Which approach is more effective at changing your mind?
Approach A:
"We live in fictitious times. We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons...we are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!"
Approach B:
"Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever."
The first is Michael Moore's spleen exploding out of his mouth during the Oscars. The second is the Oct. 17th, 2003 lead in to Bob Edward's newscast on NPR's Morning Edition, as quoted here.
The stridency in Michael Moore's voice and his intemperate outburst warn you that you are in the presence of a zealot, and that you will have to take his words with a grain of salt the size of Mt. Ranier. But when Bob Edwards delivers the news, it is in the calm, measured tones of a professional news anchor. There is no tell tale hysteria in his voice, no audible clues that we are listening to a man who is nearly as biased as Michael Moore. We have to look at his actual words to get that information. And that makes him much more effective.
Let's look at the above quote. Where's the bias? That's right, the second sentence. Edwards states as fact something that at the very least is highly debateable, if not outright false. To suggest that President Bush disdains multilateralism is to disregard half the facts. Yes, he went forward in Iraq without the UN; yes, he withdrew from Kyoto; and yes, he moved forward on a missile defense system. But were these actions based on a disregard for cooperation, or because he saw what he considered a clear duty, and went forward? I don't think any objective person can deny that Iraqis are much better off now than they were a year ago, and with recent concessions by Syria and Lebanon, a strong argument could be made that the Middle East as a whole is moving towards increased security. Add to this the multiple times President Bush went to the UN, either in person or thorugh Colin Powell or others, laying out his case for going into Iraq. The failure of the UN to go along is not proof that President Bush preferred to go it alone, only that he was left no other choice.
Most observers now admit freely that Kyoto was deeply flawed, trading environmental efficacy for political advantage. In fact, most countries have failed to ratify the treaty, both for that reason, and the huge economic burder it imparted, with negligible results.
Even the withdrawal from the ABM treaty can be seen as necessary, given the probability that terrorist groups or rogue nations may aquire ballistic missile and WMD warheads.
Whether you agree with these arguments or not is really not that important, and strong counter arguments exist for each; what is important is that Bob Edward's characterization of Bush's foreign policy is more opinion than fact, even though it is represented as fact, and it is clear that Edwards may indeed view it as fact. It is this quiet substitution of opinion for fact that makes the bias of many major news outlets, in this case, NPR, so effective.
When Michael Moore rants and raves, we immediately activate our BS detectors. By his presentation, we expect him to be biased; by his history, we expect him to distort the facts to fit his philosophy. But when our friendly, fatherly news anchor does the same thing, in calm, well reasoned tones, we don't have the same reaction. No alarm bells ring, and we may allow that opinion to register as a fact, which in turn can lead us to draw a false conclusion.
The subtle nature of this bias is it's greatest strength. It's hard to point out, and even when you do find a clear example, it's easy for critics to dismiss as "just a little thing." But little things add up, and when the bias is pervasive enough, say, throughout an entire network, the cumulative effect can be astounding.
Try this experiment at home. Watch a news broadcast; it doesn't matter which channel. Listen very closely to the anchors and see how many times you can catch them voicing an opinion or judgment as a fact. Listen closely to hear how many judgments they make while telling you the news. Those judgments may be verbal, or more often non-verbal, the shake of a head, a frown, etc. If you pay attention closely, you'll be amazed at just how much editorializing is going on during a newscast.
Posted by Rich at February 27, 2004 5:39 PM | TrackBackyour getting all bent out of shape over the word "disdain". "Disdain" doesn't mean that he never does it, it just means that he doesn't seem to like doing it. It doesn't mean that he never relies on diplomacy.
No President in recent memory has shown the level of indifference to diplomacy that Bush Jr. has. Not his father, Clinton, Reagan, Carter or anyone before him. His Administration has shown open hostility to the French and the UN while his father got UN authorization and France to send 12,000 troops to the first Gulf War. (Oh wait, I forgot France is our enemy).
At the end of the day, there will always be drawbacks to multi-lateral cooperation. No one is going to agree to US demands 100% to their own detriment. There is going to be back and forth. A commitment to diplomacy requires willing to give something up to get cooperation.
Posted by: Manish on February 27, 2004 6:38 PMConsidering the attitude shown by the UN and France immediately after his election, A little hostility might be warranted.
Regardless, as I said, counter arguments exist for both sides. The problem is that Edwards presents us with his side, as if it is the Truth, and not an interpretation of the truth. Further, it's not surprising that you see no bias in the quote, since you tend to agree with it. This isn't a blind spot exclusive to the left; rather, it is a human failing, one we all fall prey to.
