Adriatica III
01-07-2006, 12:51
People on this forum really have to stop screeming the word "bias" around so often when it really isn't aporpriate. Bias is something that is far more complicated than most people on here seem to think. This has come across particually from several members of the more irrational posters of the anti-Israel persuasion with regard to the supposed shelling incidenct of a Palestianin family.
But to take this away from that specific instance, what many people on here are essentially calling bias is
"It is written by people of X belonging/persauasion therefore it is biased towards X"
That isnt bias. What that is, is basic analysis of providence of a source. To show bias what you have to show is mis-representation of facts. If it comes from X source saying that X is good, unless they are misrepresenting facts then there is no bias there that you can complain about. In order to prove bias exists, what you have to do is to look at the content of the source and show just how it misrepresnts facts in favour of itself or its friends. For example, the statement
"The shelling incident of a Palestianin family could not have been an Israelie battleship because the evidence indicates the shell was of 150 mm calibur when Isralie battleships only carry 30 mm calibur shells"
Is only a biased statement if the fact in it are misrepresented. If they arnt, it doesnt matter if it comes from an Israelie source or a Palestianin source or an American source or a Luxomburgian source. It comes to the same conclusion.
Bias you have to prove by going through the following stages
1. Examine the providence, thus determining where any bias would be likly to favour
2. Examine the content for objective information (IE facts, not opinions) that could be misrepresented
3. Look for evidence that the infomation is being misrepresented in favour of someone else
4. Look for argumenets that are constructed one way when they could be formed another way which would result in a very diffrent outcome
But to take this away from that specific instance, what many people on here are essentially calling bias is
"It is written by people of X belonging/persauasion therefore it is biased towards X"
That isnt bias. What that is, is basic analysis of providence of a source. To show bias what you have to show is mis-representation of facts. If it comes from X source saying that X is good, unless they are misrepresenting facts then there is no bias there that you can complain about. In order to prove bias exists, what you have to do is to look at the content of the source and show just how it misrepresnts facts in favour of itself or its friends. For example, the statement
"The shelling incident of a Palestianin family could not have been an Israelie battleship because the evidence indicates the shell was of 150 mm calibur when Isralie battleships only carry 30 mm calibur shells"
Is only a biased statement if the fact in it are misrepresented. If they arnt, it doesnt matter if it comes from an Israelie source or a Palestianin source or an American source or a Luxomburgian source. It comes to the same conclusion.
Bias you have to prove by going through the following stages
1. Examine the providence, thus determining where any bias would be likly to favour
2. Examine the content for objective information (IE facts, not opinions) that could be misrepresented
3. Look for evidence that the infomation is being misrepresented in favour of someone else
4. Look for argumenets that are constructed one way when they could be formed another way which would result in a very diffrent outcome