Ask Skewz.com Founder About Detecting Media Bias

Skewz.com is not the Microsoft-funded Blews experiment that is supposed to help detect rightness and leftness in stories based on blogs that link to them. Instead of detecting blog links, Skewz relies on readers to submit and rate stories, and even tries to pair stories that have "liberal" and "conservative" biases so that you can get multiple takes on the same event or pronouncement. The Skewz About page explains how it works. The site has drawn a fair amount of "media insider" attention, including a writeup on the Poynter Institute website. But what does all this mean? Where is it going? Can Skewz.com help us sort our news better and make more informed decisions? We don't know. But if you post a question here for founder Vipul Vyas, maybe he'll have an answer for you. (Please try to follow the usual Slashdot interview rules.)

Comments

Are all americans one dimensional

[line-bundle]

I still do not understand why everything is left/right. Reality tends to be complicated and every story has a lot more aspects than left/right (even if you manage to define those two terms).

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[h4rm0ny]

I'd say both definitions are (a) grossly inadquate as a basis for categorising political viewpoints which are massively more complicated and (b) merely attitudes that do not necessarily equate to the outcomes of any given policy. The divisive split between "left" and "right" is one of the things that most cripples democracy in the USA, today. By labelling something as belonging to one faction or another, serious consideration of the merits of a particular action can be derailed. Maybe tax cuts are the right thing at a given time to stimulate the economy. Maybe state aid to a faltering financial institution is going to head off disaster on another occasion. But instead of assessing ideas as good or bad, "left" and "right" become substitutes for good and bad and nothing needs to be said beyond that. Never mind that often enough it is not appropriate to categorise things in these terms. It seems half the time that political beliefs are treated as merely territory to be captured by "left" or "right" and claimed as fitting that faction's ideology.

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks (well, except that he's dead): "Hey, waitaminute! It's one guy holding up both puppets!"

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[ScienceDada]

Your definition is completely reversed.
The "Left" is for strong central government--as you say, "top down"--(i.e. Federal government).
The "Right" is for strong local control--as you say, bottom-up--i.e. States' rights.
In America, these have been opposing sides since the framing of the Constitution.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[PopeRatzo]

it shouldn't be either left or right, because the middle ground is often a very good one.

Here's teh problem with that, Jugulator: Through the manipulation of the media and overwhelming application of corporate power, the "middle" you speak of has been artificially pushed way to the Right.

Just look at how a politician like Barack Obama is said to be "far Left", when in fact, he's to the Right of a real Center. I've lived long enough to have seen a real "Left" in America, and my father and grandfather have lived through a time when there was even a farther Left, with the Wobblies and the CPUSA. In fact, during my granddad's adulthood, Socialism was not very far from the mainstream in the US. I wonder what would happen if a real Leftist ever became a serious candidate for office here. I'd go so far as to say that not one single member of Congress could be honestly said to be on the "far Left" and that includes Rep Sanders (Ind-Vermont).

On the other hand, someone like John McCain, who is widely (and wrongly) thought to be a "Centrist" supports a torture regime, the elimination of habeas corpus, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, corporate control of media, the elimination of the Department of Education, the repeal of all banking and securities regulation, and many more positions that would normally earn a politician a reputation as a member of the Far Right, if not actually Fascism.

Seriously, let me list those again: John McCain supports torture, holding people, including US citizens indefinitely without bringing charges, warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and email conversations, unregulated corporate control of all media, the elimination of the Department of Education, the repeal of all banking and securities regulation, etc.

And interestingly, he was one of the politicians who used to push the privatization of Social Security, although he wouldn't whisper a word of that any more. Remember, if Social Security had been privatized during Bush's first term, which Bush wanted and McCain supported, there would have been a lot of Americans who had their Social Security funds at Bear Stearns, which recently went from over $100 per share to $2.00 per share. Those Americans would have lost almost every penny. This is why you don't hear any more cheerleading for the idea of privatization of Social Security from conservatives any more, even though they would still love to see it happen.

No, "Left and Right" aren't really useful terms any more, when the spectrum has really become "Right and Further Right".

