Types of Sources: Biased vs. Unbiased

Well stated indeed, Mills. Now do you have any clue how to get people to debate its objectivity and/or merit apart from whatever bias they have about the source regardless of the information presented?

I think much of what universities put out there as ?'fact' is in fact opinion. I think most of us-okay SOME of us-are capable of distinguishing between logical and illogical, between spin and evidence grounded in fact. If opinion was inadmissable to discussion or debate, every professor at the university would be out of work.

Probably the safest things to examine for objectivity/merit are independently verifiable facts: can you find multiple sources that support it?

I think much of what universities put out there as ?'fact' is in fact opinion. I think most of us-okay SOME of us-are capable of distinguishing between logical and illogical, between spin and evidence grounded in fact. If opinion was inadmissable to discussion or debate, every professor at the university would be out of work.

This is where the people Foxfyre referred to as "capable of distinguishing between logical and illogical, between spin and evidence grounded in fact" succeed in understanding while the incapable ones cling to whatever fits their own heartfelt sense of how things ought to be.

I think I have a pretty good handle on things as they actually are, but I try to conduct my life as though things were more like my "heartfelt vision" and I call that a moral compass. I know many like me, with varying visions.

Variety of sources and viewpoints is probably the fundamental criterion for learning, and singularity of sources is probably the fundamental barrier to learning

when our personal biases cause us to reject certain sources without really looking to see what they have to say....we are likely going to miss information that should factor into our conclusions.

You have yet to elucidate this "breadth" of sources you often allude to in reference to your postings. I'm not saying unequivocally it doesn't exist, but frankly I only recall seeing your posting from salon.com or the New York Times Review of Books site. Can you point out the many conservative postings you've made?

For goodness sakes. On the thread where this discussion began, I just posted the precise sources of the last 52 pastes/references I've contributed (the NY Review of Books is not associated with the NY Times newspaper and Salon was referenced twice out of 52).

Aside from that, you continue to make a fundamental error in how you even begin to consider this issue. You frame it as an either/or dichotomy based on political affiliation or leaning - conservative voice versus liberal voice. How about careful versus careless? Or well-documented versus not documented? Or free from logical fallacies versus packed with ad hominems smears? Or from an investigative source with no discernible political affiliation (or evident reason for such) versus a front-group for some activist cause? Peer reviewed or not? Etc, etc. The two lists offered up earlier here by the thread author go a long way towards suggesting what is important and relevant as regards judging the worth of source material.

For the third or fourth time, I have not criticized you for referencing conservative sources...I have criticized you for referencing too few of them and specifically several which have the explicit goal of forwarding a partisan view ONLY. That 'only' is important because it will, and does, determine whether they will strive towards the full and complete truth of things or whether they will omit factual information and relevant data or purposefully portray states of affairs falsely as a simple function of their goal. Are they reporting or are they selling? When studying to buy a new car, would you bother to purchase a "Consumer Reports" if it was published by Ford Motor Company?


I belong to a political party, and have since I could vote. I don't always vote Republican, but do vote for the best candidate -- which is usually a Republican. I'm not on any political mailing lists. I do draw frequently from sources that are unabashedly conservative, and which don't try and pretend to be something they're not.

This is not the first time you made the claim found in your last sentence above which I've underlined. It is another variation of what I've just been pointing out - framing sources as either left wing or right wing, rather than according to criteria which would be actually helpful. But it contains some deceptive and false underlying premises. One reason, Tico, why it is so deucedly easy to infer what you do take time to read is your repetition of an idea or concept such as this one - it is a staple of present rightwing American ideology.

Let's look carefully at the concept. On the surface, it suggests that readers are better served when the political or ideological affiliation of the author/publication/website/news outlet/pundit is explicit. And that is surely true. As readers, we can compensate for possible or even likely lack of balance or forthrightness in what we are being told is true. What goes unmentioned however is the insinuation that ALL SOURCES (or at the very least, most sources) are equally biased but that only one side of the dichotomy admits to it - the noble, honest, and true-blue side, thus the side that is intrinsically more trustworthy right from the get-go. Cute trick. Let's reverse it and see how it looks. One can easily imagine Pravda with a masthead or mission statement declaring "Forwarding the values and ideas of Socialism". So, does it then follow that all the contents which fall under that masthead are now magically more worthy of trust? That those contents can be counted on to be more truthful or complete?

