Monday, September 20, 2004
The Biasphere
Earlier in the week, Dan Rather brushed aside critics of the Killian memos as "partisan political operatives". Yesterday, CBS News gleefully reported that one of the first individuals to accuse the memos of being forgeries had "strong ties to Republican causes." Some newspapers syndicating a Sunday Chicago Tribune piece (which was actually pretty fair) retitled it "Critics of CBS turn out to have Republican ties", referring specifically to the blog rathergate.com.
The implication: because some of the critics of CBS are Republicans, obviously their arguments cannot be credible.
Never mind the fact that many, many people noticed the CBS documents were forgeries at around the same time. Never mind the fact that rathergate.com came many days after the first websites posted research on the disputed documents. Never mind that the source of the now-debunked CBS memos was Kerry activist Bill Burkett. Never mind the fact that some of the most persuasive evidence has come from anti-Bush individuals such as Joseph Newcomer. (In fact, in the interests of full disclosure, even I'm a registered independent who voted for more Democrats last election than Republicans.)
But even if all of us had been right-wing gun-toting Limbaugh-loving Keyes-backing uber-conservatives... so what? Would our findings have been any more or less accurate based on political persuasion alone?
This debate comes up a lot when discussing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The mainstream press can't even say their name without mentioning the fact that many of their biggest financial donors are Republicans. But, again, so what? The Swift Vets are a registered non-partisan 527 group made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, who had disagreements with Kerry's actions and positions on Vietnam. Naturally, they asked for funding, and naturally, opponents of Kerry were more likely to give. Well, duh. Conversely, moveon.org is funded by opponents of Bush, which are mostly liberal activists and Kerry fundraisers. What else would you expect? That doesn't mean what either group has to say must be false because of those who support them. Would all the people dismissive of the Swift Vets because of Republican contributions be equally as dismissive of anti-Bush groups because of Democratic ties?
And what of movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, which creator Michael Moore has repeatedly said was created with the express purpose of taking down the Bush presidency? (Oh, I forgot -- that's just a "documentary.")
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a source's political bent into account when determining the truth and believability of a story or accusation. But we must acknowledge that supporters of Kerry aren't going to be the ones digging around for information against their candidate, any more than Bush supporters are going to be the ones digging for dirt on theirs. That negative information on a candidate or position will come from the opposition, not the supporters, is simple logic; you can't dismiss complaints about the left that come from the right any more than you can dismiss complaints about the right that happen to come from the left.
This is all indicative of a larger trend in the mainstream media, which is so unwilling to acknowledge a country evenly divided that conscious efforts are made to marginalize the conservative half. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are regularly described as right-leaning, but CNN and Time Magazine are never accurately described as slanting left. Bill O'Reilly is always a "conservative commentator" whereas Aaron Brown is simply, a commentator. Leftist viewpoints are considered mainstream, while conservative viewpoints must be labeled as such.
Even on issues such as abortion, in which the country remains evenly divided according to Gallup, the pro-life position is always considered the extreme view. The term "moderate Republican", for example, almost exclusively refers to a Republican with a pro-choice position. But if a Democrat is pro-life, are they called a moderate Democrat? Of course not. They are called a conservative Democrat. Every time.
This may or may not be a conscious case of bias. If everyone you surround yourself with believes a certain view, then naturally those who don't share that view must logically be in the fringe. Yet Fox News outranks CNN 2 to 1 in the ratings, Rush Limbaugh remains the highest rated radio broadcaster in history, and all three branches of government are currently run by conservatives. How can you be "in the fringe" when you're in the majority?
When vacationing in London last year, I was in a large bookstore trying to find Ambling Into History, about President Bush. Unable to locate it on the shelves, I asked a manager, who seemed intrigued by the unfamiliar title. Upon looking it up in the computer, his face turned sour, and he eyed me with disgust. "Ah," he explained condescendingly, "we try not to carry any books from Harper Collins; that's part of Rupert Murdoch's right-wing empire." Contempt and impatience growing, he grudgingly said I could special order the book if I "really wanted it," though recommended I just get it online from someone else instead. Never mind that this particular book, by Frank Bruni of the New York Times, was hardly a glowing pro-Bush treatise by anyone's definition. It was published by Harper Collins, which is owned by a right-winger, and therefore must all be 100% unworthy and false and evil and wrong.
Bottom line: for the same people who used to claim that liberal activist Ted Turner's CNN network was completely neutral despite the positions of its founder, to now claim that any source biased against Kerry must be suspect to the point of knee-jerk doubt and disbelief, is an incalculable idiocy. Of course it's important to observe whether the source of a story has a political ax to grind. But if you happen to be a Democrat, and a Republican points out that 2+2=4, you're not on intellectual high ground by claming 2+2 must therefore equal 5 instead.
