I had intended to post on Michael Tomasky’s piece at The New Republic but James Joyner beat me to it. I will only commend James’s post to your attention adding some remarks of my own. James’s post is difficult to summarize. To some extent it’s a lament over the state of modern journalism.
I will add two observations of my own, one about the nature of bias in reporting and the other about how newspapers slant the news.
Mr. Tomasky leans to the left. I’m quite sure he would agree. But it is the nature of political bias that your view is solipsistic; you tend to see anyone who espouses views your perceive as right-wing as right-wing and anyone who espouses views to your left as left-wing regardless of their actual position on the political spectrum.
Every couple of years I calibrate my own political views based on the The Political Compass. They invariably place me in the center, occasionally very slightly libertarian or very slightly culturally conservative but extremely slightly—basically a dot’s width. That’s why I feel qualified to observe the left or right leanings of various news outlets or other people.
Lest you think that the center is a comfortable place—it isn’t. When I comment on other blogs (as I do) I am frequently castigated as a left-wing or right-wing tool, depending on the POV of the commenter.
I agree with Mr. Tomasky’s complaints about Fox News as being right-wing; I take just about anything else he says with a grain of salt.
The most frequent complaint I get is what is now called “bothsidesism”. That is usually followed by a torrent of what is now called “whataboutism”. I can only observe that I come from a political family. When I was a kid judges, elected officials at all levels, and our Congressional representative were occasional guests in our home. Our senator’s kid was in my patrol in Scouts. I met the senator numerous times. More recently I’ve had lunch sitting across the table from our governor (or someone who would soon become governor) on more than one occasion. I’ve shared the elevator with the mayor, the Secretary of State, or the governor. I chat with our City Council representative while walking my dog. You may not like it but politicians are politicians.
Both of our political parties are horrifically corrupt. I don’t give much of a damn about Republicans because they don’t have much effect on my life. I would like to see a better, less corrupt Democratic Party and do what I can in my small way to make that happen.
Now to news media. Lying is not the only way that news outlets slant the news. There are basically three ways: the stories they cover, the stories they do not cover, and how they cover the stories they do. About 50 years ago news reporting began to change from the 5Ws (who, what, where, when, why) to the point-of-view style. The point-of-view style means that stories are inherently slanted one way or another. Sometimes balance is attempted by citing an opposing view. There are multiple ways of slanting that, too. You can place the opposing view twenty paragraphs after the view being advocated, for example. The eminence or credibility of the individual with the opposing view may not actually be comparable with that of the individual espousing the primary view. Choice of language helps, too. Pointing out the political affiliation of the individual with the opposing view while you did not point out the political affiliation of the individual with the primary view.
Just a couple of comments.
1) “Pointing out the political affiliation of the individual with the opposing view while you did not point out the political affiliation of the individual with the primary view.”
I think the larger problem is citing someone as an expert or having an objective view when they are clearly working for an organization where they get paid to push a specific POV or have a long history of bias in what they say. That should never be hidden.
2) The details matter. It remains mind boggling that most Republicans still believe Trump won. Every claims has been investigated and found wanting. The lawsuits have all been lost. Multiple audits, even when the GOP gets to choose openly partisan auditors, have not found anything. Fox paid out almost a $1 billion because they lied. Rudy lost a suit because he lied about vote counting.
(I place one dot to the left liberal and 2 1/2 dots south towards libertarian.
Steve
I just took the test again and am about where I’ve always been – center on the economic scale with a non-trivial libertarian lean on the social scale – about 1/3 of the way toward the extreme.
Of course, my complaint with a lot of these tests is that the question forces a binary choice when, at least IMO, there either isn’t a binary choice, or which side I’d land on the binary would depend on the details and other unmentioned factors.
I wrote a longish comment on Jame’s post, which I’m sure won’t be well received.
I’ve grown to loathe the whole “bothsiderism” and “whataboutism” claims. These are selectively used as a dodge and are not based on any principle. Especially by partisans who want bothsiderism when it suits them and whine about it when it doesn’t. It’s really useless.
But I think you get at the core issue about POV reporting as opposed to reporting based on objective standards.
I think the bias of many news media outlets is so strong that they are incapable of recognizing their own bias.
