Are you tired of reading non-objective articles written by what are supposed to be credible journalists? You're not alone. According to Pew Research, 66% of Americans say they consider the press "one-sided." (Wonder what side that is?) At SpinSpotter, they believe the mission of the press is supposed to be to inform us of the news, not persuade. However, that's not always the case these days.
With so many Americans getting their news online instead of in a daily newspaper, SpinSpotter decided to use the power of the web and all its many users to combat the growing trend of media bias. How? Simple: by making you the editor. With the new browser plugin from SpinSpotter, you can edit and share any sign of bias on the web.
The first step to becoming a SpinSpotter is to get the browser plugin, "Spinoculars." At the moment, this plugin is Firefox-only, but IE support is coming soon. After it's installed, you can begin to spot and share the media bias you find on the web. When you see a word or phrase that you feel is biased, select the word then click the "create spin marker" button. For example, in the demo they showed an article where someone was being identified as a "guru," - they disagreed that the person deserved that accolade. You can then correct the text with a word or phrase you feel would be more appropriate (ex: analyst, not guru).
When you come across an article that other users have identified as being biased, the "S" icon on the toolbar will light up. To see the Spin Markers left by other users, you can switch Spinoculars on. When "See Spin" is selected, you'll be shown the original text. When "See Edits" is selected, you'll see how the other user or users have edited the text. The various Spin Markers created are also rated by the community as a whole from lowest (1) to highest (5). With the Spin Level slider bar, you can choose what level you want to see. As you adjust this slider to only show the highest rated Markers, you'll see fewer edits.
When you're leaving a Spin Marker on a page, you must also identify what kind of spin it is. These rules come from the company's own Journalism Advisory Board and the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. From a drop-down box, you're provided with a list of choices to choose from. These different types of spin include: Reporter's Voice (the reporter is writing to convey meaning beyond supported evidence), Passive Voice (the subject of the sentence isn't the person performing the action; not identifying who did it!), Biased Source (the reporter doesn't disclose their view or affiliations or those of their source), Disregarded Context (the reporter leaves out parts of an event without giving equal weight to the full aspect of what happened), Selective Disclosure (the reporter fails to mention a critical element of the story), Lack of Balance (the reporter fails to give equal voice to both sides, or all sides, of a controversial story), Over-Reliance on Press Releases (the reporter reprints a press release as if it were a news story).
In addition to sharing your findings with the SpinSpotter community, you can also share the article through other online services like Digg and StumbleUpon, or you can email the article to your friends.
Want to see want Spin Makers look like? Check out this video from YouTube:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4868
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
All this will do is have folks who lean one way highlight the other as being non-objective. That's why political stories on Yahoo!, for instance, tend to get 2-3 stars constantly - people who agree give 5s, and those who hate, give 1s.
Posted by: Louis Gray
|
September 9, 2008 6:00 PM
In the meantime, SpinSpotter gets a complete browsing history from all that download their plugin, including duration of visit, referrers and all. Nice! That data must be worth something these days?
Posted by: foobar3001 | September 9, 2008 7:49 PM
I worry that this product falls into the noble but dull category. Everyone agrees that spin is a big issue but actually more and more people are migrating to Fox, talk radio and blogs which are highly biased. In my view the problem with US news media isn't bias, it is the way that bias is positioned as a neutral viewpoint.
I think news readers today are pretty sophisticated and realize that all news sources have a bias. If that is a problem then use two opposing news sources.
Posted by: Nigel Eccles | September 9, 2008 8:57 PM
Sorry, Nigel, have to disagree with you.
My coworker looked me straight in the eye and said with all the righteous indignation he's capable of "Fox News is the only one that's fair to the GOP!"
He also called CNN & MSNBC liberal.
When I asked him how he expected to prevent illegal immigrants w/o solving the underlying economic issues, he said we should shoot anyone coming over. He said without hate & he's not (overtly) racist.
He's a senior data warehousing guru, college-educated, and actually a good guy.
>I think news readers today are pretty sophisticated
Sorry. No, I don't think they are. Otherwise, Obama/Biden would've won this thing by now.
And yes, I do have a bias politically but this isn't about me or even the bias on the right. I actually respect them for just having an opinon.
It's the middle that sways back & forth for whatever reason that I don't understand. I honestly think a rational human being can see the spin and make informed choices.
And that choice, after all bias is removed, can't possibly be anything but Obama.
I don't think this is about spin. I think this is about backbone & critical thinking. And many in the middle don't have the sophistication to do that.
They simply sway with the wind.
Posted by: Sorry Nigel | September 10, 2008 8:03 AM
Wait. The founder of SpinSpotter donated to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth & rails against the NYT?
Yeah, I spotted spin all right.
I knew it had to be someone with either a hard right or left view to start this.
What a bunch of crap.
And I bet a Alan Colmes type "liberal" is there to make them look "fair & balanced"?
Yeaaaah.....
Posted by: I spot spin -- AT SPINSPOTTER! | September 10, 2008 8:09 AM
@LouisGray the parallel you draw between SpinSpotter and rating the entire story on Yahoo seems a bit off. SpinSpotter forces the user to flag certain words as spin, versus not liking the conclusion (or components) of the article and voting down the entire piece. Regardless, SpinSpotter will need tons of users for it to be at all useful. Not sure it scales on UGC alone.
Posted by: Christian Anderson
|
September 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Have you tried it? I found this review interesting:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=575
Turns out it's not that useful and doesn't identify much at all.
Posted by: Pete | September 10, 2008 11:38 AM
Seen Digg? There are stories there that are true but which have the following below the title: "[Reported by Diggers as Possibly Inaccurate]"
But those stories are true and from reputable, international organizations and often multi-sourced.
Why does it say "[Reported by Diggers as Possibly Inaccurate]"?
Because if enough people of the opposite political leaning vote against it, that shows up. They don't care that it's true -- or they mistakenly believe otherwise -- but if it goes against their beliefs they will suppress it.
That's what SS will end up being. A silly tug-of-war & I beat the company knows this & doesn't care b/c it's looking to get the consumer data.
Also, see @5 re: the company's link to the Swiftboaters. doesn't SS already have a bias (a spin)?
Posted by: obama is an islamic sexist jew! | September 10, 2008 1:42 PM
Your comments to Nigel and your blind enthusiasm for Obama (or anything else) are nothing less than scary.
You hang onto a slogan: change. Go ahead, look in your mirror tonight and tell yourself what that means. It's a meaningless slogan for discontents. You'll want change next year too. You don't like yourself or your life. Or you expect perfection in all things and want to 'hang' someone when it's not there.
And you, like most dull-witted folks, want someone else to pay for things you think you're 'entitled to'. You're about to get an earful from the rest of the world. They don't think you're entitled to free health care. Or food. Or a place to live. Looked at the international lifestyle lately? Nobody is entitled to anything. Sure, you and Obama can pass laws and take what others have. But the more the vermin swarm in and eat off the carcas the quicker it disappears. And sooner or later you'll look outward at the rest of the world and find not a helping hand to feed your lazy arse, but a bird, waiting to feast on the larvae that you have let yourself become.
So take your pretentious thoughts that no rational person could vote for anyone but Obama, go do some work for a few decades, and come back and explain why taking from the 'rich' is so righteous.
Posted by: re: sorry Nigel idiot | September 18, 2008 6:50 AM