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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (24920)	7/24/2006 10:07:07 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541933

I don't see how that could be biased. It doesn't imply anything. Certain words imply motive, other words do not. I would think you could develop a scoring metric- based on words in isolation.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (24920)	7/24/2006 10:17:53 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541933

"Israeli warplanes bombed Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon" That won't do. That says that they're targeting Hezbollah, not Lebanon. How dare you try to pass that off as accurate? <g>

To: Dale Baker who wrote (24920)	7/24/2006 10:32:31 AM
From: Sultan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

CNN Vote asking whether action in Lebanon is justified is running 49% YES and 51% NO..

To: Dale Baker who wrote (24920)	7/24/2006 10:35:44 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

I doubt that an isolated sentence like ""Israeli warplanes bombed Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon" would be a particular problem. It would more likely be the lead up and subsequent verbiage. If objectivity is impossible, I'd suggest it's because the reporting media either shares the bias or targets an audience whose bias it desires to feed whether from an economic or philosophical POV. I don't think that objectivity is always impossible, but would agree that it can certainly be superficial.