The "I'm-not-biased" bias

While pumping away on the elliptical machine at Gold’s Gym the other day, I looked up to see two side-by-side flat screens showing Fox News and CNN.  I couldn’t hear what was going on (I was listening to left-leaning NPR on my headset), but I could surmise the bias of each from the visual presentation.  Fox was interviewing the African American father of a slain teen who was killed by an illegal immigrant.  Meanwhile, CNN featured a discussion over the banner “Is Sean Hannity Trump’s ‘Shadow’ Chief of Staff?”

I was reminded of last month’s hullaballoo over the “must-run” speech delivered by local news anchors working for the Sinclair Group.  I confess my first reaction to this news was, “so what?”  Aren’t we asked to do things we don’t like by our employers from time to time?  Further, there was nothing untrue in the statement the anchors were directed to read on the air. 

Still, something bothered me about it.   TV journalists spend their careers developing a personal brand based upon journalistic integrity.  And, having someone else – especially your boss – putting words in your mouth is inconsistent with the idea of integrity.  Had it been me, my Sicilian temper is likely to have gotten the best of me; and, today, I would be sending out resumes instead of writing this post.

The statement suggests that mainstream media sometimes picks up “false news” from social media without checking the facts.  That doesn’t come close to identifying the real challenge faced not only by media but also by each of us trying to figure out what to believe and how to evaluate it. 

False news?  Mainstream media doesn’t need help from Zuckerberg et al.  How about Dan Rather’s 2004 CBS News report on George W. Bush’s military service during the Vietnam War?  Or, the 2008 front page NY Times article about the alleged affair between John McCain and a lobbyist?  Both turned out to be untrue and both resulted in retractions (Dan Rather lost his job over it).  But that doesn’t change the fact that the choice made by those mainstream media organizations to pursue those stories reflects their bias. 

Then there was the 2016 Newsweek story about American interrogators in Afghanistan desecrating the Koran.  It was later retracted but not before the Muslim attacks on government organizations and NGO’s which resulted in the death of 15 people.  And, don’t get me started on the Rolling Stone rape story. 

It’s only fair to say that mistakes will be made and principled news organizations correct their errors, as was the case in these examples as well as the winners of Trump’s Fake News Awards.

So, what of it?

The word bias has taken on a pejorative connotation, as if good people shouldn’t be biased.  It’s a ridiculous notion.  Bias in decision-making has been well established since Daniel Kahneman’s groundbreaking work (which won him the Nobel Prize for Economics). 

We all have biases including the titular bias of this post.  The danger, as I see it, is in believing that we can be unbiased.  That can only lead to the certainty that we are right!  How can we reconcile our differences unless we introduce doubt into our thinking? Isn’t it possible that you may be wrong about some of your dearly held beliefs?  If it’s possible, you are open to learning more.  If not, you’ve stopped learning and anyone who believes something other than you do is dead wrong.  How can that lead to healthy dialog?

As for media, bias is reflected in many ways.  The selection of the Fox News story cited above reflects a bias in favor of the President’s most outrageous statements about immigrants.  The CNN discussion raises bias to a new level.  “Is Sean Hannity Trump’s ‘Shadow’ Chief of Staff?” isn’t even news.  It’s conjecture.  A good journalist should be aware of Betteridge’s Law, which states that, “any headline that asks a question can be answered by the word no.”

WHO WILL LEAD?

Rules? What Rules?

"My, we seem to be a little short on brotherly love round here." 

-- Butch Cassidy, as played by Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

I got into a Facebook Fight last week. Have you ever been in one? It's kind of like that scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You know the one where Butch has to get into a knife fight with a really big, scary guy. He asks him, "What are the rules?" Big Scary Guy replies: "Rules? In a knife fight? No rules!"  He no sooner gets the words out of his mouth than Butch kicks him in the groin. Well, there are no rules in a Facebook Fight either.

I use different internet tools for different purposes. LinkedIn for business; Facebook for personal stuff, pictures and messages to friends and family, etc. So, when I woke up at my usual 5 AM to a posting on my Facebook wall supporting the Wisconsin 14, I went off the deep end. Last year, I had de-friended members of my own family for posting their support of the Arizona immigration law. So, why am I waking up to some commie crap on my damn wall? By a so-called friend no less.

Now, 5 AM is not my best time of day. I could have deleted it. I could have blocked the friend from posting on my wall. I could have de-friended him. But, no-o-o-o! I responded aggressively.

My opponent was a very well read Ph.D. And worse, he was abetted by an old high school chum of mine with whom I haven’t spoken since graduation day. In fact, I am not sure I even spoke to him then. Two against one. That’s not fair! Oh yeah, there are no rules in a Facebook Fight. My H.S. buddy is a school psychologist according to his Facebook page. So, he is right there with the Ph.D.

Ph.D. hits me with Robert Reich. I parry with Freidrich Hayek. He’s never heard of him. Hah! Take that, Ph.D.

I am a fan of NY Times columnist, David Brooks. I never miss a column. He mostly writes about political and policy issues and represents a moderate voice that does not adhere to any political dogma. I guess that’s why I like him. His new book is called The Social Animal. I understand from the reviews and summaries that it is a fictional representation of the ways in which we form relationships and connect ourselves to ideas and social norms. Though not an expert on brain science, Brooks has written of our new understanding of it and how it has affected us. Think of all those bright business school grads on Wall Street and how they self destructed during the financial crisis of 2008/09.

So, here I am parrying the thrusts and jabs of my formidable opposition and it occurs to me that Brooks is right about all this. I am fairly well read myself and yet could not convince either of these guys of the wisdom of my thinking any more than they could convince me of theirs. It’s not that their thinking was irrational. Indeed, their thoughts might be considered to be a rationalization of their beliefs.

All their reading and learning had been directed to support their values and biases. So, were mine. There was no winning this Facebook Fight for any of us. No way, no how.

Isn’t that what’s happening across the nation? Don’t you get emails from your friends and colleagues that either reinforce your views or infuriate you? So, how can we solve the big national problems when we are all so enamored of what’s going on in our own heads that we can’t compromise?

A recent speech by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana to the Conservative Political Action Committee provides some insight on how we might answer that question. He counsels his right wing followers to put everything on the table including tax increases and defense spending to resolve the problem of our deficits and debt.

He reminds his followers that “big change requires big majorities” and that we will “need people who never listen to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean”. He also reminds us that the founders “made compacts and concessions and, yes, compromises” in the cause of creating one union from the 13 colonies who won their freedom from the British crown.

NPR called it a Grown Up brand of GOP politics. We need that from both sides of the aisle. A recent report from economist John Mauldin found that a “majority of voters incorrectly believes the federal government spends more on defense/foreign aid than it does on Medicare and Social Security (63%). Also, a similar majority (60%) incorrectly believes problems with the federal budget can be fixed by just eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.”

The President created his own version of Grown Up politics with the Simpson Bowles Commission aimed at resolving our national debt. Their controversial proposal is dying a slow death like those of most Presidential commissions.

Our debt problem is serious and addressing it will be painful. What is called for is the equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s dollar bill speech in 1981. He held up a dollar bill and opened with “This is a dollar bill…..”

We guffawed about it the following day on the trading floor at Goldman Sachs. But, that’s the kind of communication that is called for now. Reagan explained to voters how every dollar they earn is divided up. The equivalent of a PowerPoint pie chart.

The pie chart needs to be updated. If nothing changes, every dollar of tax revenue will go to paying interest on the national debt within 10 years. Nothing left for national defense. Nothing left for social programs. Nothing.

The only question is: WHO WILL LEAD?