Andy:
I think that’s countered to some extent by repeatedly asking what is essentially the same question multiple times in multiple different ways.
Dave Schuler: Lying is not the only way that news outlets slant the news.
Truth is the fundamental value. People, newspapers, editors, writers, bloggers can and do have sorts of views, but they should adhere to the truth. It’s one thing to believe that human life should be protected from the moment of conception. That’s a value judgment. But it’s another thing to claim that Democrats are Nazis who want to kill babies after they are born.
It’s also dishonest to claim that opposition to abortion is radical while supporting abortion on demand all the way to term isn’t.
The truth is that both completely outlawing abortion and allowing abortion on demand all the way to term are radical positions.
Zachriel,
The problem is that for most people, “truth” is contingent on values. Truth isn’t objectively definable. For many things, there is no “truth” because of various factors like differences in values, the inevitable tradeoffs, and relative priorities.
In short, “truth” is inherently subjective, and so we shouldn’t be surprised that people complain about a lack of truth only for things that conflict with their own view of what is or should be.
Andy:The problem is that for most people, “truth†is contingent on values.
Could you provide an example of what you mean?
“Could you provide an example of what you mean?”
You mentioned abortion. What is the truth there? One’s position depends on the extent to which people believe the “unborn” children deserve protection, and to what extent and under what conditions a woman can terminate a pregnancy. Those are all value judgments. And the other side of the “Democrats are Nazis who want to kill babies” invective is the invective that “Republicans are Nazi’s that want to kill and enslave women.”
What is the truth here?
Expanding out, the same dynamic is at play on questions of politics, policy, culture, and related questions. The problem is there is no truth for most of these questions. The facts don’t speak for themselves. Political values are not facts that can be adjudicated. Neither are policy preferences. Neither are moral judgments. Neither are inevitable differences when values or principles collide.
One thing I would add to Andy’s comment above is that preferences are not matters of fact and they differ from person to person. You cannot objectively prove that one set of preferences is right while the other is wrong.
Andy: One’s position depends on the extent to which people believe the “unborn†children deserve protection . . . Those are all value judgments.
That’s right. That’s a value judgment, not something subject to objective determination. But, when Tucker Carlson says he’s not a journalist and therefore shouldn’t be held to the standard of truth, it’s a cop-out. Everyone, everyone should be held to the standard of truth, most especially people with a platform.
Part of honesty is making clear the differences between values and facts. If someone says they believe life should be protected from conception, then that is a legitimate statement of value. Most people share many common values, so that makes ethical discussions possible. But saying the Earth is fixed and the Heavens revolve around the Earth is not a statement of values, but something that can be objectively refuted.
” Everyone, everyone should be held to the standard of truth, most especially people with a platform. ”
What is the standard of truth, exactly?
“Part of honesty is making clear the differences between values and facts.”
Most – if not all – people cannot reliably, consistently, and accurately tell the difference between facts, values, opinions, opinions based on facts, analysis of facts, opinions based on analysis, analysis and advocacy, information vs. source. Etc. Etc.
I was trained to make those separations and fail at consistently doing that all the time. It’s takes real effort and even then it’s extremely difficult.
“But saying the Earth is fixed and the Heavens revolve around the Earth is not a statement of values, but something that can be objectively refuted.”
Sure, which why there are only a handful of nuts that believe that. Unfortunately, on a planet with billions of people, there are going to be a lot of nuts, even if the percentage is very small.
But I think that’s a strawman. Political disagreements today and the shouting from various sides aren’t about nuts who believe the heavens revolve around the earth. All the big questions that partisans fight about are not really questions about facts at that scale.
“supporting abortion on demand all the way to term isn’t.”
Which doesnt happen.
” “truth†is contingent on values”
For some things that is absolutely true. Is the US the bestest country in the world? I think so, but that is based upon my values. Someone who prefers colder weather and lutefisk might prefer another country. That said, there are things where the truth is not conditioned upon values. Trump didnt win the election. There is no evidence to support that. Believing that is not a matter of values.
Steve
Andy: Most – if not all – people cannot reliably, consistently, and accurately tell the difference between facts, values, opinions, opinions based on facts, analysis of facts, opinions based on analysis, analysis and advocacy, information vs. source. Etc. Etc.
