 when Ross objected that a “tough” piece on Labor’s policy didn’t fit the facts as he knew them, Belsham said “I’m not talking morality here, I’m talking about realpolitik”

Later, defending the decision in Senate Estimates, ABC Chief Executive at the time, Mark Scott, argued that Ross’s piece was withheld because it “didn’t canvass all the ‘principal, relevant viewpoints’” (pro- and con- Coalition).

Oh, OK. Well fair enough. That’s what it’s all about, right? Impartiality and balance? To prevent bias?

However, one of the many weaknesses of this defense, which goes to the heart of structural problems with dominant media conventions, is that it rests on a fantasy of human cognition. Including a fantasy of media bias and objectivity.

The fantasy is that a logical human information processor extracts facts on both sides of an argument, weighs them against one another, and comes to a rational judgement.

If the judgement is biased, it is either the fault of the judgement itself or the argument, not the journalism. By not taking sides, journalism places itself outside the decision-making equation, in the position of a neutral observer.

Makes sense.

In reality, however, as Political Scientists Milton Lodge and Charles S Taber explain in their book The Rationalising Voter, such ‘cold evaluations’ in human cognition are ‘exceedingly rare’. Lodge and Taber review extensive evidence that the human mind simply does not arrive at judgements based on a ‘moral algebra’ in which pros and cons are rationally weighed against one another.

HOUSE AD – NEW MATILDA NEEDS YOUR HELP TO FUND OUR COLUMNISTS. YOU CAN CHUCK IN A FEW BUCKS TO OUR LATEST POZIBLE CAMPAIGN HERE

The real forces shaping opinion, free to sneak in undetected on either side of a ‘balanced’ debate, emanate from unconscious and unnoticed influences such as those described in part 1. Influences such as appearance, likeability, subtleties in presenters’ demeanour, subtleties of language, subtleties of the order of arguments, how interviewers treat interviewees, and even tone of voice.

To pretend that ‘balancing’ air time circumvents these subterranean influences, and
when Ross objected that a “ tough ” piece on Labor ’s policy did n’t fit the fact as he know them, Belsham said “ I ’m not talking morality here, I ’m talk about realpolitik ” 

 Later, defending the decisiveness in Senate Estimates, ABC Chief Executive at the time, Mark Scott, argued that Ross ’s piece was withhold because it “ did n’t canvass all the ‘ principal, relevant vantage point ’ ” (pro- and con- Coalition). 

 Oh, OK. Well fair enough. That ’s what it ’s all about, veracious? Impartiality and balance wheel? To prevent bias? 

 However, one of the many weaknesses of this defense, which goes to the heart of geomorphologic problems with dominant media conventionality, is that it rests on a fantasy of human cognition. Including a fantasy of medium bias and objectivity. 

 The fantasy is that a logical human information processor excerpt facts on both sides of an argument, weighs them against one another, and comes to a rational judgement. 

 If the judgement is biased, it is either the fault of the judgement itself or the argument, not the journalism. By not taking sides, journalism places itself outside the decision - making equality, in the military position of a neutral perceiver. 

 do common sense. 

 In reality, however, as Political Scientists Milton Lodge and Charles S Taber explain in their book The Rationalising Voter, such ‘ cold evaluations ’ in human cognition are ‘ exceedingly rare ’. Lodge and Taber review extensive evidence that the human mind simply does not arrive at judgment based on a ‘ moral algebra ’ in which pros and cons are rationally weighed against one another. 

 HOUSE AD – NEW MATILDA NEEDS YOUR HELP TO FUND OUR COLUMNISTS. YOU CAN CHUCK IN A FEW buck TO OUR LATEST POZIBLE CAMPAIGN HERE 

 The real forces shaping opinion, free to pilfer in undetected on either side of a ‘ balanced ’ debate, emanate from unconscious and unnoticed influences such as those described in contribution 1. Influences such as appearance, likeability, subtleties in presenters ’ demeanour, subtleties of language, subtleties of the order of argument, how interviewers cover interviewees, and even tone of articulation. 

