bias

Case Study In How Bias Rots Integrity: Washington Post Columnist Harold Meyerson

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments
You see, Harold, this is your brain on bias. Yes, I know it looks yummy...

You see, Harold, this is your integrity on bias. Yes, I know it looks yummy…

Back in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, I exchanged some e-mails with Harold Meyerson, the left-est of the Post’s op-ed liberals. He had been condemning the Bush administration’s decision to go to war against Iraq—we were technically still at war with Iraq, since no peace terms had ever been agreed upon from the previous war, and Saddam was blatantly violating the terms of a cease-fire, but never mind—saying, among other things, that this was the first time in American history that the nation had embarked on a “war of choice” rather than necessity. This was a popular, and ignorant, “talking point” used by the anti-war critics at the time, and I was thoroughly sick of it being shouted in CNN debates without any objective participant protesting that it was a lie. I pointed out to the columnist that this was historical fantasy clothed as fact, and that he owed his readers better.

Most U.S. wars have been “wars of choice,” I wrote, and presumably Meyerson knew this. Arguably only the War of 1812, World War II and Afghanistan didn’t fit that description. The Revolution wasn’t a “war of choice”? Of course it was….most of the country would have been happy to stay subjects of the Crown. The Mexican War was not merely a “war of choice” but a war of “let’s trump up a reason to take away all this land belonging to Mexico” war.  Lincoln certainly didn’t have to oppose the secession of the Southern states and start the Civil War; indeed, the best Constitutional analysis is that he was acting beyond his authority to do so.The Spanish-American War? World War 1? Korea? Vietnam? Granada? Desert Storm? What country was Meyerson talking about?

To my surprise, Meyerson replied, politely and, I thought, a bit sheepishly. Yes, he said, of course you are right, but this war is more of a war of choice than those were. Translation: “I oppose this war, and the party of this President, so I’ll say whatever is necessary to get people to agree with me, and I’ll convince myself in the process.” I’ve never taken a Meyerson column seriously since. His reasoning process, like so many on the ends of either side of the political spectrum, is to frame reality in the way that most comfortably supports his ideological objective, and then to allow that warped reality to become part of his own world view. I think this kind of thought process by confirmation bias should disqualify any infected media pundits from commentary, as much as habitual dishonesty, dementia or insanity.

Today, Meyerson once again shows how his biases rot his reasoning and integrity. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “No, It’s Actually Allison Benedikt Who’s A Bad Person”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Liberal-Conservative

Here is David Shuster’s superb Comment of the Day, which is wise and greatly appreciated, on the post No, It’s Actually Allison Benedikt Who’s A Bad Person.

“Can we please drop/reform the “liberal” and “conservative” labels already? You state that Benedikt is a bad liberal; not quite true, she is utterly illiberal. She argues for state-compelled coercion circumventing individuals’ choice of how to raise their children. Her argument rests on illogical Marxist claptrap that prioritizes “the good of society” ie: the collective, over individual free will. I take back my previous statement, she is not illiberal, she is positively anti-liberal.

“I realize that this is quibbling over semantics, but in this case a rose by any other name really does smell differently. The Left and Democrats in general have self-identified for decades as “liberal”. While this label may have been appropriate 50 years ago, it certainly is not now. The Republicans’ social conservatism is rightly derided as illiberal in that it expects individuals’ sexual preferences to be dictated by the state. However, the Democrats’ claims of being “liberal” are becoming more laughable everyday; so much so that they have essentially become a parody of the classical liberal values they assure the population that they stand for. In fact, it appears as though the only things the Democrats envision people being free to do are the things the social conservatives oppose; in short, the Republicans want the state in your bedroom, the Democrats want the state everywhere else.