(also posted to defeatjohnjohn.com)
Earlier in the week, Dan Rather brushed aside critics of the Killian memos as "partisan political operatives". Yesterday, CBS News gleefully reported that one of the first individuals to accuse the memos of being forgeries had "strong ties to Republican causes." Some newspapers syndicating a Sunday Chicago Tribune piece (which was actually pretty fair) retitled it "Critics of CBS turn out to have Republican ties", referring specifically to the blog rathergate.com.
The implication: because some of the critics of CBS are Republicans, obviously their arguments cannot be credible.
Never mind the fact that many, many people noticed the CBS documents were forgeries at around the same time. Never mind the fact that rathergate.com came many days after the first websites posted research on the disputed documents. Never mind that the source of the now-debunked CBS memos was Kerry activist Bill Burkett. Never mind the fact that some of the most persuasive evidence has come from anti-Bush individuals such as Joseph Newcomer. (In fact, in the interests of full disclosure, even I'm a registered independent who voted for more Democrats last election than Republicans.)
But even if all of us had been right-wing gun-toting Limbaugh-loving Keyes-backing uber-conservatives... so what? Would our findings have been any more or less accurate based on political persuasion alone?
This debate comes up a lot when discussing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The mainstream press can't even say their name without mentioning the fact that many of their biggest financial donors are Republicans. But, again, so what? The Swift Vets are a registered non-partisan 527 group made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, who had disagreements with Kerry's actions and positions on Vietnam. Naturally, they asked for funding, and naturally, opponents of Kerry were more likely to give. Well, duh. Conversely, moveon.org is funded by opponents of Bush, which are mostly liberal activists and Kerry fundraisers. What else would you expect? That doesn't mean what either group has to say must be false because of those who support them. Would all the people dismissive of the Swift Vets because of Republican contributions be equally as dismissive of anti-Bush groups because of Democratic ties?
And what of movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, which creator Michael Moore has repeatedly said was created with the express purpose of taking down the Bush presidency? (Oh, I forgot -- that's just a "documentary.")
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a source's political bent into account when determining the truth and believability of a story or accusation. But we must acknowledge that supporters of Kerry aren't going to be the ones digging around for information against their candidate, any more than Bush supporters are going to be the ones digging for dirt on theirs. That negative information on a candidate or position will come from the opposition, not the supporters, is simple logic; you can't dismiss complaints about the left that come from the right any more than you can dismiss complaints about the right that happen to come from the left.
This is all indicative of a larger trend in the mainstream media, which is so unwilling to acknowledge a country evenly divided that conscious efforts are made to marginalize the conservative half. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are regularly described as right-leaning, but CNN and Time Magazine are never accurately described as slanting left. Bill O'Reilly is always a "conservative commentator" whereas Aaron Brown is simply, a commentator. Leftist viewpoints are considered mainstream, while conservative viewpoints must be labeled as such.
Even on issues such as abortion, in which the country remains evenly divided according to Gallup, the pro-life position is always considered the extreme view. The term "moderate Republican", for example, almost exclusively refers to a Republican with a pro-choice position. But if a Democrat is pro-life, are they called a moderate Democrat? Of course not. They are called a conservative Democrat. Every time.
This may or may not be a conscious case of bias. If everyone you surround yourself with believes a certain view, then naturally those who don't share that view must logically be in the fringe. Yet Fox News outranks CNN 2 to 1 in the ratings, Rush Limbaugh remains the highest rated radio broadcaster in history, and all three branches of government are currently run by conservatives. How can you be "in the fringe" when you're in the majority?
When vacationing in London last year, I was in a large bookstore trying to find Ambling Into History, about President Bush. Unable to locate it on the shelves, I asked a manager, who seemed intrigued by the unfamiliar title. Upon looking it up in the computer, his face turned sour, and he eyed me with disgust. "Ah," he explained condescendingly, "we try not to carry any books from Harper Collins; that's part of Rupert Murdoch's right-wing empire." Contempt and impatience growing, he grudgingly said I could special order the book if I "really wanted it," though recommended I just get it online from someone else instead. Never mind that this particular book, by Frank Bruni of the New York Times, was hardly a glowing pro-Bush treatise by anyone's definition. It was published by Harper Collins, which is owned by a right-winger, and therefore must all be 100% unworthy and false and evil and wrong.
Bottom line: for the same people who used to claim that liberal activist Ted Turner's CNN network was completely neutral despite the positions of its founder, to now claim that any source biased against Kerry must be suspect to the point of knee-jerk doubt and disbelief, is an incalculable idiocy. Of course it's important to observe whether the source of a story has a political ax to grind. But if you happen to be a Democrat, and a Republican points out that 2+2=4, you're not on intellectual high ground by claming 2+2 must therefore equal 5 instead.
(also posted to defeatjohnjohn.com)