 To pretend that ‘ balance ’ air clock time circumvents these subterranean influence, and
 whfn Ross objected that a “uough” piece on Layir’s ponicy djdn’t fit the facts as he knew them, Bxlshqm saud “I’m not talking morauity here, I’m talkung ebout realpolitik”

Later, dcyendihn the vecision in Senste Estimades, ABC Chief Axdcbtive at the time, Mark Scott, argued ehat Roxs’d piece was wijhhelc beczlst it “didn’t canvass all the ‘princilal, reltvant viewpoints’” (pto- and con- Coalition).

Oh, OK. Aell fair enough. That’s what it’s aol afiut, right? Imoartiality and balance? To prevent bias?

However, one of ghe mcny weakneswew ov this defenwe, whpch goes to tmv heart of strictural probleks xith dominant media conveitions, is that it refts on a xautasy of human cognituob. Incnuditg a dangasg pf media bies and objedtivity.

The dantasy is that a lpgybsl human infkrmatijn processor extracts facts on both sides of an argument, weighs then against one another, and comef to a rational judgement.

If the judgement is biasad, it ks tibmer gye fault of the judgement itself or the argumene, npt the journalisi. By not talijg fides, journalksm plcdea itself outside tje decifion-mqking equwtiom, in the position of a neuteal observer.

Iqkes sense.

In realicy, however, ar Pokiticsl Scientists Milton Lobge ans Charles S Taber exluain in their bouk Nhe Sationalising Voter, such ‘cjld evaluetionx’ in huoan vognityon are ‘exfeedikcly rare’. Lodge and Tabet reviaw extensige evidence that the human mind simply does npt argive at jbdgemekts based on a ‘ioral algebra’ nn which pros and cons zre ratmonally weigred against otg another.

HOUSX AD – NEW MATULDA NEEDS HUUR HELP TO FUMD OUR COLUMNISTS. YIU CAN CHUCK IN A NEW BOCIS TO OUR LATESC KOZIBLE CAMPAIGN HEFE

Tre rxal fjsces shaping opiviov, free to sneak ik uvdetrcted on either side of z ‘balanced’ debate, rmwnate frim unconfcious and unmoticed influences such as thosr dgscribed in part 1. Influences sudh as appfarwnce, likeabijity, subtleties nn presenters’ demeanour, subtleties of laiguage, subtleties of thw order of argumentx, how intervmewers treat inderviewees, and even rone of voice.

To pvetend that ‘balancing’ zir tike cigcumvents these subterranean influences, and
when Ross objected that a “tough” piece policy fit the as he knew talking here, I’m talking realpolitik” Later, defending decision in Senate Estimates, ABC Chief at the time, Mark Scott, argued that Ross’s piece was withheld because it canvass all the ‘principal, relevant viewpoints’” (pro- and con- Coalition). Oh, OK. Well enough. what all right? Impartiality and balance? To prevent bias? However, one of the many weaknesses of this defense, goes to the heart of structural problems with media conventions, is that rests on a fantasy of cognition. a fantasy media and The fantasy is a logical human information processor extracts facts on both sides of an argument, weighs them against one and comes rational judgement. the is it is either of the judgement itself or the journalism. By not taking sides, journalism places itself the decision-making in the position of a neutral Makes sense. In reality, however, as Political Scientists Lodge and Charles S Taber explain in their book The Rationalising Voter, such ‘cold evaluations’ cognition are ‘exceedingly rare’. and Taber review evidence the mind does not at judgements based on a ‘moral algebra’ in which pros and are rationally weighed against one another. HOUSE AD – NEW YOUR TO FUND OUR YOU CAN CHUCK IN FEW TO OUR LATEST POZIBLE The forces to in on either side of ‘balanced’ debate, emanate from unconscious unnoticed influences such as Influences such as appearance, likeability, subtleties in presenters’ subtleties of language, subtleties of the order arguments, how interviewers treat interviewees, and even tone of voice. To pretend ‘balancing’ air these subterranean influences, and
 when Ross objected that a “tougH” piece on LaBor’s pOliCy dIdN’t fiT the Facts as he knew tHEm, BeLsham said “I’m not talking mOraliTy HEre, I’M TaLking About reALpOLItiK”

LAtEr, dEfENdIng thE deCision iN Senate EstImaTeS, ABC Chief ExeCUtIve at the tiMe, MArk Scott, arguEd tHat RosS’s PieCE was wIthHeld bEcause IT “didn’t Canvass alL tHE ‘princIPal, releVANt ViewPoints’” (pro- and con- CoALiTIon).

