Downloading the Spinspotter toolbar, I wondered if most of the user-created Spin markers I would find while browsing the web would show me more liberal or conservative slants. The site recommended that I look through the political sections of Fox News and the New York Times to find spin markers. However, disappointingly, I couldn't find any Spin Markers at all, anywhere on these sites. The creators explained that because Spinspotter is so new, it needs to grow as it catches on with more users, since they basically make all the content. The creators compared this "early beta period" to that of Facebook.
How much do media organizations need to be policed? While the Spinspotter concept is a truly innovative form of news criticism, it would work better if the site actually hired some people to be Spinspotters and let users join in. People are more than willing to talk about themselves and learn about friends, which is why Facebook caught on so easily. But this is a much more tiresome endeavor than Facebook. Many people are frustrated by media bias, and liberal users could be easily persuaded to flag items on Fox News, or vice versa on Huffington Post. But it seems like Spinspotting could easily devolve into two competitive sides not learning anything from each other.
I think Spinspotter seems like an interesting and educational tool; I'm just not sure how much users want to have to think about bias all the time, to the extent that they will install a toolbar devoted to it. Recognizing bias should happen through instinctual reading. When it doesn't, it may be because the reader doesn't want to see it.
I did like the "Rules of Spin" page, which is based on the Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. It lists the main forms of bias, including the reporter's (opinionated) voice, lack of balance, selective disclosure, and disregarded context. It's a great reminder for any media consumer. Spinspotter also has a "Spin in Action" page, not filled out, which will highlight particularly harrowing examples of bias. I would be very interested to read a column like that - basically a "Wall of Shame" version of NewsTrust.net.
NewsTrust.net consolidates news stories and opinion columns from all over the web, using mainstream and independent sources, and allows users to rate them based on quality. It averages the ratings together to give each piece a score out of 5 stars. The fuller user reviews are the most helpful - NewsTrust seems to have very thorough, thoughtful readers, and that makes it valuable. Although there are some who merely express their opinion about a political piece, others talk about how clear and comprehensible an article is.
This site manages to incorporate some of Spinspotter's goals, as well. For instance, commenting on the Washington Post website piece "Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief is a Stretch," user Vincent Caminti points out that the article failed to note that Karl Rove spoke on news outlets encouraging the McCain campaign to connect Obama to Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines. This could be called "disregarded context." However, another of Caminti's assertions, that the writer should have said that McCain's spokesman repeatedly uses Obama's full name (including his middle name, Hussein), seems unnecessary. Some liberals regard that as damaging, which may make it a biased insertion.
The Post example shows that users could make very illuminating observations on NewsTrust and Spinspotter, but they can also muddy up the waters and mislead other readers. As a journalist, I prefer NewsTrust's approach to policing the media with reviews rather than flags and edits. That opens up the door for any small phrase to be viewed as biased and inflammatory, simply based on one reader's opinion. It creates an atmosphere of "us against them" between readers and journalists. While we now live in a society where readers should not trust anything they read completely, not all journalists and media outlets have brought that on themselves. Spinspotter is a severe crackdown on the press.
Image: hauserross.com
Recent Comments