448
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
448 points (98.1% liked)
transgender
1890 readers
41 users here now
Welcome to lemmy.ml/c/transgender! This is a community for sharing transgender or gender diverse related news articles, posts, and support for the community.
Rules:
-
Bigotry, transphobia, racism, nationalism, and chauvinism are not allowed.
-
Selfies are not permitted for the safety of users.
-
No surveys or studies.
-
Debating transgender rights is not allowed. Transgender rights are human rights. Debating transgender healthcare is not allowed. Transgender healthcare is a necessity.
-
No civility policing transgender people. Transgender people have a right to be angry about transphobia and be rude to transphobes.
-
If you are cis, do not downvote posts. We don't like you manipulating our community.
-
Posts about dysphoria/trauma/transphobia should be NSFW tagged for community health purposes.
-
For both cis and trans people: Please alter your username (if possible) to include pronouns (or lack thereof, or questioning) so no one misgenders anyone. details. This rule is important for maintaining a safe place. If you can't change your ID, please let a mod know and include it in your bio.
-
Leftist infighting is not allowed.
Please remember to report posts that break any of these rules, it makes our job easier!
If you are looking for a more secure and safe trans space, we suggest you visit https://hexbear.net/c/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns. While we will try our best, lemmy.ml/c/transgender is far more open to the fediverse, and also to trolls. One of the site admins of lemmy.ml, nutomic, is also a transphobe, while hexbear is ran mostly by trans people and has a very active trans community.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
vs
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that's not necessarily bias.
Do you think my comment did a reasonable job of responding to the previous comment's question?
I agree that leaving out details is bias, and everyone has bias. Bias can't be avoided.
The article is about DeSantis's bigoted hypocrisy. He is a bigot and hypocrite.
It's not relevant that he's also a failed presidential nominee. It's not relevant that he is backed by anti government extremists (his candidacy was aligned with that organization's gross priorities).
The additions only serve to further alienate the reader from DeSantis and DeSantis supporters. It's clearly biased against him.
This is an appropriate place for anti-DeSantis bias, but the person saying they were put off by the bias is entitled to feel that way too. If a person can't see how that article is biased it says a lot about them.
I think it did a reasonable job of responding by pointing out a bias that I also think is evident. There was a choice to use certain phrases in the way they were used.
I just think the level of bias in that direction isn't as large as it seemed because he is a politician, speaking about a situation with politics in mind. As such , details that potentially add context to the politics of the situation are relevant, that's not necessarily bias as much as relevant context.
I don't personally think him being a failed presidential candidate has much bearing past the possible bitterness he might be bringing to proceedings but actively choosing to appear with what could be considered an extremist group, for me, absolutely speaks to political and personal character, for good or ill ( a negative to me personally ).
Potentially, but that doesn't make them inherently bias, for some that probably looks like a show of power.
That you personally think it's a negative speaks more to your own bias than the inclusion of the details. That goes for me as well.
Choosing not to include those details could just as easily be considered bias.
If you mean me specifically then I'd answer that I do in fact think there's a bias, i wasn't arguing for the absence of bias,i was arguing that the specific bias you mentioned wasn't the only possible kind that should be considered and that in light of the additional kinds it might move the needle of where the bias might be falling.
I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you think that the included details can only be taken negatively, what does that say about your own bias?
I don't think it's negative for people to be alienated from DeSantis. He's a piece of shit.
I don't think I do. You understand what bias is and recognize it.
I agree my proposed alternative paragraph had a centrist bias, which isn't something I had considered while drafting it. I think that's because centrist bias is less overt. Since I was trying to contrast against the bias in the original article I still think it was appropriate.
I'm not sure I understand your question. But this is the internet so I'll answer anyway. I think bias against DeSantis is appropriate, especially in this community. But I didn't think the article did it very well. I feel that way because it was so overt that I fear it would never be digested by anyone on the fence. Maybe it's because I grew up and live in a slightly less dysfunctional democracy but I prefer news articles that help people understand others.
Agreed and I'm also aware that that bias can creep in to how i present information but i think blatant attempts to try and alienate people (in general) isn't a good approach, presenting facts and well reasoned points of view will allow others to draw their own conclusions.
I don't know if this applies to everyone, but if i get the impression that someone is trying to sway me in any direction (outside of a context where that sort of behaviour is expected and accepted by both parties) then I'd be very unlikely to take their opinion at face value.
Agreed, it wasn't a well written article, at least by my standards.
Also agreed, i was mainly pointing out that by leaving out mention of the potential other type of bias it could lead someone to think it was done intentionally, which ties in nicely with what you wrote next.
Agreed and i find this to be a common problem, someone with an what would otherwise be a reasonable take pollutes my opinion of it by presenting it in such a way that it makes them seem unreasonable, be that inflammatory language, explicit bias, blatant omissions etc.
This is harder and harder to find, not to say that any news has ever been bias free but to me it's become much harder to find anything approaching a well presented article without some sort of literary shenanigans being applied.