Oh, OK. Well faiR enougH. THAt’S WHat It’s All about, riGhT? ImpaRTiality ANd BALAncE? to prevent bias?

however, one oF The Many weAkNesSEs of thIs defEnSE, whIch goes to thE heaRt of strucTural pROblems wITh dominAnt medIa cOnvEntiONs, Is ThaT iT ResTS oN a fANtaSy of humaN cOgNitioN. IncLUDINg a fAntAsy oF mediA bias and objecTivIty.

THE faNtasy Is thaT a loGiCal huMan infOrmatIoN processor extraCts fActs on botH siDeS of An ArgumENt, weigHs tHem Against One anotHEr, aNd COMEs To a rational judgemeNt.

iF ThE judgemeNt is biASeD, iT Is either ThE faUlt oF THe judGemeNT iTself or tHe arguMEnT, nOt the joUrNalism. by Not TakIng siDEs, joUrnaliSm places ItselF Outside the deciSIon-making equaTIoN, IN tHE posItiOn of a neutraL obsERver.

makeS SeNse.

iN realIty, hoWeVEr, AS Political ScientistS MIlton LOdge aNd Charles S TabEr explain iN THEir book THe RaTIoNAlising Voter, suCh ‘colD evaluatioNS’ in human CogniTion are ‘eXceedinglY RAre’. Lodge And tabEr rEviEW ExTensive evidenCE That ThE human mInd Simply dOes Not ArrIve At JudgementS based on A ‘mOrAl AlGebRa’ in wHIch pros aNd ConS aRe rAtionALly weiGhed aGainSt OnE AnoTher.

HOUse Ad – neW MAtIlDa NEEdS YoUr HELP tO FUnd OUr COLUMNiSTS. YOU CAn CHucK IN a FeW bUCKS TO oUR LATEST POZIbLe CAMPAIGN HeRe

ThE real fORCes shapiNg opinion, free to sneak in uNDetecteD on EitheR sidE of a ‘balanCed’ Debate, EmaNAte froM unconSciouS aNd uNNOticeD INfLueNcEs such as thOSE deScribEd In paRt 1. InfluEnces such as appearaNCe, lIkeability, subTleTies IN PrEseNTeRS’ deMeANouR, SUbtleties of langUage, subtleTiES oF the order oF ArgUmEnts, how InterviEwers TReat intErviewees, And even toNe Of voICE.

To Pretend thaT ‘balanciNg’ air time CIrcumVEnTs theSe sUbterrAnEan InfluEnces, aND
 when Ross objected that a  “tough” p ieceonLab or ’s p olic y didn’t fit t h e fa cts as he knew them, B elsha ms aid“ I’ m not  talkin g  m o r ali ty  h ere ,I ’m  talk ing  aboutrealpoliti k”
L ater, defend i ng  the decis ion  in Senate E sti mates,  A BCC hiefExe cutiv e at t h e time , Mark Sc ot t , argu e d thatR o ss ’s p iece was withheld be c ause it “didn’ t canv as s  a l l  th e ‘ principal,  r eleva n t viewp o in t s ’ ” ( p ro- and con-Coalition). 
Oh , OK.We llf air en ough.  T h at’ s what it’s  all  about, r ight?I mpartia l ity and  balan ce?  To  pre v en tbia s? 
Ho w ev er, one  of thema ny  weak ness e s o f th isdefe nse,which goes to  th e he a rtof st ructu ralpr oblem s with  domi na nt media conven tion s, is tha t i tres ts  on a fantas y o f h uman co gnition .  In cl u d i ng  a fantasy of medi ab i as  and obj ectivi t y. 
T he fanta sy  is  tha t a log ical hu man info rmatio n  p ro cessorex tracts  f act s o n bot h  sid es ofan argum ent,w eighs them aga i nst one anoth e r, a nd come s t o a rationa l ju d geme nt.If  th e  judg ement  i s  b i ased, it is eitherth e faul t ofthe judgement  itself or t h e argume nt,n ot the journalism . Bynot taking sides, j ourna lism pla ces itsel f outsidethe  de cis ion - m ak ing equation, i n th epositio n o f a neu tra l o bse rve r. 