So, people can *never* tell the difference between facts and opinions, between falsehoods and deliberate deception? Just because there are gray areas or complex cases doesn’t relinquish one’s responsibility to the truth.
Another example: There is strong scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. One might argue that some proposed responses will have draconian effects. That would depend on the specifics. Gee whiz. Someone who hates humanity might even welcome global warming! That’s a value judgment. However, denying the scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming is not a basis for a rational position.
Someone who hates humanity might even welcome the “draconian effects” of some of the proposed responses.
“So, people can *never* tell the difference between facts and opinions”
You are straw-manning again. I never said never. But the fact is that a lot of people cannot “reliably” (the word I used) tell the difference. That doesn’t mean they can never tell the difference.
You mention climate change. The press regularly passes assessments and expert opinions off as fact. For example, despite the fact that the NOAA and IPCC both categorically state that there is no observable climate change signal when it comes to hurricanes and tropical storms, tons of people believe that the signal is there and the media often reports that whenever their is a hurricane.
Same thing with Covid. Lots of things that were assessments or expert opinion, or were simply unknown, were reported as if they were facts.
Andy: But the fact is that a lot of people cannot “reliably†(the word I used) tell the difference.
And? Then what? That’s where you left it. Just because there are gray areas or complex cases, it doesn’t relinquish one’s responsibility to the truth. And for a prominent counterexample, Fox News argued–in court no less–that the truth didn’t matter with regards to Tucker Carlson, his words couldn’t be taken at face value. In other words, they know the difference, but argued it didn’t matter.
Andy: For example, despite the fact that the NOAA and IPCC both categorically state that there is no observable climate change signal when it comes to hurricanes and tropical storms, tons of people believe that the signal is there and the media often reports that whenever their is a hurricane.
A good example. There is some evidence that there is a climate change signal with regards to tropical storms, but it is not conclusive. However, that doesn’t justify the right-wing media waving their hands that because there is some ambiguity and misreporting in this specific area that it somehow undermines the strong scientific evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming. The proper response is to honestly report the facts concerning anthropogenic global warming, while also accurately reporting on the limitations of the evidence with regards to tropical storms.
“were reported as if they were facts.”
True for people who are dependent upon reading internet pundits or watching YouTube as primary sources. If you were able to access and read the primary studies and had the necessary education/experience to understand them it was possible to separate fact from fiction from “we dont know”. From my POV if you are trying to accurately represent what the literature shows you are always at a disadvantage when dealing with the ideologues/partisans/skeptics since there is almost nuance involved and people dont like nuance. They want black and white, which those other people are willing to give them. Also, when dealing with a new problem the answers are likely to change and when you change answers to reflect either better or new info then you open yourself to accusations of lying.
Last of all, people make mistakes. If you are some internet dude no one notices. If you are someone trying to sincerely interpret current findings then you are never credible again AND everyone else trying to do the same is also smeared.
Steve
“Just because there are gray areas or complex cases, it doesn’t relinquish one’s responsibility to the truth.”
The point is there is no single “truth” when there are gray areas. Therefore, the “truth” in those cases becomes subjective.
And again, facts don’t speak for themselves, and humans twisting facts to suit their already held positions is not some unique phenomenon to the American political right wing, who you obviously do not like.
“There is some evidence that there is a climate change signal with regards to tropical storms, but it is not conclusive. However, that doesn’t justify the right-wing media waving their hands that because there is some ambiguity and misreporting in this specific area that it somehow undermines the strong scientific evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming. ”
And it doesn’t justify the left-wing and MSM (the latter of which are not pundits/opinionators like Tucker Carlson) from declaring that climate change is making storms worse and more common as if that were a fact when it clearly isn’t; or those who insist that humanity will end in a decade unless we adopt neo-Luddite policies.
Andy: The point is there is no single “truth†when there are gray areas.
No. The truth is that some things are gray.
The example in the previous comment still pertains. Anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported {correct, white}. Those who insist that humanity will end in a decade due to global warming {wrong, black}. There is some evidence that global warming is affecting tropical storms, but the evidence is still not conclusive {uncertain, gray}.