Regarding disclosure of biases in opinion threads

[kcantankerous]

Hello,

From a journalistic or persuasive speech standpoint, is it better to divulge one's personal biases before or afterwards? This is a half baked question so feel free to ask for elaboration.

Thanks,
K

 

[milagros317]

I would say it's best for the writer to reveal his or her biases at the beginning, so the reader doesn't feel tricked when learning them at the end.

 

[kcantankerous]

I would say it's best for the writer to reveal his or her biases at the beginning, so the reader doesn't feel tricked when learning them at the end.

That was what I was thinking as well, but at the same time, wouldn't the reader put up their guard if they see it in the beginning? Maybe that is more favorable, as you said, than making the feel cheated at the end.

I've tried both was personally, still not sure which is better. Milagros I think you most would agree with your stance.

Thanks,
K

 

[PiedPiper]

It's all in how you express it

Commencing a written piece with some sort of cut & dried disclaimer about favoring one political party over the other,... or being solely in the corner of one and only one constituency,.... that's not going to work. Too literal, for one thing,.... and it tends to trivialize whatever you're going to say.

I think a better approach might be to alert the reader to whatever specialized suitability you might have for your treatment of a topic; if the subject is debt and you're an accountant, for example. Noting that reason my be more readily based upon (objective) logic than upon (subjective) morality is another way to let folks know HOW your conclusions are going to be reached, without necessarily telegraphing the conclusions to be reached.

Do you want to begin an editorial comment by pasting "democrat" or "republican" in your sub-heading,.... or would you prefer that the reader know you are a rational and educated commenter? Labels are part of our problem, nationally,....

 

[kcantankerous]

Commencing a written piece with some sort of cut & dried disclaimer about favoring one political party over the other,... or being solely in the corner of one and only one constituency,.... that's not going to work. Too literal, for one thing,.... and it tends to trivialize whatever you're going to say.

I think a better approach might be to alert the reader to whatever specialized suitability you might have for your treatment of a topic; if the subject is debt and you're an accountant, for example. Noting that reason my be more readily based upon (objective) logic than upon (subjective) morality is another way to let folks know HOW your conclusions are going to be reached, without necessarily telegraphing the conclusions to be reached.

Do you want to begin an editorial comment by pasting "democrat" or "republican" in your sub-heading,.... or would you prefer that the reader know you are a rational and educated commenter? Labels are part of our problem, nationally,....

You are absolutely right under that context. What I was think when I originally posed the question was that maybe either before or after a post I might put "I consider myself a Christian however I don't believe in (insert traditionally religious topic here) and here is why" Something that degree. Like if it is a thread about race or something that might offend someone of my color I'd say "I am saying as a black man that it is ok for someone to have a confederate flag".

I pulled those two examples out of my ass but was trying to get at what my thought process was. I hate labels like you do. Democrat doesn't mean you have to be pro choice. Republican doesn't have to mean your religious. I hate that us versus them dynamic. Someone mentioned that is what some folks in power want to exist. I don't know about all that but it definitely isn't helpful. To me it is actually very lazy that our politics seems to be divided in that fashion.

Thanks for your interest in the topic,
K