Thursday, September 23, 2004
Class Discussion Today
I think that we had a really interesting discussion in class today, and the only thing I regret is that due to time constraints we didn't really get to summarize our points. I'm going to attempt a short summary of what I took away from today's discussion below, but I highly encourage the debate that we were having in class to continue in the comments section of this post. Also, if anyone else wants to add to this summary please leave a comment as it would really help out everyone.
The basic question I believe we were asking in class was this: if we are to assume that all writing is inherently biased, what variables within our writing can be adjusted to change the level of bias perceived by the reader so that it is appropriate to the rhetorical situation:
· Using/not using the writer's voice to present controversial propositions. One of the main things we noticed about the cnn.com piece was that only patently uncontroversial statements were presented as fact by the author (e.g. "the nation's attention turned to terrorism," "The [terror] alert was somber," etc.), while the johnkerry.com article tended to present highly controversal statements as facts.
· Using/not using expert commentary from both sides. The use of analysis from both liberal and conservative think tanks seemed to make the cnn.com piece seem less biased to most people.
· The use of polling data is almost always suspicious.
· Giving equal time to both sides of the issue. Though we seemed to decide this was less important than some of the concerns above, only talking about one side of an issue, however reportorially, can create the feeling of bias.
This is just what I remember from the class eight hours later, so please add to this list in the comments.
I think that we had a really interesting discussion in class today, and the only thing I regret is that due to time constraints we didn't really get to summarize our points. I'm going to attempt a short summary of what I took away from today's discussion below, but I highly encourage the debate that we were having in class to continue in the comments section of this post. Also, if anyone else wants to add to this summary please leave a comment as it would really help out everyone.
The basic question I believe we were asking in class was this: if we are to assume that all writing is inherently biased, what variables within our writing can be adjusted to change the level of bias perceived by the reader so that it is appropriate to the rhetorical situation:
· Using/not using the writer's voice to present controversial propositions. One of the main things we noticed about the cnn.com piece was that only patently uncontroversial statements were presented as fact by the author (e.g. "the nation's attention turned to terrorism," "The [terror] alert was somber," etc.), while the johnkerry.com article tended to present highly controversal statements as facts.
· Using/not using expert commentary from both sides. The use of analysis from both liberal and conservative think tanks seemed to make the cnn.com piece seem less biased to most people.
· The use of polling data is almost always suspicious.
· Giving equal time to both sides of the issue. Though we seemed to decide this was less important than some of the concerns above, only talking about one side of an issue, however reportorially, can create the feeling of bias.
This is just what I remember from the class eight hours later, so please add to this list in the comments.
