Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (6581)	5/28/2000 11:17:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

I saw a certain degree of condescension there, but I see it as less a consequence of bias on the fundamental issue than as a result of some bafflement at the degree of attention that those odd Americans are paying to an issue of little long-term consequence. We saw a good deal of that back in the Monica Lewinsky days, when much of the world simply laughed at us. Much of the better class of American media is trying consciously to get away from the America-centric sort of reporting that pervades many of the ideology-masquerading-as-news sites. Is this bias in itself, or an effort to avoid a bias that has at times become pervasive? Is reportage on a contrary point of view evidence of bias toward that point of view? I looked at the New American home page, and clicked on one article, dealing with China's relations with Panama. It contained wild distortions, gross mistruths, and outright nonsense, all designed to promote the view that if the US does not retake the Panama Canal, it will soon be under the thumb of the Chinese military. If I see that kind of crap in ne place on a site, do you really expect me to bother going anywhere else on the site? It's not a case of trying to discredit the source because I don't like the information, it's a case of trying to evaluate the source before reviewing the information. If the source is clearly biased, then all information contained therein is suspect, and would have to be checked and rechecked. I'm not willing to spend that much time over what still seems to me a very minor issue. Reading the points of view of opposing ideologues is something I find more likely to inspire nausea than thought.