You are reading a single comment by @bashthebox and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Yes, some good balanced points. I am a chap.
I should clarify that what I said about me being an expert was not meant literally - I have worked in the media for 14 years (you were very close!) and definitely do not consider myself an expert, especially on media bias. The media world is changing so quickly it's very difficult for anyone to be an expert. But that was kind of the point.
I can see that this academic is quite possibly an expert in analysing the media's output for bias, but then his organisation is clearly taking a stance - calling for media reform - so my other question was whether we should trust someone commenting on bias when he appears to be biased himself.
Fox
@bashthebox
Going back the the media expert issue - I think there's an interesting question there. What makes more of an expert, academia or practical experience? And does it depend on the field?
For example, taking my line of work - a lecturer in film studies vs a working director/producer/editor... who would have the most accurate insight into the industry? I'd argue for the person currently working in the industry. That has a lot to do with the speed in which things change, and how much the industry makes you learn on the job.
But I can see how there's a sliding scale here - for example if you're something like a historian, I'm not sure there's even a distinction between academia and practical experience.
I'd perhaps argue that someone like @Fox has a far better practical understanding of some aspects of the media compared to the academic cited, but because Fox only works for one organisation, he (sorry, just assuming you're a chap from the way you write, apologies if not) will have more embedded bias than the academic. Possibly. However, one huge point I would make, that others have resolutely ignored, is that Fox quite possibly is an expert if he's been working successfully in the media for 15 years or whatever it is. Denying that he has a useful insight into how it all works is daft, and is also falling into the current media trap of pitting opposite sides against each other even when those arguments might not be balanced at all.
I think, as has been mentioned before, that the way we consume news and opinion has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. So much competing information makes clickbait headlines and 140 character opinions far more popular than in depth analysis. It does mean that politics will increasingly pander to the more stupid half of the electorate, and that's a huge worry.