“We don’t have a “conservative” party and a “liberal” party, we have two statist parties with no alternative. Take gay marriage. I gave tentative applause for the Obama admin taking an explicit stand in support of it (truth be told, IMO the true “liberal” stand on this issue would be for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether, straight, gay, polygamous, whatever and let freedom of association dictate how people live with one another, but I guess that makes me a radical…). However, look at the illiberal consequences of this stance; wedding vendors with an admitted religious opposition to gay marriage but no prejudice against gays personally being forced by the government to render services against their will to gay weddings (see NM supreme court case). It’s beyond belief and IMO a violation of the 13th amendment; how can that be considered “liberal”? Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of The Month: Martin Luther King III

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“The vision preached by my father a half-century ago was that his four little children would no longer live in a nation where they would judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother and father remind us that, far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one’s character.”

–— Martin Luther King III, the son of the martyred civil rights leader and humanist, speaking in front of the Lincoln memorial before thousands gathered on the National Mall  to commemorate the upcoming 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 March on Washington, and his iconic “I have a dream” speech.

The passage was despicable and inexcusable, an insult to his father’s legacy and all of the courageous and sincere Americans, black and white, who have worked hard and effectively this past half-century to make remarkable progress toward the society that Rev. King envisioned.

“The tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother”  have exactly nothing at all to do with racial profiling or a “license to murder.” King’s son, proving once again that greatness of character and mind is seldom passed on to succeeding generations, chose to engage in divisive, misleading and cheap rhetoric that undermine his father’s goal of bring the races together. In this he was certainly consistent with the motivations of the event’s organizers, prominent among them Al Sharpton, whose paycheck and existence on the national scene depends on furthering the illusion of widespread racial discord, prejudice and injustice.

Even allowing for the excesses of oratory, the younger King’s speech deliberately misrepresented the historical, legal and factual record, which is this: a mixed-race citizen was pre-judged to be guilty of racism and murder by the color of his skin, and then demonized in order to provide a rallying point for a race-based political agenda. The civil rights establishment, aided by a complicit media and irresponsible politicians, distorted the facts of a tragic encounter so effectively that most Africans-Americans believe the lies rather than the facts, and bullied a politicized prosecution into bringing a criminal case to trial it could only win by jury intimidation, for it did not have sufficient evidence. Against all odds, a courageous jury embodied the best of the American justice system by properly acquitting an unpopular defendant who could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that is crucial to maintaining racial justice in the courts. Despite this inspiring display of character, the organizers of today’s event, its supporters, and most of those in attendance, have chosen to judge those jurors as biased, comparing them to the bigoted jurors in the Emmett Till murder trial, based on the color of their skin.

How immensely hypocritical, destructive and sad.

Martin Luther King propelled the cause of racial harmony and justice forward on August 28, 1963.

Today his son made pushed that cause backward to-day in favor of hate, suspicion, and ignorance, 50 years later.

Jonathan Capehart’s Confrontation Against Bigotry: Better Than Nothing, But Not Enough

/ Jack Marshall / 71 Comments

confrontationWashington Post writer Jonathan Capehart shared a personal experience in a column today. Attending an aunt’s funeral in  church in the North Carolina community of her birth, he sat fuming as a guest minister used the occasion to condemn all gays as sinners, and urging them to use faith to give up their sinful ways.

Capehart, who is openly gay, decided that he was obligated not to accept this insult without a response. Here is what he did:

“After the visiting preacher was thanked for his rousing sermon by the congregation and the home pastor, the two made their way to us in the  front pew. During his oration, I vowed I would not shake his hand. But I did, given the immediate circumstances. So I used that as opportunity to make my displeasure known. As he shook my hand and leaned down for a sympathetic hug, I told the preacher, “Your sermon was offensive!” He leaned back, looked at me and replied, “What?” I repeated, “Your sermon was offensive to me. I need you to know that. That’s all I have to say.”

That seemed to satisfy Capehart. “As he moved his way down the pew, the anger I felt was replaced by relief and pride. Never before had I faced down religion-based bigotry. And it felt great.”

