Jeff’s interview). Always access to the Tilt-o-meter rating, where we can access comments and arguments about why the reporter was rated as they were.

  8. Howard Avatar
    Howard

    As Brett said: “To Mike’s point, people tend to home in on those facts that confirm their view of the world or with which we are familiar. If it’s not in our experience or in our perspective, it stands a higher chance of being ignored.”
    That’s what I keep wondering about when it comes to the discussion of transparency, perspective or bias. I know there is no “objective truth” (oh jeez, that sounds like a line from a Woody Allen movie) but if people just consume the opinions and news that suits their political bent, there’s no mechanism to force us to question our preconceptions?

  9. Michael Tippett Avatar
    Michael Tippett

    Their is also a logical problem with this theory. If a journalist discloses a bias then this fact should be treated with the same skepticism as the other facts contained in their reporting.
    Bias can be disclosed because of a political motivation too. If a document can be forged then what reason do we have for believing that someone is being authentic in their transparency?
    An interesting example of this arose today when Sumner Redstone came out as a Bush supporter. Couldn’t you now argue that the Rather story had more credibility because it came from a network run by someone who’s politics are at odds with it? Is this ‘transparency’ genuine? What would he (or his network) stand to gain by making this disclosure?

  10. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    That’s why asking the reporter/journalist/columnist for their own self-assessment is not something you can take to the bank. Jeff’s right – perspective is context, but I think more importantly the judgement of others – the perspective of the audience – is better context. Or at least more context that is just as valid, if not more so.
    The bigot never thinks of himself or herself as a bigot. They just think they are spouting “facts.” But the rest of us can see it for what it is and collectively, we’re the better judge.

  11. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Some free-wheeling, brainstorming thoughts on improving journalism/news…
    I’d like to know, for example, the purpose of each article written.

    • Interview
    • News release Cliff Notes
    • On the scene report
    • Opinion

    (Are there others?)
    Then after reading the article, the audience should be able to judge each of these points:

    • Did they get the facts right? Quotes accurate?
    • Did they get the background of the story?
    • Did they provide context? Opposing points of view?

    Further, I think stories published online should move away from articles and into a blog-type format – sort of.
    Blogs are interesting because they follow a story and frequently link to previous posts as a means of following-up on the story. This is important for context. But that feels a little like email, where you get a response to something written last week and the chain of thought is not captured and you struggle to find what you had said. Like when Jeff started the Issues2004 thread, but couldn’t find the first Health Care discussion in his own blog. (Jeff, you’re too prolific! – wink)
    An easier way to thread these things would be great. Why blogs don’t offer a story-arch link which would allow you to click into a series of posts dedicated to singular story threads, I don’t know. Categories work like this, but they’re too generic.
    Any way, fun stuff to consider. Jeff’s right – the key is conversation. Don’t just try to get people to buy the brand, but encourage them to join the brand. I like InstaPundit as a site, but Glenn is unreachable – no community. Jeff’s site is homey and there are regulars who frequent. Very idea-driven, conversational, and Jeff sneaks into the conversation now and then, in addition to his posts. That’s how news ought to be. If we knew the reporters, could ask them why they spun a story as they did… I know, I know, they don’t have the time. But you get brand loyalty that way, and if journalism is business, then there’s money there.
    A manager once told me that my job description was this: “Give the customer not just the desire, but the burning desire, to return again and again.”
    Get the customer to join the brand, and that happens.

  12. John Somers Avatar
    John Somers

    Interesting post. I think that’s one of the reasons I prefer commentary I read on blogs to that in the “MSM”- bloggers are generally fairly open about what their perspective or “bias,” and that allows you to take what you read with the proper size grain of salt. I don’t think bias or perspective prevents objectivity; being aware of and candid about your own enhances it, since it enhances self-criticism and examination. Objectivity is not neutrality (that phony state of mind which traditional journalists pretend to have when their writing demonstrates they don’t); objectivity is intellectual honesty, which is different.

  13. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    VDH: “The Big Three may deride the newsreaders at Fox as blond bimbos, but millions of Americans learned long ago that there are probably more liberals on Fox than conservatives on PBS, NPR, CBS, ABC, and NBC combined

  14. Big Brother Avatar
    Big Brother

    speaking of bias why is it that no one said BOO when foxnews’ head guy roger ailes a few years ago was giving bush advice and to our knowledge how do we know he isn’t doing that now as well.
    also the documentary outfoxed shows foxnew’s carl cameron who in 2000 was covering bush off cam cameron was praising bush and reveiled a conflict of interest in terms of his bias and his wife was working for the bush campaign.
    funny how foxnews with a straight face can claim a moral position of journalistic ethics.