"Biased" teaching and even research is often motivated as COUNTER-bias to endemic bias that the teacher or researcher feels has imbued society for a long time. The systematic revelation of suppressed data CAN BE, and even IS biased, but perhaps nonetheless justified. The thought experiment is incomplete as to this condition.
Many people thus voted for Trump to counter wokeness. Hitler was elected to counter communism. And so on.
I don't quite follow why you say the thought experiment is incomplete. Even if one is aiming for counter bias, it is reasonable to expect someone to say "Look, it is true that X has these features, but what they are not telling you about are these other features, so temper your understanding." One guy saying "X is perfectly evil!" countered by another saying "X is perfectly good!" doesn't do much illuminate compared to more even handed arguments even if they disagree.
News (and more broadly, non-fiction TV) is fundamentally about getting people to look at adverts. So you wrap around those something that appeals to people who are going to watch the ads.
Now I'm not even sure that it's deliberate that people do it, but what is true is that news organisations that get it right get the greatest rewards in ad revenue.
Why is most of the news leftist? Because advertisers want affluent, middle class people under 30. They're far more image conscious than older people, and far more gullible to things like buying Absolut Vodka instead of the WalMart own brand stuff. And selling luxury goods is like spinning gold from straw if you do a great campaign. You turn £12 vodka into £22 vodka. Make a screwdriver with both and see if you can taste the difference. You get people buying a £1000 iPhone when a £200 Moto will do what you need.
The media has evolved to be like this, because it's where the money is. If right-wing ad-supported media worked, their ads wouldn't be for sketchy supplements. If there was a pot of gold for someone doing right-wing media, it would have been exploited by now.
"Biased" teaching and even research is often motivated as COUNTER-bias to endemic bias that the teacher or researcher feels has imbued society for a long time. The systematic revelation of suppressed data CAN BE, and even IS biased, but perhaps nonetheless justified. The thought experiment is incomplete as to this condition.
Many people thus voted for Trump to counter wokeness. Hitler was elected to counter communism. And so on.
I don't quite follow why you say the thought experiment is incomplete. Even if one is aiming for counter bias, it is reasonable to expect someone to say "Look, it is true that X has these features, but what they are not telling you about are these other features, so temper your understanding." One guy saying "X is perfectly evil!" countered by another saying "X is perfectly good!" doesn't do much illuminate compared to more even handed arguments even if they disagree.
Warning: don't click the link at the top of the page! It redirects to a bad site!
Yeah, that needs to be fixed pronto.
News (and more broadly, non-fiction TV) is fundamentally about getting people to look at adverts. So you wrap around those something that appeals to people who are going to watch the ads.
Now I'm not even sure that it's deliberate that people do it, but what is true is that news organisations that get it right get the greatest rewards in ad revenue.
Why is most of the news leftist? Because advertisers want affluent, middle class people under 30. They're far more image conscious than older people, and far more gullible to things like buying Absolut Vodka instead of the WalMart own brand stuff. And selling luxury goods is like spinning gold from straw if you do a great campaign. You turn £12 vodka into £22 vodka. Make a screwdriver with both and see if you can taste the difference. You get people buying a £1000 iPhone when a £200 Moto will do what you need.
The media has evolved to be like this, because it's where the money is. If right-wing ad-supported media worked, their ads wouldn't be for sketchy supplements. If there was a pot of gold for someone doing right-wing media, it would have been exploited by now.
And why do 'affluent, middle class people under 30' prefer to watch leftist news?