I feel terrible for Capehart having to endure such an indignity, and I’m glad what he did  made him feel better. But in no way did he “face down religious bigotry,” and I agree that facing down religious bigotry was called for. What did he do, really? He told the reverend that he was offended. He didn’t even say why he was offended. Continue reading →

“Studies Prove BMW Drivers Are Jerks”….And So It Begins

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments
"Look at THAT jerk. What's he up to, I wonder?"

“Look at THAT jerk. What’s he up to, I wonder?”

If you would like to ponder on how prejudices, stereotypes and bias worm their way into our brains, look no further than here, a Yahoo! report, via the Wall Street Journal, about how research backs up the widespread belief that drivers of BMWs are jerks. (Full disclosure: my son drives an old BMW, and loves it dearly. I love it less, because repairing the damn thing has required me to moonlight by entertaining at kids’ birthday parties and rodeos…)

Various studies, we are told, show drivers of the car are less likely to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and to take the upper hand at four-way stops. In addition,

“…in the U.K., motorists were asked to identify the make and color of the car from which they have most frequently suffered road-rage incidents…The study of 2,837 motorists found men between the ages of 35 and 50 driving blue BMWs were most likely to be reported as having engaged in road-rage behaviors such as aggressive driving and swearing.” Continue reading →

Regarding The News Media Covering For The President: Will Democrats Ever Have The Integrity To Admit How Dangerous And Wrong This Is?

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

Nothing to see hereThis was going to be a completely different post. This week President Obama went on the Tonight Show, since, in this civically complacent, lazy and ignorant country, far more voters will watch him there than in his press conferences. In the process of his relaxed chat with Jay, the President made a number of surprising gaffes, verbal, factual, geographical and historical: 1) he confused the Summer with the Winter Olympics, 2) he incorrectly said that Russia’s Putin had been the head of the KGB (he was a long-time mid-level KGB official), 3) he seemed to say that Savannah, Georgia, Jacksonville, Florida and Charleston, South Carolina are on the Gulf of Mexico, when in fact they are on the Atlantic Coast, and 4) he mangled his words so that he appeared to be wishing that more people were killed in terrorist attacks, when he meant to say, pretty obviously, that too many people were killed in traffic accidents. Naturally, the conservative media went crazy with “we told you so’s” after this, recalling the President’s infamous “57 states” mistake and hammering its long-held contention that the President’s vaunted brilliance and mastery of knowledge are carefully maintained, teleprompter-aided myths.

My post was originally going to point out that this is nothing but “tit for tat,” two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right unfairness melded with confirmation bias by conservatives and the right-leaning media. Yes, it’s true: these are exactly the kinds of mistakes that the liberal news media (but I repeat myself *) have roasted and mocked various Republicans over, from Eisenhower to Reagan through Dan Quayle, both Bushes, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, and those attacks were excessive and unfair, at least most of them.** True, Obama is more arrogant than any of these, and it is somewhat satisfying to catch him saying something that would be corrected by a seventh grad teacher, but that’s a petty motivation to claim significance for what is more likely the result of fatigue and poor briefing. I think its fair, indeed necessary, for the media to point out the blunders, if only so the public isn’t actively misinformed, and if the fact of his giving out flawed information lessens the tingle up the legs of some Obama supporters, so be it. Still, it’s not a big deal, and shouldn’t be represented as otherwise, regardless of the clear double standard at work.

This is a big deal, however: The Associate Press actively and intentionally set out to cover for the President, and hide his most significant gaffe rather than report on it.  In quoting the President’s erroneous statements about the Gulf ports that aren’t actually on the Gulf, the AP’s version was this:

‘”If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf – (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. – if we don’t do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we’ll lose jobs,’ Obama said.”

That’s a blatant partisan clean-up job, not reporting. After several blogs blew the whistle on the AP, it issued a retraction and apology: Continue reading →

Badonkadonkeys

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments
A face for radio, in D.C., anyway...

