“Research shows both pro-Arabs and pro-Israelis watching the same news reports think it is biased against their own side.
The media may well be biased, in fact it would be a miracle if it were permanently and perfectly balanced, that isn’t what this post is about.
Instead this is about how you and I perceive the presence or absence of bias in the media.
This study, conducted in the 1980s, helps to explain a lot of the heat and light that gets produced by those commenting on media bias across the political spectrum, including the remarkably vitriolic outpourings often seen in the comment sections of newspaper websites and across the internet.”
Read more at PsyBlog
"
Whilst it’s an interesting theory, I’m not sure I can really subscribe to it due to the cited example. I think that if you asked pro-Arabs and pro-Israelis to comment on something particular to them, which is absolute fact, they would still consider it biased in the other direction…. And yes I know that probably sounds bad and is entirely anecdotal
P.S. This sounds like that scene from Bruno… Houmous!!!
I think the more accurate description is this: TV mainstream media is biased towards balance, regardless of facts, and newspaper mainstream media is just biased in general, regardless of facts.
“Even more surprising was that each…”
Surprising? That\’s as surprising as the fact that Monday comes after Sunday and before Tuesday.
It doesn’t surprise me that the media is biased. They are only human after all. But in my opinion too many humans are overly biased and dumb to what really matters. Well when I say matters it’s more so doesn’t matter. Like football and religion and all that other crap that makes our socities tick and tock. And they all say facism sucks too. Shows how they don’t know left from right!! Shameless.
What about: Facts don’t exist, only interpretations.
the media ARE biased. after all, the news is written by human beings. early on i learned that if ya attend an event & then pick up 3 different newspapers (in the days when ya could) which covered the event, you’d think they were 3 different events.
Hi Derren,
On a slightly different note, the picture of this post shows a couple reading an Italian paper, Gazzetta dello Sport to be specific. Am I the only one seeing this as i’m based in Italy, or is this a mere coincidence? Given the push about targeted/localised ads and so forth, I was wandering if this was the case here. I realise that this is not an add but a photo attached to the post, but just wandering….
Grazie mille,
Leonardo
Msg from Abeo: It’s the photo used by website this post came from (PsyBlog)
That’s not that weird I’d say. It’s not that often objective/neutral, simply stating facts, and even if it does then others still will not see it as objective. Some would call their side objective and normal. Matter of perspective.
Stating facts normally should take something out of a certain people, and stimulate the inside of others. Brains are sort of preprogrammed at times to check the exact opposite of what someone/an article says.
Not all, but quite a lot. Most will see both sides of a system, if it was not before, then it might be when someone else starts to say what they were thinking till that moment.
That’s apart from the groups in this article
Some people think the speaker/writer sees it the way they feel/start to see it while reading it. But that might not be the case
I would be more inclined to draw the conclusion that religious people are over-zealous, selfish, and pre-disposed to anger.