In the interest of fairness and courtesy, I'd like to propose something.
Here’s a test. After you read both of these totally fake, completely fictitious, and absolutely made-up news releases, let me know which one is biased. And for the purposes of this test, please ignore any scientific or technical limitations which might exist in the real world.
[Disclaimer]
(Note: The information contained in these news releases is UNTRUE and should NOT be taken seriously!)
[/Disclaimer]
PA wire services – Dr. Manuel Freedman has announced today that he has successfully created a fusion reactor which runs on organic garbage.
“I know it sounds like a dream, but it’s true,” Dr. Freedman stated in a conference call. “I don’t know that we’ll call it ‘Mr. Fusion’ like the one from the ‘Back To The Future’ movies, but that’s essentially what we’ve got.”
Dr. Freedman chairs the Future Inventors of America Corporation based in Mule Shoe, Montana. “There’s a lot of open space here for testing,” he said, “and our people don’t get distracted by nearby big cities.”
Professor Sarah Jones of the Carnegie Institute dismisses Freedman’s claims. “He’s come up with some really crazy stuff over the last ten years or so, and while some of it might actually be useful, he’s destroyed any credibility he might have had with this announcement.”
When asked for an explanation, Professor Jones said, “The Carnegie Institute, along with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CERN, and a number of other better-equipped laboratories haven’t succeeded in producing the kind of fusion reactor he’s talking about. It simply isn’t possible with today’s technology.”
But Dr. Freedman disagrees. “I know the avenues of research that Professor Jones is talking about. I agree that they’re dead ends. This is something totally new and different, and we’ve proved that it works.”
Dr. Freedman says that his reactor will be ready for full-scale tests in two years. “By then we’ll have all the legal stuff ironed out, and we’ll be ready to present a working model to the public.”
Professor Jones doubts that will be the case. “I predict that Freedman’s reactor will be a failure. It just isn’t possible to do what he claims he’s done.”
But Dr. Freedman insists that his reactor will change the world. “Just imagine all that cheap energy, delivered safely to homes and businesses all over the world. We’ll be able to change the way our world gets from point A to point B.”
“We’ll never fight a war over energy again. And no one will ever again need to be cold or hungry. Our lives will change in ways we can’t even imagine.”
QT wire services – Dr. Manuel Freedman has announced today that he has successfully created a fusion reactor which runs on organic garbage.
“I know it sounds like a dream, but it’s true,” Dr. Freedman stated in a conference call. “I don’t know that we’ll call it ‘Mr. Fusion’ like the one from the ‘Back To The Future’ movies, but that’s essentially what we’ve got.”
Dr. Freedman chairs the Future Inventors of America Corporation based in Mule Shoe, Montana. “There’s a lot of open space here for testing,” he said, “and our people don’t get distracted by nearby big cities.”
Professor Sarah Jones of the Carnegie Institute dismisses Freedman’s claims. “He’s come up with some really crazy stuff over the last ten years or so, and while some of it might actually be useful, he’s destroyed any credibility he might have had with this announcement.”
But Dr. Freedman disagrees. “I know the avenues of research that Professor Jones is talking about. I agree that they’re dead ends. This is something totally new and different, and we’ve proved that it works.”
Dr. Freedman says that his reactor will be ready for full-scale tests in two years. “By then we’ll have all the legal stuff ironed out, and we’ll be ready to present a working model to the public.”
Dr. Freedman insists that his reactor will change the world. “Just imagine all that cheap energy, delivered safely to homes and businesses all over the world. We’ll be able to change the way our world gets from point A to point B.”
“We’ll never fight a war over energy again. And no one will ever again need to be cold or hungry. Our lives will change in ways we can’t even imagine.”
Professor Jones doubts that will be the case. “I predict that Freedman’s reactor will be a failure. It just isn’t possible to do what he claims he’s done.”
When asked for an explanation, Professor Jones said, “The Carnegie Institute, along with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CERN, and a number of other better-equipped laboratories haven’t succeeded in producing the kind of fusion reactor he’s talking about. It simply isn’t possible with today’s technology.”
Which one is biased? Careful. The answer may surprise you.
Give up? The answer is: both of them are biased.
Here’s how this works. While both blurbs list the same claim and both quote the same two authorities, the first one is biased towards the truth of Dr. Freedman’s assertion while the second is biased against it. Human psychology is the key. We tend to recall the first few items and the last few items of a long list, especially if we have no more than a passing acquaintance with them. For example, a beginning chemistry student with no previous study would tend to recall the first few and the last few elements in the periodic table after the first attempt to memorize it. And our minds work the same way with short stories and quick news releases.
A listener or reader would, after a single exposure to the first release, be slightly more willing to believe that personal fusion reactors are just around the corner because the release ends on a positive note. A listener or reader would, after a single exposure to the second release, be slightly more willing to class Dr. Freedman’s claims with phrenology, eugenics, and claims of invaders from Mars in New York and London because the release ends on a negative note.
My point is simple.
There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news organization. No matter who reports the news, there will be a bias there. It may be subtle, it may be difficult to detect, it may be very tiny, but there will be one. We just can’t help it.
Human nature is such that we cannot be completely objective. Our personal worldview and our beliefs and convictions will affect us whether we are aware of it or not. I would ask that we please keep that in mind as we discuss (in a civil tone, I hope) politics and religion, those two hottest of hot-button issues.
