Unfortunately, often, the worse people are at a skill, the more confident they feel. People who know a little bit have started to understand how much they don't know, so they feel less confident. And people who are bad, don't have the skills or knowledge to tell the difference between good and bad. So, they assume they're great!
|
Two sides to truth Sometimes people think: If it's a fact, it can't be biased. WRONG! Including some of the information, but not all of the information, can create false understanding. By getting only half of the picture, we don't have all of the information we need. And the way I use statistics can show very different information: Wow! 65% of students agree this is a nice school. What a fantastic result! Oh no... only 65% of students think this is a nice school. That's terrible! Same percentage - very different result! Connections Connections like work or family can create bias. Questions: Who benefits if you believe this information? Are they part of an organisation or special interest group which could affect their opinion? (affiliations) Is the author linked to a political party? Does the person work at a related company? Do they have any family connections? Are they getting paid for this? Will there be any future benefits for them saying this? |
Question: Who is the author? What do they want you to think, and why? Have you looked at different perspectives? What do both sides say? Have you read the original study or statistics, to check if the facts are misrepresented? What's missing from this article? Are there any limitations? Examples: Articles about how freedom of speech is impacted by laws against hate speech often don't mention how hate speech is linked to increases in violence. (They don't explain the reason hate speech is banned, so it looks unreasonable and unfair.) Examples: I'm unlikely to tell you negative things about my workplace if I think I'll be fired. I might tell the truth... but maybe only the positive things! If my brother's company sells more products, he will make more money. I want him to be successful, so I'll tell you all about how great his products are! (And if they're not very good, I'll probably just stay quiet - I don't want to say nasty things about my brother!) Real examples: Australian politicians moving into high level private jobs related to their former political roles. |
Perspectives/ Views Having only one perspective or view can create bias. Including multiple perspectives can prevent bias. One thing to look for is perspectives: Are you seeing two (or more!) sides to the story? For many issues, it is important to see what both "sides" or views are and get as much information as possible when people or organisations disagree. Questions: How many different people are sharing their opinion? Are all those people being heard from? Is there diversity in perspectives? Are those perspectives in-depth and accurate? Are stereotypes being used? Some biased sites only give one side to an argument, present false statistics, or if they include "two sides", they misrepresent the other side's argument. Ignoring perspectives? Yes, we did just say to look at multiple perspectives... but there are some times when it is appropriate to ignore other perspectives, or inappropriate to include them! There are times we decide we cannot justify listening to "the other side"- if it is inaccurate, dangerous and harmful. These usually include human rights issues, health issues, laws and social norms. Questions: Is this view acceptable today? What evidence is it based on? Is it harmful or dangerous, to you or to other people? Is it discriminatory? Why include it? Is there expertise? Would you feel confident saying this in public? (And if yes, should you? And if yes, would the average person agree?) |
Examples: Nuclear waste in Australia perspectives - Government - Nuclear Waste Storage Businesses - Environmental experts - "Average" Australian - Local people in the area - Aboriginal traditional owners When perspectives, especially minority perspectives, are being reported - are they accurate? Aboriginal people have often been misrepresented in Australian media. Check "ignoring perspectives" too! Examples: - Nazis are bad. (Their views are not acceptable. Their views are never acceptable.) - Racist ideas - white superiority (This is both proven false scientifically, dangerous and socially unacceptable.) - Vaccines cause autism (This has been scientifically proven to be thoroughly false. There is no evidence. Promoting this lie is harmful and puts the community at risk medically. It also suggests there is something wrong with people on the spectrum.) - There is a reason we go to a doctor when we are sick. (Don't include a non-expert to "balance" perspectives on important and complex problems! Imagine someone without any medical qualifications arguing with a doctor over health advice! And worse... people listening to the non-expert!) |
Language choice, emotions & evaluation (Good/bad)
Where there is a lot of emotion, or something is written as good or bad, there is likely to be bias. Even when language is more subtle, if a team loses the football game, is it called a loss, a 'close game' or a 'near-win'? Questions: Are personal opinions expressed? From whose point of view is the news reported from? Are you hearing "this is good" or "this is bad"? What kind of names and titles are used? Are there double standards? (Treating one side more nicely than the other for the same thing- see Kate v Meghan) Are stereotypes being used? Are there emotional words being used? Does it appeal to your emotions or does it make you think? Is there actual evidence, or are they just guessing? Are they misleading or lying? Does evidence provided confirm the main point of the source? |
Examples: Mrs Chau, an ex-con, says... Mrs Chau, who served time for a minor offence, says... There may be other unhealthy ingredients lurking in saturated fat-filled foods... She's passionate and inspired about her organisation. She's rash and stubborn about her organisation. Asylum seekers will steal your jobs! Asylum seekers are welfare cheats! Asylum seekers are terrorists! Asylum seekers are brave people just trying to live in peace. Asylum seekers have better work ethic than most Australians. It is horrific to think that... * *There can be times when "horrific" is not about bias or drama, but used honestly to describe a situation. For example, it is not biased to say that the effect of dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was horrific. Everybody, no matter which "side" can recognise that a nuclear bomb is a horrifying thing. |