Seven Initial Prominent Sources of All Information Bias Impartiality Types Parsed

Author:

Bean ErikORCID

Abstract

Ever since information was first operationalized by library science into consumer formats, media bias has been studied from the purview of information gatekeepers who decide what, how, and when to publish based on story importance and factors like circulation. This concept did not include individuals or entities outside of the journalism discipline. With the advent of the internet and a number of social media networks that soon followed, individuals could more effectively release information without waiting for gatekeepers, thus shaping the public’s perception regardless of the topic. Scholars offered a theoretical framework for shaping the public’s opinion and still other scholars focused on how information could be slanted or partisan. However, these seminal approaches did not operationalize the term information bias in terms of the overall partiality of major sources themselves. Information evaluation tests such as the Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (CRAAP) and Stop, Investigate, Find, Trace (SIFT) that have been discussed as tools to assess information for bias fall short on the very first step of what to inspect and how to sort. With a gap in the literature sorting through the types of biases can be daunting and confusing. The purpose of this paper is to propose one initial method as the first step to sort information bias regardless of its form, analog or digital, into seven prominent sources each with their own inherent but larger impartiality tied to it. The sources of all information bias to be discussed in alphabetical order are: 1) academic, 2) forprofit, 3) government, 4) hidden agenda, 5) individuals, 6) nonprofit, and 7) watchdog groups.

Publisher

University of Saints Cyril and Methodius

Reference39 articles.

1. BAUM, M. A.: Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public. In American Political Science Review, 2002, Vol. 96, No. 1, p. 91-109. ISSN 1537-5943. DOI: .

2. BEALL, J.: Predatory Publishers Are Corrupting Open Access. In Nature, 2012, Vol. 489, No. 7451, p. 179. ISSN 1476-4687. DOI: .

3. BEAN, E.: Analyzing Information for Bias Is All Around You. Presented at the 2022 JEA/NSPA, National High School Journalism Convention. St. Louis, presented on 12th November 2022. [online]. [2023-05-21]. Available at: .

4. BEAN, E.: Weeding Out Suspect Bias Using the Greek Rhetorical Styles of KLEMP in Social Media and News Stories. Presented at the 2022 National Council of Teachers of English Homecoming Conference. Louisville, KY, presented on 31st July, 2022. [online]. [2023-05-21]. Available at: .

5. BIZZELL, P., HERZBERG, B.: The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston, MA, New York, NY : Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2021.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3