Dave_C » November 1st, 2020, 8:03 am wrote:. I read this article that looks at common characteristics in trump supporters and I think as long as I read it with an eye to removing the bias that's been written into the article, it does provide some insight. For example, calling respect for authority a "syndrome" seems disrespectful to people who genuinely see law/order as an important part of our society....
Dave C -- this comment drew my attention to a topic that's been fermenting in my head a while, namely that of bias. I want to start a thread to address some of the issues around labeling bias, properly defining what it is, and also looking at the term when it's used to glibly criticize an opinion (i. e. simply calling an opposition statement "biased" without providing any factual rebuttal or basis for using the term)
I will make this an OP post on that new thread-to-be, and get the ball rolling with a couple comments...
Some descriptions are seen as biased, especially by those who disagree with the description, but only facts and agreed-upon criteria can resolve if the bias is real. Take the statement, "Trump is a chronic liar. "
Now, if all parties agree that chronic lying is a serious harm when it's found in a public official (the sort of office from which we expect transparency and fealty to facts), then all parties agree that sentence must be backed with solid evidence, because the stakes are pretty high. And we must state some criteria for calling someone a liar.
So, we look at professional factcheck organizations (I selected nonpartisan organizations) that range from a tally of 15,000 to 25000 falsehoods coming from the POTUS. That would be something like a minimum of ten lies a day. That would seem to fit a fairly universal definition of the term liar, and would fit also with clinical definitions of pathological liar, in terms of numbers, of how often the behavior manifests, and of how often they slander or libel others or falsely characterize science, the law, history, etc.
So far, then, my example sentence seems to be congruent with an objective reality, and therefore calling the writer of said sentence biased would not be warranted. But, and this is my opening question, what happens when the reader of that sentence goes ahead and ascribes bias to it?
I think the issue will remain important long after 2020, as social media continue to grapple with partisan organizations that post misinformation about opposition candidates, etc. How do they fact-check competently and fend off accusations of having bias themselves?
I do agree that "syndrome" in Dave"s example would seem prejudicial in any discussion about people who respect a social institution and its authority. (I find more problems like this in interview formats than in straight reporting) If there were undue respect, however, that grew out of a cult of personality for one person, that might be a different matter, and we would need facts and well defined terms to address such a situation.