A Quote by Dana Loesch

The difference between Koppell and Olberman types is that one gives editorializing in all its editorial frankness so there are no mistakes as to bias, and the other passes off a subtler bias as objectivity.
Of course it's contrived, but once you know how its contrived, you can understand the editorial viewpoint. CNN, for example, when you see where they're really coming from, you can subtract their bias, and get some sort of facts. Sometimes the amount of bias that is imposed in these things is so laughable that it gives you an extra layer of entertainment.
Between hindsight bias, fake causality, positive bias, anchoring/priming, et cetera et cetera, and above all the dreaded confirmation bias, once an idea gets into your head, it's probably going to stay there.
While everyone has racial bias, I reserve the word 'racist' to describe the bias that white people have - our collective bias is backed by institutional power.
There are those who believe a liberal or a conservative bias permeates the media. I don't. The operative press bias is one that favors conflict, not ideology, and it is lashed by a market-driven bias to boost ratings or circulation with more wow stories, more sizzle.
When a Caltech student asked the eminent cosmologist Michael Turner what his "bias" was in favoring one or another particle as a likely candidate to compromise dark matter in the universe, Feynmann snapped, "Why do you want to know his bias? Form your own bias!"
We must all acknowledge our unconscious biases, and listen with less bias when women, and others who are marginalized, speak out. A lot of change is possible by just acknowledging unconscious bias - that exhaustively documented but unpleasant reality many would rather ignore - and listening with less bias and acting on what we then learn.
The cable news channels have cleverly seized on the creed of objectivity and redefined it in populist terms. They attack news based on verifiable fact for its liberal bias, for, in essence, failing to be objective, and promise a return to genuine objectivity.
It is a difference of opinion which does not admit of proof. We each begin probably with a little bias towards our own sex, and upon that bias build every circumstance in favour of it which has occurred within our own circle.
It is assumed that the skeptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of skepticism.
The perception of bias isn't there, that's what I told Ken Tomlinson, ... The majority of Americans do not perceive a bias.
I have a deep-seated bias against hate and intolerance. I have a bias against racial and religious bigotry. I have a bias that leads me to believe in the essential goodness of my fellow man, which leads me to believe that no problem of human relations is ever insoluble.
Bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. Facts are your firewall against bias.
Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized.
In most news, if you hear a conservative point of view, that's called bias. We believe if you eliminate such a viewpoint, that's bias.
People have to fix whatever bias they have, and I see this bias consistently, all the time, towards women directors. They're just not being trusted with action.
Radical views that are outside the mainstream generally (but not always) are more reliable than the dominant view because they are more regularly challenged and tested against evidence. They do not get to float freely down the mainstream; they must swim against the current. They cannot rest on the orthodox power to foreclose dissent, and they are not supported by the unanimity of bias that passes for objectivity.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!