[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:43:50 -0330
Quoting John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>:
snip
> Do you enlist a crackpot scientist to
> spend just as much time spewing illogical garbage as the respected
> scientist has in explaining a complicated matter?
Of course, once we take it as read which scientist is the "crackpot" and which
the "respected" one, the question of fairness almost answers itself. "Balance"
returns to rear its putatively decapitated head, however, precisely because of
the likes of such "crackpots" as Einstein, Christ, Darwin, Galileo, Socrates,
Isabel Dalhousie and [audience participation time!]. Little wonder that
Habermas claims discourse under epistemic conditions is necessary for justified
normative judgement. J.S. Mill also wishes to add a comment or two here, but my
chicken is burning in the oven ..............
A once-upon-a-time instructor of journalism ethics who "lives" to tell the
tale,
Walter O.
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
> Especially if giving
> that respected scientist twice as much time might result in a clear and
> helpful explanation, when giving "equal" time only assures that the
> audience or reader will not be able to understand either perspective?
>
> In the current election, to take another hypothetical example, if McCain
> is leading 12 major polls while Obama is only leading in one small poll
> taken on one college campus, do we give equal time to each side to
> present and defend both "sides?" That would be "balanced." But to be
> "fair," we should give 12 times more time to the other polls than to the
> one narrow, limited one.
>
> The problem is not just in allowing "scientists" to have more weight in
> explaining things than perhaps they should; the problem is that in
> trying to be "balanced" we are no longer being "fair."
>
>
> Phil Enns wrote:
> > My claim is that we can't say what is balanced coverage,
> > only what is obviously unbalanced. . . . . It seems to me that the
> scientists you are
> > putting your faith in are more of those same despots, just wearing lab
> > coats. Do we really want scientists telling us what news we should
> > accept as truth and what we should reject as lies? Do we really want
> > scientists to be telling us what of our 'everyday' lives is true and
> > what is propaganda?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence and ignorance."
> ------------------------------------------------
> John Wager jwager@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