I am certain that I have definite biases and preconceptions that color how I analyze the facts. It is also certain that those biases will remain utterly transparent to me, until my nose is rubbed in them. All I can do is try and get as much information as possible, and integrate it all into a coherent picture of the world. Even then, it isn't the Truth, just my version of it.
One fact is undeniable. The vast majority of folks in the media, editors, writers, reporters, etc. are liberally inclined. That overwhelming dominance can't help but color their presentation of the news, not only in how they present a story, but in what stories they tend to cover.
Posted by: rich on February 27, 2004 8:36 PMThe problem is that Edwards presents us with his side, as if it is the Truth, and not an interpretation of the truth
One fact is undeniable. The vast majority of folks in the media, editors, writers, reporters, etc. are liberally inclined.
You're incredible. By your standard, the media could pretty much report nothing except the sky is blue as fact. They couldn't report that the assault weapons ban contributed to the Republicans regaining Congress, because it is a disputable point. You take issue with Edwards stating something as fact, and then you state that there is a "liberal" media as fact. For every news story that someone claims there is a liberal media bias, there is one that people claim that there is a conservative bias. The sniping on both sides leads me to believe that at the end of the day, the media is actually fairly balanced. There are certainly single stories that are slanted one way or the other, but nothing to suggest a pervasive bias.
As I see it, the media is a business that has to cater to its customers. There was an editorial written by a small town newspaper going around the blogosphere that basically said gay marriage is evil and against the bible and should be stopped. Had this editorial run in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chronicle would probably see its customer base decline rapidly. Any paper that wants to stay in business and appeal to a large cross-section of the public has to be reasonably balanced (unlike publications like The Nation or National Review which cater to their niches)
Posted by: Manish on February 28, 2004 10:51 PMThey couldn't report that the assault weapons ban contributed to the Republicans regaining Congress, because it is a disputable point.
Certainly they could, as long as it was presented as analysis, i.e. "Republicans regained control of Congress, due in part to the passage of the assualt weapons ban, which energized gun owners, who tend to vote Republican."
I've presented the basic fact, 'repubs gaining control of Congress', along with a reasonable assertion of a possible cause. In fact, your version would also work, although in my opinion, it is better to have a stronger separation between fact and analysis.
It is a fact, for example, that the vast majority of those involved in gathering and reporting the news are liberals, as evidenced by the voting registration data, which has been examined repeatedly. Any exmination of why this is so would involve interpretation and would be subject to unconscious bias, and so should be sharply deliniated.
Now then, if the media were actually reasonably balanced, as you suggest, then Fox News would not have seen the explosive growth it did, leading it to number one in the ratings over its much better established counterparts. The only reasonable explanation for its rapid growth is that a large portion of the market was not being served by traditional media. That large group found what it was looking for with Fox News. Now then, since Fox is biased conservatively, then it logically follows that the rest of the media was biased in a different direction, i.e. liberally. Since this dovetails nicely with the observed fact that most of those in the traditional media are liberals, it seems safe to say that there is a liberal bias in traditional media.
In short, it can be done; it used to be done as a matter of course; and it needs to become the standard again.
Posted by: rich on March 1, 2004 12:22 PMListen very closely to the anchors and see how many times you can catch them voicing an opinion or judgment as a fact.
This is the modus operandi of almost every political blogger on the internet these days, unfortunately. A close second is repeating statistics culled from questionable sources as fact.
Posted by: on March 8, 2004 4:06 PMNow then, if the media were actually reasonably balanced, as you suggest, then Fox News would not have seen the explosive growth it did, leading it to number one in the ratings over its much better established counterparts. The only reasonable explanation for its rapid growth is that a large portion of the market was not being served by traditional media. That large group found what it was looking for with Fox News.
Fox News achieved its success largely because the at-large media was reasonably balanced. Conservatives didn't have a TV news source to go to that was blatantly slanted in their direction, prior to Fox News. This doesn't mean that the other sources were biased against them, only that those sources weren't biased toward them, which is what I've been saying all along.
Posted by: tgirsch on March 8, 2004 5:52 PMI trust media biased against my inclinations. I hate being told what I want to hear. I think more critically about the story--and pay attention to the FACTS-- if I am suspicious of bias. Plus, I am embarrassed when I hear blatant bias in an argument that I support.
Also, I think it is important to delineate that most news sources do not intend to be biased, it is simply a consequence of the news business.
But if you say that there is "reasonable balance" in any of FOX, NPR, CNN, NETWORK NEWS and most NEWSPAPERS then you very likely are failing to think critically. Not a sin----but also something you can work on if truth in news is important to you.
-pm