So what is liberal or conservative?

[MickLinux]

So, is sexual impropriety liberal (Clinton) or conservative (Gingerich)?
How about economic activism (Greenspan)?
What about pro-war?
How about government hypervigilance against its own citizens?
How about abortion?
What about economic stimulus?
How about WTO?

Honestly, with the way all the votes actually go when a liberal or conservative party has control of everything, I have to say that in each of these cases, the "liberal" and "conservative" positions are identical, and the opposite position has no coverage.

Why is everything about "bias"?

[MillionthMonkey]

Shouldn't just "being full of shit" count for anything? Why not just rate stories on their frequencies of lies, distortions, unsupported assertions, and factual inaccuracies?

That's what gives the impression of "bias" to a reader in the first place.

Re:Why is everything about "bias"?

[Trojan35]

I agree with your overall point, but there is a difference between lies and bias. Example:

Truth: Joe went to the store to buy milk.
Bias #1: Joe, once again being the dutiful husband, went to the store to get some milk.
Bias #2: Joe, once again leaving his wife home alone with the child, went to the store to get some milk.

See the difference?

Re:Why is everything about "bias"?

[drooling-dog]

Came here to say that, more or less.

The problem I have with the term "bias" is that it's going to apply to any source of news and information that attempts to present some context, background, and interpretation into its reportage. The stripped, "unbiased" news merely reports what this or that political figure says, without any clue about where they're really coming from. When the media tries to do this, they not only fail to paint an accurate picture of what's going on, they often outright mislead.

Motivations are important in politics. If the authors of the "Clean Air Act" are actually backed by polluter interests, or if the "Patriot Act" actually does nothing but strip us of rights and liberties that real patriots fought and gave their lives for, then that case needs to be made. I've had enough of news media that constantly give disingenuous and manipulative politicians the benefit of the doubt by merely transcribing what they say, or allowing them to put their labels on things unchallenged. They're little more than PR agencies then.

Fake "Balance"

[Doc Ruby]

What is the point of providing only two "balancing" stories with "liberal" vs "conservative" biases, when neither "liberal" nor "conservative" are labels with any real meaning except propaganda buzzwords, when the two illusory groups agree on so much but also mutually exclude so much not falling under their convenient labels, and when there are so many other viewpoints? A point other than validating the grossest oversimplification of the world since "right brain / left brain" dumbed down psychology to meaningless twaddle, that is.

And when one or the other is just wrong, why dignify them as "balance"? What's the point of balancing lies against truth?

Missing sliders

[Tsar]

From your site's What is Skewz? section:

Skewz was started by a group of 4 guys with diverse political views who engaged in frequent political sparring. We tired of the coarseness of the public political dialog and the tendency for both sides to talk past each other. The goal was not to make peace between liberals and conservatives. Instead, we wanted to encourage liberal-conservative dialogue by improving on the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the discussions. We hoped that doing so would take focus from the cosmetic appeal of parties and personalities that generate allegiances and place it instead on wit and wisdom of intelligent debate. It seems that your site's focus is currently on cultural/political bias rather than the "wit and wisdom of intelligent debate." If your project is to be true to its goals, shouldn't there be evaluation sliders for an article's wit, insight, wisdom and informativeness? We use a simplified system for that on Slashdot and it works surprisingly well most of the time.

The One Party State

[copponex]

The last administrations have done nothing to return states rights, and in fact have moved the Executive Branch further outside the bounds of congressional and even judicial oversight. There's no such thing as left and right in American Government. They pander to the left or the right, but their focus is on more government control. They both start the same wars, participate in the same corruption.

The two wedge issues are gay marriage and abortion for the right, which would never survive the "clear and secular purpose" litmus test, and the wedge issues for the left are "Bush is dumb" and "we want change," despite the fact there are no real policy differences. One side refuses to take nuclear options off the table in dealing with Iran, and the other side refuses to take nuclear options off the table when dealing with Iran.

It's really quite beautiful when you think about it. America is a One Party State, complete with gerrymandered lines and mass media that shuts out thirty party options. Why argue about things like our right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations when you can just leave that out of the discussion entirely?