tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post113562527475962913..comments2024-03-24T10:38:16.997-07:00Comments on Geeking with Greg: A political lens on informationGreg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1136495364568843812006-01-05T13:09:00.000-08:002006-01-05T13:09:00.000-08:00I agree this is a scary thought, but I think Mark ...I agree this is a scary thought, but I think Mark is correct in his assessment; if you look at the mainstream media, people now choose their news based on what they want to hear: if I want to hear one side, I tune into Fox, if I want to hear the other side, CNN. I think this also explains the rise in prominence of blogs; people find someone who speaks to them, and prefer this over a more watered down outlet such as a newspaper that, although it may or may not have a bias to one side or the other, is less explicit in which side it supports.<BR/><BR/>The fact seems to be that most people already have their mind made up; they're just looking for someone to say it eloquently.Greg G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05442389755374154879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1135721600566672632005-12-27T14:13:00.000-08:002005-12-27T14:13:00.000-08:00I think you're missing the point chad. Exactly bec...I think you're missing the point chad. Exactly because `the act of observation is inherently a "bias"' I think it's important to get both sides of an argument. No side will tell you the exact truth, because that's a) impossible and b) not in the interest of many news publishers. So instead they will give you a shortened version which nicely fits the editor's point of view.<BR/><BR/>So what Findory apparently does (though I have not verified it myself) makes sense. If you're interested in Iraq war news, it will present you with other news about that - biased in both directions.<BR/><BR/>And to the article itself: I agree with Greg that this is a pretty scary development. IMHO it's mainly caused by the two-party system in the USA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1135681958725940842005-12-27T03:12:00.000-08:002005-12-27T03:12:00.000-08:00"Mark sees a world where information is not true o..."Mark sees a world where information is not true or false, but left or right"<BR/><BR/>But what people need to realize is that the act of observation is inherently a "bias". A person can probably not read more than lets say 200 news items per day and be able to digest them in today's busy work world. <BR/><BR/>So its clear that people will be getting some kind of personalized mix of information via personalized aggregators (i.e. RSS aggregators). And the apps will be doing some mix of explicit (preferences driven) and implicit (inference driven) to determine WHAT the news items are that people see. so its going to be biased by definition; I like reading Krugman but not Brooks, so who does it hurt if I get the information I want? Information isn't like liver, to be stuffed down your throat by a doting information mother figure - RSS is a sushi converyor belt! Have it your way.chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272480610329333973noreply@blogger.com