You can, but with that example, there would be a large pro-Palestianian bias in the reporting of both news. By reporting three figures (each progressively larger) of Palestinian statistics and one consistent figure of Israeli statistics, one has a 3:1 bias of news time to the Palestinian side and a large bias for the "average" death count calculated by the viewer at home towards the Palestinian statistics.
I'd also be the first one to say the Palestianians are saying three different figures, and would question how *many* people actually did die, so in my mind, if I looked at this particular news story as you wrote it, I would actually say the Israeli's are more consistant, and more than likely to be telling the truth as to how many were dead. I would also go on to see the Palestianians were sensationalizing how many people were dead, and say the story itself has an Isreali bias. However, looking at all the statistics, you are able to make a judgement for yourself, because they were all reported. Just because you have three different numbers and more mentions of Palestianians, doesn't necessarily mean there is a Palestianian bias. Reporting one and not the other is inconsitent, IMO. So in essence, all of the 'joke' 9-11 conspiracy theorists along with the actual truth deserve a place in the media, because without one, you can't balance the other to find the truth, because sometimes, the truth is in the muddly middle where nobody can see it. Without reporting it, you would never know.
However, true bias is impossible, but you can *try* to be as objective as you possibly can, and *emotionally* remove yourself from the story, in a manner of speaking. It's difficult to do, but to be a good reporter, you have to strive to do that. To not strive for that in the media, seems like a cop out and giving up. Oops, we can't be *truly* objective, so why even try?
I think you are taking that a bit to seriously, it was partially a joke (kidding on the square, if I may).
But anyway, I don't. But I don't really know anything is real, but there are certai nthings I must accept to function.
You forgot the joke font, Dan. I took your comment seriously
.
No. As, I've said, I'd rather let the media be free and let people choose what they want. The quest for objectivity is impossible, but the quest for media freedom is not.
But it's seemingly impossible to have media freedom when you have special interests involved (i.e. large corporations) that decide what is important, not for the reason of reporting news where people decide, but making a profit. I agree with you the media should be free, but in it's current state, at least in the United States, it's not. Independant media that's paid for by the people, not corporate advertising is the way to go here.
dgun and Nattering Nabob are apparently my fanboys...