CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 09, 2012 11:36 PM UTC
11 Comments
There are many different types of bias. I think the keyword in this post is “modern.” The reason I say that is that we live in a post-modern world, not a modern one. With the advent of social media our attitudes as both media generators and media consumers have changed. I’ll pose a hypothetical thought experiment on this notion of “fair and balanced” reporting.
If a candidate for office says that the sky is pink and 150 Million people believe it, is the sky then pink? What if, as a reporter, one political candidate says the sky is pink and I quote him, but another political candidate says the sky is blue and I quote him. According to “modern standards” of professional journalism I’m being fair and balanced. But as a journalist, I also have an obligation to report the facts–not just what audiences or even I want to believe. If I don’t point out that the sky is, in fact, blue then I’m demonstrating both a selection and confirmation bias that half of my audience won’t recognize, but the other half will.
If, as a reporter, I truly believe that the sky is pink and therefore may not recognize my own bias don’t I, at least, have an obligation to check myself by stating which party I agree with?
…is fine. The problem is that objectivity, like equality, is not necessarily a reality. I think Ivan’s analogy of a judge is a great example. Judges like to see themselves as objective. Ignoring the obvious bias in that self-deterministic identity, let’s say they truly are unbiased. We have to acknowledge that they also inhabit a system that somehow selects, prosecutes, judges and incarcerates a prison population that is 70% people of color compared against a population that is approximately 33.5% people of color. There is very little evidence to suggest that people of color commit crime at twice the rate of whites.
Is the result fair? Does claiming judicial “objectivity” even if you, yourself, are objective make it “fair and balanced?”
The point is that, whether judge or journalist, don’t we all have an obligation to explore the root and result of societal power biases?
Your reporter’s article should say something like, “Candidate A said the sky is pink. Candidate B said the sky is blue. Information from a reputable research group says that the sky is…”
Finding a reputable research group when it comes to political topics seems to be hard to do anymore. The shill groups are louder than the reputable groups and they get used by shill reporters too much.
Either way, the reporter’s opinion shouldn’t matter.
…that the reporter’s opinion plays in even if the reporter doesn’t know it. You made the point for me when you said “The shill groups are louder than the reputable groups and get used by…reporters too much.”
It’s called selection bias.
… A good attorney will have a much better chance of winning their case.
Objectivity in a reporter’s efforts is laudable. But masking one’s biases in a cloak of pseudo-objectivity is the underlying concern expressed by the audience member.
I find that even if bias isn’t obvious in the reporting, the lack of background context to support the facts, or more often, opinions of the people being reported leaves readers with insufficient information to really know the whole truth.
I’ll read about a particular topic on several sites and then read the same topic in the Denver Post. The frequent lack of context (error of omission) by the Post is highly disconcerting to me.
Yes, we live in a short- attention span society. But a few extra sentences immediately surrounding an assertion in support of, or an expert casting doubt upon, that assertion wouldn’t put the paper out of business.
Here are a few more thoughts on the matter:
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
And deep, fiery red, and bits of blue fading…..if you are lucky enough to be watching a sunset over the Rockies.
I remember a sunset so stunning coming back to Boulder on the RTD I ached just to look at it. I wrote in my journal that night “It was like finding a goddess, naked, but knowing can’t ever have her.”
People think the sunsets in Florida, here on the west coast are awesome. Some are pretty good, most are very nice. But I’ve never seen one to compare with that evening in Colorado.
Why can’t a reporter simply state that the sky appeared to be pink?
I want to make it clear that I don’t fault reporters for their ethics or even their biases. I sure as heck don’t fault them for their pursuit of objectivity. But the FACT is that subjectivity is part of the human condition. Nobody can remove themselves from the context in which they’re reporting.
So why try? Why pretend to be an automaton when nothing could be further from the truth?
I understand the practicalities of journalism prevent a reporter from listing his or her biases in every report, but I don’t think that should prevent some editorial profiling of reporters either. As news consumers we should know who our reporters are, where they come from and what interests them about their beat. Etc., etc. There are many ways to handle that from an editorial standpoint and its ridiculous that post-modern news organizations can’t figure out that the social distrust of the mainstream media is, to some extent, related to the fact that a claim of objectivity is a bias in itself.
It doesn’t take much to drown out coverage of local races. Most people don’t pay attention and most of the local broadcast media, even during midterms, avoids more than the most brief and cursory coverage of local politics like the plague. OK, we mentioned some of that stuff that will get half of our viewers pissed off. Quick! Here’s footage of that giant sinkhole in Mississippi and look who’s winning on Dancing with the Stars! God forbid they should give us regular coverage of what our state legislators are up to or how our congressional delegation is voting. There’s always a giant sinkhole somewhere and, sadly, they’re right about what will get them decent ratings.