• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN story about bias guided by bias

BWWzfc

BWWzfc

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
593
Reaction score
145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'll start with a disclaimer/claimer: This is work I did myself over the past few days. But it's interesting stuff, if I do say so myself:

Overview:

CNN and the expert it sourced, Howard Ross, both provide badly distorted accounts of a research project.

The Facts

“The new threat: ‘Racism without racists,’” a story from CNN published on Nov. 27, 2014, caught our attention thanks to the fact check we published in April about racism and the tea party. The story by John Blake overlapped with our fact check to some degree, but the opening example of contributing research triggered a “too good to be true” warning flag for us ...
Click to expand...

CNN misreports "classic study on race" - Zebra Fact Check

Turns out neither the reporter nor the expert the reporter relied on based their descriptions on primary sources. The result? The opening example in CNN's story distorts and greatly exaggerates the research it attempts to describe. The expert's book contains a flatly incorrect citation for his description of the research.
 
Yep. An "expert" reaches a conclusion that CNN likes so that makes their book into "news". Never mind whether other "experts" may reach different conclusions from the same data. BTW, there was already a thread about this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep. An "expert" reaches a conclusion that CNN likes so that makes their book into "news".
Click to expand...

The book is more about bias than racism. It just happens to use a mistaken example. The problem at CNN was trying to turn a bias issue into a race issue and trying to shoehorn unconscious bias into the definition of "racism."

Never mind whether other "experts" may reach different conclusions from the same data. BTW, there was already a thread about this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up on the other thread (though it did more to address the implications of more than the content of the article).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom