bias

In the Wake Of The BP Disaster, Another Andersonville Trial

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments
Someone has to be held responsible, even if nobody is to blame.

Someone has to be held responsible, even if nobody is to blame.

I don’t know about you, but I was certainly surprised to discover that in the view of the Justice Department, two men I had never heard of, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, were the ones responsible for the April 20, 2010 explosion of a BP oil rig that caused millions of barrels of oil to leak into the Gulf of Mexico for months, polluting the waters and the shores and causing billions of dollars of damages. That is the clear implication of the decision to prosecute the two rig  supervisors for manslaughter in the deaths of the eleven BP workers who perished in the blast.

Obviously, this makes no sense at all. Other government authorities have treated the BP spill as resulting from a complex series of errors, misjudgments, and regulatory violations on the part of several companies and their management teams. The allocation of responsibilities and damages will take years to unravel. How then can Kaluza and Vidrine, who are accused of disregarding abnormally high pressure readings that according to the government should have alerted them to the danger of a  blowout at BP’s Macondo well, be the ones facing criminal charges and prison time? How can this be fair, just, or even possible?

It isn’t fair or just. It is possible because it is easier to finger the two middle-managers who inherited the flawed well equipment that was a ticking time bomb than to put a whole company, or many companies, behind bars. As the F.B.I. agent investigating the theft of the Declaration of Independence keeps telling Nicholas Cage’s treasure hunter in the Dan Brown rip-off  movie “American Treasure,” “Somebody has to go to jail.” Kaluza and Vidrine may be the designated villains for the BP spill. Their only crime was one of moral luck: they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the final links in a tangled chain of incompetence, corruption and miscalculations. Continue reading →

“Liz and Dick,” The Ethics Train Wreck Movie

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments
The real producer behind "Liz and Dick"?

The real producer behind “Liz and Dick”?

There was another movie I watched on TV when I was too sick to move, think, or, in this case, change channels: “Liz and Dick,” the infamous Lifetime Movie Network bio-pic starring Lindsay Lohan. Was it lousy? Sure it was lousy; there was no way such a film could have been anything but lousy. Lousy cable movies, however, are hardly news or uncommon, especially on LMN. Indeed, this one was probably in the upper 25% for the outfit that regular creates starring vehicles for the likes of Erika Eleniak and Kellie Martin. This one, however, was an ethics train wreck quite apart from its aesthetic flaws.

The whole project begins with a lie, albeit a popular and elaborately supported one, which is that Elizabeth Taylor was anything special as an actress. She was not. Taylor parlayed uncommon beauty, public sympathy, and later sexual notoriety into mega-celebrity status that drooling male movie critics disgracefully interpreted as genuine talent. She had a thin, unpleasant and brittle voice that made her already limited range even more so. She couldn’t play comedy, and didn’t have the chops for hard drama either. Continue reading →

Quick Ethics Quiz….

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

I routinely edit blog comments for typos and minor grammatical mistakes, both to assist with clarity and reading and also as a Golden Rule exercise—I have typo issues myself, as regular readers well know.

This comment just turned up on Edward Carney’s Comment of the Day (from September of 2011) about flying the Confederate flag:

“I know what the confederate flag means. I am not racist. I wanted to show that I am not for whats going on in this country. Their is a lot of people like me.You cannot change history.You can make new history with it.”

I was tempted not to fix it (there are four errors) but I decided that would be unfair.

Should I have left it as it was?

CREW vs. Issa: Biased Accuser, Guilty Accused

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Unethical for Rep. Issa to make it, and unethical that CREW didn’t

The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington does almost half a great job in its stated role as a government ethics watchdog. The supposedly non-partisan group is obviously partisan, since it goes after unethical Republican officials with frequency and relish while targeting unethical Democrats with infrequency and reluctance. CREW’s complaints, however, are almost always well-supported and legitimate. Why almost half a great job? CREW can’t be as effective in its efforts to expose unethical Republican conduct as it needs to be because its obvious bias makes the organization’s motives and judgment less trustworthy and more vulnerable to attack.

We have a perfect example in the news. “The Hill” reports that CREW….

“…has asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) violated rules by producing a video that attacks President Obama. Continue reading →

The AP’s Biased and Incompetent Racial Attitudes Poll

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

“There those whites go again, increasing racial tensions!”

All over the internet, the results of the AP’s just released “Racial Attitudes Poll” are being headlined as “proof” that racism is alive and well in America, and that racial bias has increased in the last four years. Either the poll is being released now to attempt to make Americans feel guilty about not wanting to vote for Barack Obama, or it is setting up the excuse for Obama’s defeat, should it occur, that only racism can account for such a successful, brilliant, eloquent leader being defeated. I apologize for the cynicism. With all the talk about “firewalls,” however, it seems self-evident that white guilt, which has been the target of pro-Obama racial politics from the beginning, is one of the most obvious, odious, and desperate.

The poll, in my analysis, is garbage, and unethical garbage as well. It is an accumulation of confirmation bias, locked in with horrible methodology. Continue reading →

The Global Warming Debate Is The World Series of Confirmation Bias

/ Jack Marshall / 43 Comments

Confirmation bias is the dastardly human thought tendency that makes objectivity virtually impossible, and fair analysis nearly so. It is the human instinct to view external facts and events in such a way that they confirm preexisting beliefs, or, if they challenge these beliefs, to find reasons to distrust the facts or explain them away.

A line in a Washington Post book review caused me to realize that nothing  exemplifies confirmation bias at work better than the global warming controversy. It was a review by Post business editor Alan Sipress of “Spillover,”  a new book about how pandemics spread. He wrote:

“This year, a mild winter and an unusually hot summer — which look suspiciously like results of man-made climate change — yielded a bumper crop of virus-carrying mosquitoes. The result is an unprecedented outbreak that has sickened people in almost every state.”

Wait a minute: why does the past year’s mild winter and unusually hot summer “look suspiciously like results of man-made climate change”? Were there never mild winters with scorching summers before scientists developed climate change models? And why do those two factors, when paired, “look suspiciously” like man-made climate change? What about the winter and summer of 2012 screamed “man-made”? Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Ann Althouse

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

“The silent sadness of the CBS newswoman’s face at 0:29… hilarious. So funny that these newsfolk don’t activate actorly skills to project the appearance of professionalism and neutrality.”

—Attorney/blogger Ann Althouse, commenting on the doleful expression on CBS newswoman Norah O’Donnell’s face after the report that the network’s focus group of undecided voters scored last night’s debate a victory for Mitt Romney.

The video:

Althouse’s observation is perceptive, as hers often are. Although many studies have found that the facial expressions, body language and vocal inflections of broadcast news journalists influence audience perceptions and opinions, and carry at least as much potential for bias and slanted reporting as the news content itself, few of O’Donnell’s colleagues, if any, make any effort to ensure that these non-verbal communications are objective as a matter of professionalism and fairness. This is because broadcast journalism has largely abandoned fairness, objectivity and professionalism as priorities or industry standards. Continue reading →

Ethics Alarms Verdicts: The Second Debate

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

Some Ethics-related conclusions on Wednesday’s second Presidential debate:

Were the candidates uncivil?

I didn’t think so. There were a lot of Twitter comments about Gov. Romney being disrespectful to the President. The deference due to the President of the United States isn’t an issue when debates hew to the formal, detached format of the past. In those debates, the tone of the exchanges are so muted that the two candidates could be in different time zones. Once a different tone is set, with either candidate directly challenging statements while the other candidate is speaking, that tradition has fled, as it did last night. The challenger to a sitting President can hardly be told that he needs to be deferential in a debate; that is the equivalent of asking him to fight with one hand tied behind his back. I thought that both candidates were within the bounds of civility under the circumstances. It was certainly not the civility that I complimented in the second debate—it was a heated, sometimes rancorous argument, but it was the argument of two passionate, forceful, serious public servants, and it served the public well. Neither candidate displayed the contemptuous, rude attitude that Joe Biden adopted in the Vice-Presidential debate. Biden crossed the civility line, but the President and his challenger did not.

Was the moderator biased? Continue reading →

Ken Blackwell’s Obamaphone Smear: Yes, Ohio, A Black Man CAN Make Racist Ad

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Proving that a black man can do anything a white man can, like making a racist anti-Obama ad!

There are three things wrong with Ken Blackwell’s anti-Obama attack ad, courtesy of the Tea Party Victory Fund, which the former Cincinnati mayor and former Ohio Secretary of State leads:

1. It focuses on the Obamaphone, which is not an Obama give-away program, but an old program that has always offered free cell phones to the poor under certain conditions. Thus it is misleading and dishonest.

2. It stars the “Obamaphone Lady,” one of the ignorant and embarrassing Obama supporters captured on video by James O’Keefe clones to stereotype Obama supporters as fools. Yes, she’s a particularly appalling idiot. Both parties have plenty of them, however, and using any idiot to mock the candidate he or she supports is the epitome of cheap-shot, unethical politics. In this regard, the ad, like the video, is unfair and irresponsible.

3. The particular idiot chosen for this exercise is black, used to criticize a black President, whose strongest support comes from the black community. As a result, the ad is racist and offensive. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Conundrum of the Anti-Gay Marriage Diversity Officer

/ Jack Marshall / 121 Comments

…But be sure to think about it who will see it before you do!

Ethics, law, fairness and common sense are locked in a complex battle in this story, which comes out of Gallaudet University, the famous Washington D.C. school for the deaf.

Dr. Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet’s chief diversity officer, has been put on administrative leave and may face dismissal because the school learned that she had signed a petition opposing Maryland’s same-sex marriage law.  McCaskill apparently signed the petition at her church after her preacher spoke against gay marriage. A measure is on the Maryland ballot that could overturn the recently-passed state law approving same-sex marriage.

Does she have an absolute right to sign a petition in favor or opposing any political or social policy? Yes. Is this a petition something a university official in charge of promoting diversity is wise to sign? No. Is a university whose diversity officer chooses to sign such a petition behaving fairly and responsibly to decide that it should have someone else in that position?

Hmmmm.

And that’s your weekend Ethics Alarms Quiz:

Is it fair and responsible for a university to fire its diversity chief because she signed a petition opposing gay marriage? Continue reading →