Currently Reading The Road (Oprah's Book Club) By Cormac McCarthy see related

Media bias

There has been a lot of talk about media bias in the last year.  The conversation has kind of turned into a shouting match this week.  A new Pew research poll found that there was nearly twice the positive media coverage of Barack Obama as compared to John McCain.  Naturally, there are a number of people unhappy about this and a number of people saying "I told you so."  I even read an article by a reporter today saying that he was ashamed of his profession, in light of the recent poll. 

Before I go on, let me be clear.  I do not believe that Barack Obama is the Messiah.  I am also not ready to say that the media has not been biased.  I am ready to say that using the Pew research poll doesn't make sense.  Plain and simple: It is not a measurement of media bias. 

I was thinking about the results of this recent poll and actually trying to decide what it means, rather than allow other people to tell me what it means.  To me, it doesn't necessarily reveal a bias.  Now, if there was a bias, you would expect this poll to show the bias.  However, if there was absolutely no bias, would you expect the ratio of positive/negative stories to be identical for both candidates?  I wouldn't.

Take for example the unlikely scenario that Hitler came back from the dead and decided to run for President of the United States.  Now, in this scenario, I can imagine approximately 99.98% of Hitler's press coverage would be negative.  [Wait a second, did you just call McCain Hitler?  No, no I didn't.  I'm just trying to make a point.]  Obviously, we have to admit that the number of negative and positive news reports about a candidate do not describe bias.

Here's another point I'd like to make.  By saying that the ratios should be the same for each candidate, people are implying that a media source should not release a story about a candidate unless they have another story about the other candidate that is also positive or negative.  This is absurd!  If Hitler did come back from the dead and had the gall to run for US President, I would hope that FOX News and MSNBC alike would report about his past, as well as any new mischief he had wreaked since his rise from ashes.  And I would not expect those news agencies to spend countless hours trying to find a comparable number of positive stories to balance the negative ones they had about Hitler.  I would simply expect those news agencies to report news they discover - whether that news be important (Hitler plans to bomb Iran his first day in office) or off-topic (Hitler has been working out 3 times a week at the gym; Hitler spent $20 grand on a new tuxedo).

Do you know of any ways to logically measure the media bias in America?

Here are 2 very unscientific measurements of media bias.  Ascribing to the way bias is being defined today, I am being 'unbiased,' giving one example for each party .

1.  FOX News has continually used Barack Obama's middle name - Hussein - when referring to the Democratic Candidate.  Why is this bias?  It's NOT because other media outlets have not used Obama's middle name, but because FOX News has not once used John McCain's middle name - which is Sidney, by the way.  Can you believe that?  Sidney.  Who would vote for a guy with that middle name!?!

2.  The LA Times is reportedly "sitting on" a video of Barack Obama speaking at a dinner.  According to other news outlets, the footage includes Obama praising a University of Chicago professor who had previously been "a mouthpiece" of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.  This professor and Sen. Obama served together at the U. of Chicago for several years.  If the reports are true, the LA Times should definitely release the video - or else they are clearly showing their bias to the world.

Currently Reading Never Let Me Go By Kazuo Ishiguro see related

Collections

Many people are defined by the things they collect.  Maybe not defined, but collections can tell a lot about a person – what is important to the person, what is interesting to the person, or what is unique to (or about) the person.

I have had collections throughout my life of a number of things.  When I was younger I had a number of toy collections: matchbox cars, Ninja turtles and G.I. Joes.  I also had some more traditional collections, like stamps and coins.  My toy collections showed how I liked to spend my time.  And I guess you could say that my traditional collections showed how I was carrying on traditions in my family, since both of those collections were started by my dad.

As I grew older I became very interested in music, both listening and playing.  So it’s not any surprise that I collected music albums (cassette tapes and CDs).  I also collected musical instruments (2 acoustic guitars, 1 electric, 1 bass, 2 saxophones and a bunch of odds and ends).

About 10 years ago, while vacationing in Washington D.C., I decided to start a new collection to keep track of my trips.  I bought my first floating pen at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum.  Before I had left DC, I think I already had 5 or 6 pens in my collection.  Today I have around 120, about 15 of which are from out of the country.  It’s an eccentric thing to collect, but I really like my pens.  I built a display case for them about 5 years ago and they proudly hang on my wall in the living room.  It’s a pretty good discussion piece.