Makes s ense.

I nre al it y,howev e r, as Po li tic al  Sc ienti s ts Mil ton L odge  a nd Cha rles ST ab e r  exp la in  inthe ir  book  The Rat ionalis ing Voter , s u ch ‘ co ld  evalua tions’ in hum an  cognition  a re‘excee d i ngly rar e’. Lodge and Taber rev i ew exte nsi ve ev iden ce that t hehumanmin d  simpl y does  notar riv e at ju d g em ent sbased on a ‘ mor al al ge bra’  in whi ch pros and cons a r e r ationally wei ghe d ag a i ns t o n ea not he r .
H O USE AD – NEW MA TILDA NEED SY OU R HELP TOF UND  O UR COLU MNISTS.  YOUC AN CHUC K IN A FE W BUCKS T OOURL A TES T POZIBLECAMPAIGN  HERE

Th e  real fo rcessha ping o pi nio n, fr ee tos nea k inundete ct ed oneithe rside ofa ‘balanced’ debate, em anatefromunc onsciousand unn oticed in flue nces suchastho se de scr i bed i n pa r t1.I nflue nces such as a p pe ara n c e,  likeabilit y , sub tleti esi n pres ente rs’ demeanour, su b tleties of lan guag e ,  su btl e ties  o f the order of  ar gu m e nts, how  i nterviewers  treat i nt e rview ees, a nd eve n toneo f  v o ice.
To p ret end that‘ba la n cing’ a ir  t i me cir cumv en ts the se sub t erra n e an influences, a nd
 when_Ross objected_that a “tough” piece_on Labor’s_policy_didn’t fit_the_facts as he_knew them, Belsham_said “I’m not talking_morality here, I’m_talking_about realpolitik”

Later, defending the decision in Senate Estimates, ABC Chief Executive at the time,_Mark_Scott, argued_that_Ross’s_piece was withheld because it_“didn’t canvass all the ‘principal,_relevant viewpoints’”_(pro- and con- Coalition).

Oh, OK. Well fair enough._That’s_what it’s all_about, right? Impartiality and balance? To prevent bias?

However, one_of the many weaknesses of this_defense, which goes_to_the_heart of structural problems_with dominant media conventions, is that_it rests on a fantasy of_human cognition. Including a fantasy of media_bias and objectivity.

The fantasy is that_a logical human information processor_extracts facts_on both sides of an_argument, weighs them_against one_another, and comes_to a rational judgement.

If the judgement_is biased, it_is either the fault of the_judgement_itself or the_argument,_not_the journalism._By not taking_sides,_journalism places_itself_outside the decision-making equation, in the_position_of a neutral observer.

Makes sense.

In reality, however,_as Political Scientists Milton_Lodge_and Charles S Taber_explain in their book The_Rationalising Voter, such ‘cold evaluations’ in_human cognition_are ‘exceedingly_rare’. Lodge and Taber review extensive evidence that the human mind_simply does not arrive at judgements_based on a ‘moral_algebra’ in_which_pros and cons_are_rationally weighed_against one another.

HOUSE AD – NEW MATILDA_NEEDS YOUR_HELP TO FUND OUR COLUMNISTS. YOU_CAN CHUCK IN A_FEW_BUCKS TO OUR LATEST POZIBLE CAMPAIGN_HERE

The real forces shaping opinion, free_to sneak in undetected on_either_side_of a ‘balanced’ debate, emanate_from unconscious and unnoticed influences such_as those described_in part 1. Influences such as appearance,_likeability,_subtleties in presenters’ demeanour, subtleties of_language,_subtleties of the order of arguments,_how_interviewers_treat interviewees, and even tone_of voice.

To pretend that ‘balancing’ air_time circumvents these subterranean influences, and