A face for radio, in D.C., anyway…

One would think—wouldn’t  one?— that I could listen to a baseball game on my car radio without being jolted intro an Ethics Alarms column, but nooooooo…

Here I am, sort-of listening to the Orioles game while running to the grocery store, and suddenly I hear two morning jocks have this exchange:

“So there, in line for the roller coaster, is this woman eating a funnel cake, and she has this comically huuuuge badonkadonk butt! It is the biggest butt I have ever seen! I couldn’t take my eyes off it!”

“How was she going to fit into the roller coaster seat with that badonkadonk?”

Well, I don’t think she could! And I came this close to saying, “Ma’am, would you please stand over here so I can take a photo of your comically gigantic badonkadonk butt as you eat your funnel cake?”

(hysterical laughter) Continue reading →

The Best Of The Ethical Ann Althouse

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

woman_falling_from_a_balcony

In a recent post, I criticized blogger Ann Althouse for an ethics commentary misfire, along with the error of not allowing readers to comment on it, and thus point out where her analysis went wrong. I would not want to leave the impression that this was typical of Althouse in any way, or discourage any reader here from sampling her generally fascinating and well-written observations. Luckily, today she delivered a post which I would put among her best, a measured and deft take-down of Slate’s often silly feminist blogger L.V. Anderson, for a classic diatribe dripping with manufactured accusations of gender bias in a news story where none exists.

This is the real Ann Althouse, and you should read the entry, here.

___________________

Sources: Althouse, Slate

Graphic: Oceansbridge

Helpful Civility Hint For Newspaper Editors: Don’t Tell The President of The U.S. To “Shove It”

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments
Classic song, catch phrase, unethical headline.

Classic song, catch phrase, unethical headline.

In a classic example of the stark difference in world views between the so-called “conservative media” and the mainstream (a.k.a. Left-biased) news media, the firing of a Chattanooga newspaper editor for an editorial headline telling President Obama to  “shove it”is either being held up as proof that the President’s allies are censoring the news and trying to drive objective journalists out of their jobs, or being ignored as a local story with no larger implications.

The story has larger implications, and they are these: Continue reading →

Lauren Green vs Reza Aslan Aftermath: Attack Of The Spinners

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

spinningThe interview Lauren Green of Fox news inflicted on her guest, Reza Aslan, was bad journalism, bad television, and just plain wrong–unfair, unreasonable, and biased. In a sane U.S., nobody would defend such a dull-edged hatchet job, which appeared to be crafted, by Green or her Dark Lords at Fox, to make the network’s conservative Christian viewers happy by accusing a scholar of religious bias for simply challenging the historical accuracy of the New Testament. But this is an insane, crazily partisan U.S., where every perceived defeat in the culture wars is cause for garment rending, so such niceties as being honest when one of your allies misbehaves is considered tantamount to surrender.

Thus along comes conservative religious scholar Matthew J. Franck, who on his blog First Thoughts hands the Christian Soldiers of the Right just the ammunition they need to rehabilitate Green. (Note: Green revealed herself as a shameless hack, and doesn’t deserve to be rehabilitated.) Naturally, the strategy is to discredit Aslan, and this he tries to do with gusto in not one, but two blog posts. His accusation: Aslan misrepresented his scholarly credentials, when he was trying repeatedly to challenge Green’s idiotic contention that a Muslim isn’t qualified to write about Jesus. This means, concludes Franck, that Aslan can’t be trusted, so Green was right all along. His book should be ignored.

Ironically enough, this calls to mind another one of Bickmore’s Laws (His First Law of Being Biased was featured in the original post about Green’s interview) , Bickmore’s Second Law of Being Biased:

Nitpicking others’ arguments is not the same thing as “critical thinking.”  That involves nitpicking your own arguments.

This applies nicely to Franck’s attack on Aslan.

Aslan said, off the cuff and while being badgered by Green, Continue reading →