The past couple of years my hobbies have centered around aquariums, plants and reading.  I have written quite a bit on my xanga about books and what I am reading.  I have acquired a bit of a collection of books – unintentionally – over the years.  I have also collected – quite intentionally – a number of plants.  These 2 new collections can tell quite a lot about me.

Not only does my book collection state that I love books.  It also says that I value knowledge and states what topics appeal to me.  Two weeks ago I ventured out to my first Bibliophiles of Oklahoma meeting.  Some of the members of this small group of book lovers are serious, committed book collectors.  One of them collects books about early American archaeology.  I admitted to the others that I am not much of a collector, just someone who likes books and likes to read.  They asked what books I own and I immediately started categorizing.  “I like dystopian novels and I like books on Christian thought – especially C.S. Lewis.”  They pointed out to me that I have some pretty distinct collections myself, owning about 10 Lewis books and at least 5 dystopians.  Alas, I am a bibliophile.  Just because I don’t have a strong desire to collect first editions of books, doesn’t mean that I’m not a book collector.

My plant collecting was spurred on a little more last week, when I received an email from a plant collector in Florida who saw a post on my plant blog about Aglaonemas.  I really like this genus of plant and started collecting them whenever I run across a different species or variety.  I probably have about 5 different Ags.  Anyway, my fellow Ag collector has decided to help me in my collecting and will be sending me a couple of boxes of plants that he has been raising for years and had propagated.  He has also sent me tons of information on growing Ags and other aroid plants.

I guess I can’t deny my affinity for these plants, since I am pretty excited to get home each day to see if there are any boxes on my porch.

Currently Reading We (Modern Library Classics) By Yevgeny Zamyatin see related

Dystopias

Since my first reading of 1984 I have read several other books that can be characterized as dystopian:  Anthem by Ayn Rand, The Giver by Lois Lowry, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, The Minority Report by Philip K. Dick, the Left Behind series by LaHaye and Jenkins, the Circle trilogy by Ted Dekker, Killing Time by Caleb Carr, Animal Farm by George Orwell, Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and Ringworld by Larry Niven.  I’ve also seen several dystopian movies: Children of Men, Minority Report, I Robot, Clockwork Orange, I am Legend, Gattaca, Aeon Flux, Blade Runner, Code 46, Equilibrium, The Island, A Scanner Darkly, V for Vendetta, THX 1138, The Matrix trilogy, Waterworld, the Truman Show, Terminator series and Twelve Monkeys.  Those 2 lists contain many of my favorite books and movies, although there are a couple of books in movies in that list that I don’t really care for.

You might still be wondering why this type of novel is so intriguing to me.  To me, these books are statements.  Each one of them is written by an author who sees something in our current society – a trend or a school of thought, maybe – that they feel is disruptive/unhealthy/detrimental – has some sort of negative impact.  They then write about a future world – sometimes very similar to our own, sometimes very different – in which the principle idea or set of ideas has been enacted on a large scale and has resulted in a nightmarish world.  Many times the focus is on a type of government (i.e., 1984 and We).  In others the focus is on a specific technology or the advancement of technology in general (i.e., Gattaca and The Island). 

These stories are precautionary tales.  In a world where most human interventions are described as “advancements,” it is interesting to take note of the (often unintended) negative impacts of our actions – as the adage goes – before it is too late.  I like to think about what consequences we might face in the future based on the decisions that our civilization makes today.  I like to think about how future problems can be avoided if we are wise and consider all of our options.  I like to think about how following one set of extreme views have led down very dark paths in the past and that a healthy future is one in which all people are allowed to express their ideas – not a society in which the individual is dead (see Equilibrium for a great example).

While almost every one of these stories openly reveals the author’s bias, collectively the stories are not one sided.  They have been written by many different authors from many different viewpoints.

These stories are thought experiments.  In a way, they allow us to “learn from the past” without having to experience it.  That may sound funny, but these stories can lay out powerful visions of what our world could look like if we yield to one way of thinking.

Currently Watching Nacho Libre (Special Collector's Edition) By Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, Darius Rose, Moises Arias see related

Notice to the States

Currently Reading The Strong-Willed Child By James C. Dobson see related

Book Progress