On Sun, 11 May 2003 11:00:02 -0700, Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D.
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>    It's not a matter of opinion; the only thing that matters is the
>evidence. Does the evidence support the proposition that the media has a
>left-wing bias?
>
>    Furthermore, would you expect corporate entities to have a bias opposed
>to corporate domination of the media? Do we in the museum world support
>corporate domination of museum exhibits?
>
>    Michael
>

But it *is* a matter of opinion.  Because on virtually any story, you can
find people who feel it leans left, leans right, or is dead center.  Each
fins their own evidence credible, and that of the "oppostion" unconvincing.

With the possible exception of the recent troubles at the NY Times, it's
not a question of "getting the facts right."  Even the alleged 170,000
looted Iraqi artifacts was a "fact," insofar as that was the best estimate
immediately available.  The question becomes which facts / stories are
reported and which are not; which get a lot of play and which get buried;
which receive follow-ups and which are never mentioned again. And, perhaps
most important of all, how are they reported.  None of which readily
subjects itself to objective review.

Case in point: the BBC recently described Osama bin Laden as a "Saudi
dissident."  Factual?  Sure.  But some found the choice of term (as opposed
to "terrorist," "mass-murderer," etc.) remarkably mealy-mouthed.

And wasn't there a recent debate here over the objectivity of Robert
Fisk?  ;-)

For examples of how seemingly straight-forward reports can be seen as
having bias, check out www.andrewsullivan.com.  Almost daily, he dissects
some item from the NY Times, NPR or the BBC and finds bias.  WARNING:
Andrew is about as right-wing as they come.  You may not agree with all he
says.  (I certainly don't.)  But he is intelligent and erudite. And it
shows just how difficult it is to "objectively" declare bias.

Now, trying to tie this all back to museums (which I feel an odd compulsion
to do) -- museums are also biased.  Science museums are biased toward the
scientific point of view; art museums toward the aesthetic; history museums
toward the importance of history; etc.  Individual curators and researchers
have their biases, which come out in their exhibits.  We may feel they
are presenting nothing but the objective facts -- in a sense, we ARE
presenting nothing but the objective facts -- but everything is edited.
You can't say EVERYTHING about a topic, so you pick and choose.  And you
pick the things that you agree with and de-select those you don't.
Everything is interpreted -- explained from a particular point of view.

There is nothing wrong with any of this.  There IS something wrong with
pretending it's not what we're doing.  Like good journalists, we need to be
careful, cite our sources, announce our biases as best we know them,
acknowledge controverseys in the field, and just generally respect the fact
that these are issues over which reasonable people may disagree.

Now, if we can only find some reasonable people... ;-)

-- Eugene Dillenburg
again

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).