Spin Spotters
I hate to be the damper on a perfectly innovative idea, but I'll begin by explaining why Spin spotters fell flat for me. I can admire the attempt and the fundamental purpose for the website. After all is news without spin even possible? If Spin Spotters single handedly answered that question, our journalism forefathers are rolling in their graves. Of course, we enjoy reading news that complements our views. Who doesn't like being validated by journalism professionals that your opinions are superior? Can Spin Spotters, a site whose sole mission is to identify words and terminology with spin, really dissect an article in a way that allows its readers to then view a completely unbiased editorial? If so, sign this skeptic up!
At first glance, the site attempts to take the viewer through a fun yet inventive journey. So much so, that I was secretly bummed that I hadn't thought of something like this. In the world of journalism there seems to be a subtle acknowledgment that there might not actually be unbiased media and yet ironically, we may be in pursuit of that the rest of our professional lives.
Nowadays, unbiased media is an endangered species and we're lucky if someone is openly transparent. Spin Spotters seems to be different as it literally highlights certain words so its readers can distinguish news biases. It also exposes 'the misuse of sources' and reveals suspicious factual support. In essence, Spin Spotters main goal is to bring transparency back to journalism.
It's too good to be true, right? The answer is yes.
Turns out, there is no Encyclopedia Britannica for Spinned Words. The site that would like us to view the news through its "spinoculars", goes about it in a very error-friendly way. So despite the humorous clip and arguably original idea, Spin Spotters fails to credibly discern news spin.
How Spin Spotters is able to determine biases in the first place is its fundamental and structural flaw. After you have downloaded the spinocular software, (which you can only do so if you have Firefox 3- which is immensely annoying) you can simply surf various new sites and "spinned" words will be highlighted.
The software will identify words that "appear to present editorial opinions as facts". The site then allows readers to rate the level of spin, edit and share it. Rather than magically eliminating the article of spin, the site simply covers spin with some more bias. However, the icing on the cake is, that if Spin Spotters "missed" a spin, readers can go back and edit themselves. Spin Spotters then "learns" (which in my opinion is code for duplicates) from viewer edits which accumulates in a pseudo-spin database and used for future reference.
Viewer interaction and suggestions would be harmless except for the fact Spin Spotters is only as active as its current viewer community. And in an "Please Note" section much comparable to the "Fine Print" segment in an infomercial, Spin Spotters discloses that, "During this early beta period, SpinSpotter is a lot like Facebook when it first launched--there's not much there until the community gets involved. Every marker you and others in the community create makes SpinSpotter a richer experience for all, and makes our algorithms smarter so they can begin to find spin all on their own."
So in other words, Spin Spotters is only as good as the "trusted" viewer edits that help the software use a systematic method to quantify repeated spinned words. So essentially the site that claimed to identify and rid the cyber-wold of bias actually does a great job of perpetuating it. Quite honestly, I don't see people visiting the site more than just to initially check it out.
Spin Spotters really is the one-hit wonder.
News trust
Its sites like this that really upset me and cause me to second-guess the validity of any news outlet claiming to be non-partisan. When one first tries to navigate the site, it seems nice enough. The simple, yet easy-on-the eyes website allows one to navigate up and down the page. The site is rather straightforward; the top of the page presents the "Feature Story" of the day. On this particular day, the featured story is about the US economy. The headline is: "Worst Crisis Since the 30's. No End In Sight." Well, a blindfolded donkey wouldn't deny that. Just like any levelheaded Republican wouldn't deny Palin is a poor choice for VP. Fair enough? Check.
As you scroll down the page, the news is divided into two sections one is "Mainstream Media" and the second is "Independent Media." At first glance it seems like we come across an un-cashed lottery ticket. Cha-ching! The site acknowledges the differences in outlets such as the New Yorker, AP, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and from Fact Check and Link TV. Who wouldn't like access to both mainstream media and independent media on the same site? Lucky for us. Do we save time and we have complete access to both? Check.
After scanning, the page- I read the site's "About Me" section. It states "NewsTrust.net helps people find good journalism online." Admirable mission statement? Check.
Three checks. It deserves to receive a decent review, right? Well, not so fast. Let's not get too hasty.
I read more into their mission statement and a few things catch my attention, the words "non-partisan and informed decision" and the introduction of the site's partners. I'm a bit confused at this point- The Huffington Post, PBS, Mother Jones? To my dismay, the self-acclaimed non-partisan NewsTrust.net has notoriously liberal partners. It wouldn't be the first time like-minded sites partnered with each other.
I navigate back to the homepage. Title after title; article after article the headlines suggest a liberal point of view. "The State of Sarah Palin", frankly point outs she never showed interest in foreign policy in her years as governor, jokes about how most Americans had not heard of her until her VP ticket acceptance speech or until she reiterated the same speech in different cities across the nation, and that she was only offering interviews to reporters who showed "deference". I wont argue with any of those accusations. Most are true and I actually happen to agree.
"The Myth of the Pro-Obama Media Bias" refutes the notion that Obama has received extraordinary support from the media or Hollywood. To be fair, that's a bit far-fetched. I barely heard about the Obama's mistake of referring to our nation as "fifty-eight states" but rather I have been inundated with youtube videos and SNL skits about Palin's failure to recite the Bush Doctrine. With the exception of a few late-night show hosts and conservative talking-heads and bloggers, the media never points out Obama's faults even through something just as harmless as humor, in fear that they will be portrayed as racist or politically incorrect.
I read further- "Factcheck; There He Goes Again", an article about how McCain's campaign has distorted Obama's potential tax policies through maligning ads. Well, welcome to politics. The Obama ticket does the same thing. How is this article even posted? It states the obvious. It might as well read, "McCain's Campaign Tries To Win Election Through Political Game."
In most instances, the site posts valid articles, but how can one read this and not recognize the blatant bias from a so-called non-partisan outlet. This more so annoys me than anything else.
Later, I asked one of my liberal peers to read over the site and tell me what she thought. In my explanation of the site, I stressed that it was non- partisan and a great source of fair journalism. Karina Siam, Sales manager at the La Sports Commission replied, "The site presented the news to me and took me straight to the source. The layout was appealing, user-friendly, and easy to navigate. This may turn into a viable news option as it pulls from different news sources and organizes for me." Karina didn't seem to catch the fact that the viewers are organizing the stories for her,
I would assume that those who read site would vote in full confidence that they are receiving a non-partisan, objective "guide to good journalism." It emphasizes the notion that people are comfortable and prefer reading "news" that parallels their own political beliefs.
It's an inevitable and continuous cycle; people submit stories they see as news, people validate by readership and consumption and thus more articles are posted which cater to the same audience.
NewsTrust, like many other new sites, claims to be non-partisan with the ability to pioneer its viewers to good online journalism. Frankly, due to the flagrant liberal spin and no conservative equivalent, biased partnership, and viewer's ability to rate articles perpetuating more of the same spin, I could not validate "their mission of good journalism" as my personal experience. All in all, though I can appreciate stories posted on NewsTrust, I wouldn't call it fresh or groundbreaking in regards to non-partisan journalism.
Recent Comments