First of all, I'm interested in what you think a news publication free of bias would look like. Would it be a straight recitation of factual occurrences? That would be useless, right? How would you decide which story gets a big headline? Which detail gets included?
Second, the USA Right in general has completely broken with the idea that there is any such thing as "fact" that matters. Evidence, etc. is irrelevant. Look at the Right's views on climate change, etc. I'm sure there are people on Hacker News etc. who will be like "now you're just being a Bias Liberal!" if I don't say "the Left has its problems too" but the Left's problems, such as they are, are the traditional problems of political parties: maybe the Left's policy prescriptions won't work, maybe their need to maintain a coalition means they aren't able to address Problem P, etc.
The Right in the USA is unique in having decided that there is no evidentiary standard high enough when Rightist positions conflict with reality. So removing bias from news sources and ensuring everything is quite factual won't affect the ~40% or so of the USA who frankly couldn't give a flying fuck about reality.
My aim is not to solve the problem in its entirety. If others cannot understand our opinion, we should at least try to understand theirs. The current situation is horrible in terms of people not even having a clue as to what's going on. If 10% benefit from this, that means there are 10% of people who at least know both/many sides.
> I am not interested in unbiased news sources.
So, which is it? I think the focus on bias vs unbiased news sources is a distraction. ALL news is biased. That is something that will never change.
> If others cannot understand our opinion
What if the issue here is that others understand your opinion perfectly, but still disagree with it? This whole conversation is starting to sound a lot like you want a tool that will magically make people agree with you.
I don't have any claims on people not agreeing with me. I have claims on me not understanding what's going on. I think if such a tool as I proposed existed, I would be happy to use it.
Hosts Adam and John present national and global issues as portrayed by mass media, and systematically DECONSTRUCT the stories. They not only highlight biases, but explore propagandistic elements and discuss how the media intentionally affects the consumers.
Most importantly, they work to identify the MOTIVATIONS for medias' biases in the first place, and demonstrate for their listeners how to be much more critical, skeptical, and analytical in the way they consume the news.
Listen to a few episodes and you might rethink the need for building a tool at all.
But this dissemination of information by identifying biases of the entities involved is a tactic that can be used by anyone. Objective thinking belongs to everyone, doesn't it?
Each side could vote for articles they think are biased or not biased.
Then you are shown the ones where there is the strongest disagreement between each side.
Another idea is to allow each sentence or paragraph to be evaluated on how biased it is. So someone could read through hovering over sentences and maybe pressing a keyboard shortcut to indicate whether they think this sentence is biased.
The goal is not to evaluate bias, but to find areas of contention and allow the debate/comments to hone in on a particular phrase/paragraph or something.
Bias is an inherent part of language, and we cannot eliminate it, because bias is inherent in both what is said and what isn't said.
Even beyond a simple textual level, you have to arrange content somehow, and that in and of itself is subject to bias. What do you put linked to direct from the home page? Do you entirely forego headlines? If so, what do your links on your home page say? All of that is influential in how someone perceives what you've written.
If we take Bannon's appointment to Trump's administration (and I'll preface this by saying I'm not American, and there's a limit to how much attention I pay), we can easily write headlines like:
To start with, some real ones:
* 2 Trump Picks: an Insider and a Firebrand (NYT, 14 Nov) — the former is either a positive or negative depending on your political leanings, the latter I don't know whether it's connotatively good or bad in en-us
* Trump Draws Criticism for Far-Right Pick (NYT, 14 Nov) — entirely factually accurate (so… not bias?) but omits any negativity in mentioning as to why he's drawing criticism (so… bias?)
* Trump makes controversial pick for senior aide (AP, 14 Nov) — ditto
* Trump Taps Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist (NPR, 14 Nov) — entirely factually accurate (so… not bias?)
Some hypothetical ones:
* Trump names nationalist as senior aide — I think there's consensus across the board that that would be accurate, but whether it's positive or negative depends on the reader, so is arguably bias
* Trump picks fringe right winger as Chief Strategist — disassociates him with most of the right wing, mostly negative connotation, obviously bias
* Trump Choses Racist — this is obviously an extreme example, but it's worth looking at: is it impartial? if not, it's obviously bias. do we have direct evidence that Bannon is racist (v. being on the board of a newspaper publishing such content)? if not, it's likely not entirely factual.
Obviously, we can debate how, and in what way, each of those is bias, but they all lead the reader to view Bannon in a specific way before the article is ever read (except, perhaps, the NPR one).
It's stronger than this. Bias is an inherent part of human psychology.
The headline uses the word "Insider" as part of the narrative that Trump is breaking his promise in terms of "draining the swamp," "the system is rigged," etc. The reality is that few expected him to choose only non-politicians in his cabinet and he didn't say he wouldn't have any, but the media has portrayed this as some huge turn of events.
It's biased because it spins a narrative that doesn't actually exist.
> Trump Draws Criticism for Far-Right Pick (NYT, 14 Nov)
How often do you see the New York Times brand anything as "Far-Left"? It may be fair to call a pick "Far-Right," but if you have to be left of Bernie Sanders to be "Far-Left," it's not really fair.
> Trump makes controversial pick for senior aide (AP, 14 Nov)
This is reasonable. He is controversial.
> Trump Taps Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist (NPR, 14 Nov)
This one is just facts, too.
> Trump names nationalist as senior aide
Why is the label necessary? If he had picked Bernie Sanders, would "Trump names socialist as senior aide" be unbiased?
This viewpoint is being thrown around lately, and it's bugging me but I still can't quite explain why. The crowning of this theory was Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year being "post-truth".
I mean, is this pair of articles not an example of "post-truth"?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
(Bonus: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/upshot/donald-trump-modera...)
It just feels to me like a situation where the same entities who have been conjecturing wildly on thin grounds for years are now shocked that the masses can conjecture wildly too.
This election proved liberal bias in the mainstream media. They did not see this election result coming, and they admit it. This is not just the polls, it is the articles, the choice of front-page stories, when to release feature stories, what headlines to use, etc. They know that all their friends are liberal. All their staff is liberal. The NYT Editorial Board is all liberal, and have pretty much always endorsed a liberal candidate.
This new thing of "fact-checking" is terrible. Fact-checkers rely on making assumptions. There is a ton of judgement calls made in evaluating something. They are just another source of journalism. They are not an arbiter on truth.
They change between the literal meaning and the metaphorical meaning depending on what suits their agenda.
If they stuck to the exact words and dictionary definitions for all, then this would be consistent, and would be better.
But then they also get to choose which "facts" to evaluate. "Trump has lied X more times than Hillary according to fact checkers" was a very common retort from Dems - but is utterly meaningless.
:)