is common for media specialists attend to complement relevant information. These professionals have become the benchmark for a negligible sector of the population, so it is important to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. In this case the use of this metaphor is intentional, and must also be taken literally.
There are some principles for judging the quality of analysis that we provide these experts, although there are some that really are not. First, objectivity in the social sciences especially, it is not possible. The view that a person has about an event is permeated by a subjectivity that can not be removed. This of course does not invalidate any opinion, as long as people know clearly who is the analyst, know their background, political affiliation and education. And the analyst also should be aware of this natural bias, so make a conscious effort of trying to balance what you say or tell when is giving an opinion.
What should we expect from an analyst? From my perspective, we need to properly contextualize the news you're commenting, which means in many cases the use of historical background, explanation of basic concepts and the identification of relevant actors. We also need any additional information necessary to enable us to a more comprehensive understanding of what happened. Also useful would be the exploration of scenarios, an educated and informed prediction based on the facts presented, that allows us to discern possible courses of action. Finally, it can be important opinion consulted, especially if it reveals a perception that we can confront our own beliefs.
What we do not want an analyst? Only give us feedback. Worse, that that opinion is not only a sophisticated elaboration common prejudices and opinions, the same we hear in the taxi on the corner and the buses, because if it were that we would prefer to stay with the original sources of those views , ie the taxi drivers, jocular and people who talk loudly on the bus.Tampoco want to just use common sense without making the effort to learn to deal with new elements will bring us. Or try to disguise hidden desires in the definition of possible scenarios. The clearest example of this approach where we see the interpretations given to some surveys, especially those who speak of voting intentions. Just days before the 2010 presidential election, some analysts insisted, calling for a partial, rather loose and interested in the polls, which would be a second round. We know what happened.
But there is another practice, we have seen particularly in recent times "analysts" appearing with unusual frequency in various media, which is probably the most damaging of all. Crudely is to use the spaces that provide them to promote themselves, presenting as objective analysis that is sometimes not a very well-disguised defense of certain characters. Those who engage in this practice are not really analysts but overlapping propagandists of political parties and people. Some people, I know that its only merit in life is an inexhaustible capacity of flattery, which try to cover up trying to put forward the "brush pass" as an intellectual exercise. Fortunately, these "analysts"-rather courtiers were quickly noticed the gap. But that does not mean we should not be alert.
important thing ultimately is always looking for other opinions, information and with that we can build our own criteria. Analysts can help, but they are not infallible and, as mentioned, in some cases there are competing interests at stake. Therefore it is important not to rely on only that
0 comments:
Post a Comment