But as you know, there is another unstated premise sitting in your claim as well...that the "mainstream media" is universally or predominantly Democratic or liberal and they are lying (or self-deceived) regarding this pronounced and very real bias. The corollary claim is that because this is so, the creation of a singularly conservative/republican media structure is merely a necessary balance. And yet, it just ain't so. This is a big conversation requiring the sort of care and research that won't happen on a site like this, but we can do a small bit here. For example, if the premise were true that the mainstream media was so pervasively pro-Democrat/liberal then we'd see a reflection of this in a pervasive editorial support at election time for Democrat candidates. We don't. Over the last thirty years, the majority of American daily newspaper editorial pages have come out favoring Republican presidential candidates. Now, what are the chances that even ONE site such as NewsMax or TownHall, or the Wash Times, or the Daily Standard will EVER come out in favor of a Democratic presidential candidate? How close to zero can one slice?

As a variety of rightwing political participants have admitted (Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol and others) accusations that the mainstream media are overwhelmingly liberal is a rhetorical strategy. Or, as conservative organizer Grover Norquist says it, the mainstream media is big but "...it's conflicted. Sometimes it thinks it needs to be critical of both sides." Well, yes.

But there's another very important issue here. We ought to be far more concerned when media hold tight allegiances with whoever sits in power, regardless of who that is. This is when reportage and investigation are easily replaced by propaganda. This IS the Pravda model.


I think that you have chosen to post, on the whole, liberal thought here at A2K ... and that is probably a conscious decision you've made. It's what you believe, so it's what you post. I, on the other hand, post primarily conservative thought and views. While it might be a wonderful thing for either you or I to post a view we don't agree with here -- in the interests of expanding our or other's learning -- it isn't likely to happen. The probable reason is because we are both very much aware that in this arena, much like in a courtroom, there are advocates that drive the ship. You advocate liberalism; I advocate conservatism. In a courtroom, the defense attorney makes his arguments and argues strenuously on behalf of his client; the plaintiff's attorney argues and zealously advocates for the other side. The idea, of course, is that the "truth" will win out, and it's somewhere in the middle. This system doesn't work if one side is not doing their part.
Well, yes, we do have an 'adversarial' system of governance. But the analogy with a courtroom is very limited and becomes quite unattractive when it involves the media and other social elements. Take scientific findings related to health issues, for example. Do we want to put tobacco industry-hired scientists on par with scientists who actually give a damn about the health of citizens? Do we want a media which will purposefully hide information it knows to be both important and true (or forward information it knows to be false) merely in support of a party? Do we want such social elements to be honest and forthright, placing the broad welfare of the nation as the primary concern, or do you wish they simply give up on such an ideal and try to get in on personal riches, power, and prestige? And what would Lincoln say on this question?

Do you think that A2K will be better off if I posted some liberal musings? Don't you agree that there are plenty of liberal postings at this site, and my effort in posting a conservative slant is but a drop in the bucket of liberalism that abounds here? And why would I post something I don't believe in? (Actually, I've done that if I've found the article interesting, even if I don't agree with the overall thesis.)
No, this is not what I ask nor hope for. I think we ought to read as broadly as we can as a simple educational principle, and I think we ought to have a bias towards the careful and thoughtful rather than towards the opposite of that. Why not paste in columns or bits by the folks who make sense to us, but then, sideline - to the degree that we can muster it - our personal hopes/biases and honestly dig in and study the pieces.

If I didn't enjoy the give and take, or reading the bizarre and frequently wrong views of liberals, I wouldn't spend so much time in the political fora here, where I'm quite likely to end up reading a post from you citing a "non-liberal" website that has a decidedly liberal spin on things. I'd be off at some mainly conservative forum, among my peeps. I'm unapologetically conservative. You might find that to be a bad thing, but I think it's better to own up to who you are than to try and pretend to be something or someone you're not.

So for the reasons above-stated, I respectfully reject the notion that I should post liberal beliefs here at A2K, or that by not doing so I'm stunting my growth. To do so would interrupt the delicate balance of things. Beyond that, I'm watching with great interest to see if you will follow your own advice, and begin posting any conservative writings.
As I said above, this isn't my point.

Tico

Final thought for a bit...I suggest we are implored by reason alone to play this game in the manner I suggest above, and for the reasons I mention above. If we instead simply attempt, using your courtroom-adversarial model, to forward a political ideology and to WIN above all other considerations, then my proper goal would be, simply, to make you look a fool. I'd prefer a tougher challenge. May the remainder of your summer be agreeably summerish.

Man, you are so easy. You might try reading what B. wrote, think about it and then respond, rather than biting down on the word foolish and missing all the rest.

Joe(is the advancement of an agenda all there is?)Nation