Subject:
|
Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:43:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
427 times
|
| |
|
|
What a great post! A reminder about the debating definition of bias.
Personally, I don't believe that any source of information should ever be
disqualified or ignored (philosophically/historically - i have neither the time
nor wish to read every news and other source available). I use the term bias
to denote what possible other agendas the source may have that would distort
the facts. I believe that all sources have varying levels of bias, which is
why many different sources are required for a good picture of the truth.
It is not my purpose to argue that anything could have no-bias, but exactly the
opposite. And everything i say is informed and affected by my personal life
experiences and beliefs.
In the case of Iran, personally i prefer sources that have either a closer
connection to the issue at hand (either an expert on government or historian of
Iran, or a newspaper from the region.. rather than an american economic
journal, which is distant both geographically and in subject matter) or even
from a Iranian-biased source.
Personally, I want to know what the average Iranian thinks of his government.
Does he feel it is responsive to his needs? Does he feel like he voice
matters, or that it should matter? I don't think the Economist or most
American papers really care what the average Iranian thinks (because they're
afraid they'll find that the average Iranian likes his government).
Even if the Iranian government is less that democratic by our measure, if the
people support it, then it is legitimate.
And just to point out, the last presidential election in Iran saw a turn out of
80% of eligible voters. Compared to 2000's 51%, in some ways, Iran has a more
efficient democracy than the US does.. at least in terms of participation.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman writes:
> >
> > > my opinion about Iran's democracy is based off a college course,
> >
> > Which of course has no bias...
>
> **snip**
>
> > But NPR is not biased toward the US, if anything, it's biased against, and
> > has the same information, so what IF the Economist is biased in favor of
> > economic systems that actually work and against ones that don't???
>
> A careful distinction must be drawn here, because "bias" is a label thrown
> around here somewhat indiscriminately lately. Is The Economist biased
> against economic systems that don't work, or is The Economist biased against
> economic systems that The Economist is interested in proclaiming not to
> work? If the former, then it runs the risk of missing good information to
> be mined even out of failed economic systems (like, for instance, how/why
> privatization of Chile's healthcare didn't lead to affordable healthcare).
> If the latter, then it runs the risk of omitting (intentionally or not)
> those valid economic models that are simply in conflict with the
> philosophies of The Economist.
> Even having said that, I should underscore that it's simply not enough to
> declare a source biased and therefore invalid; the claimant must demonstrate
> the following:
>
> 1: The source is uniformly biased relative to the subject at large or the
> source is specifically biased relative to the particular issue at hand
> 2: The source's bias causes the source to distort information regarding
> the particular issue at hand to a degree sufficient to reduce or negate
> the value of the source's input
> 3: That the source's bias is not merely a perceptual phenomenon based on
> the biases of the claimant; i.e., "I'm a liberal, therefore Dubya is
> biased in favor of the Far Right."
>
> There are other cautionary criteria, to be sure, but those three are some of
> the big ones. The prevailing philosophical leanings of a media source do
> not validate or invalidate the material reported upon by that source, and it
> goes both ways--someone claiming that NPR has an anti-American bias must
> demonstrate each of the above before discarding NPR's reporting, just as
> someone asserting a distortingly pro-US bias in The Economist must show that
> this bias is materially relevant to the particular issue at hand. It's mere
> ad hominem to call for the dismissal of a source as biased without
> demonstrating the truth and relevance of that alleged bias.
> Anyway, what's the specific anti-US bias of NPR? If anything, I'd say
> that it's a welcome note of dissent in a sea of lockstep pro-war media
> saturation, and dissent is the essence of democracy, which is in turn
> nominally the essence of the US!
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
