The Menad article raises serious questions about the wisdom of a democratic political system. Fortunately, Plato and Aristotle conducted this debate eons ago, so either way, we have a famous Greek philosopher supporting our choice. This article is particularly relevant in the case of Barack Obama: will his skin color do to him what the weather did to Al Gore? And if whites do not back him because of skin color, will that be canceled out by an enthused black voter turnout?And if he loses, how much credence can we give to those who claim it does? On that note, here is an article from AP that postulates Obama is down 6 points because of Racism.
In reference to the class on Wednesday, I want to move on from what is clearly a partisan debate. But first a few final notes (as you can see, I have begun the doublespeak of the politicians we study has had its effect.)
The Washington Post (which I assume everyone will agree is a reputable source) had this to say about the barrage of negative ads that preceded that took place two week ago: Obama had more the McCain. Further, we have seen numerous distortions from the Obama campaign in the past week, like this one about social security and the Rush Limbaugh ad... but I have yet to see any articles outraged at Obama's choice of the low road towards political victory.
No matter the case, I think that McCain strategists have definitely made a mistake by making these attacks. Commentary agrees with me, (as do the recent polls.)
Finally, here is a quote from Mark Penn, who was to Bill Clinton what Karl Rove was to W. If we are going to put weight in Rove's statement, we must do the same for Penn's comment:
CBSNews.com: Your former colleague Howard Wolfson argued that you all
unintentionally paved the way for Palin by exposing some of the unfair media
coverage that Hillary Clinton received. And, therefore, a lot of the media
may now be treating Sarah Palin with kid gloves. Do you agree with that?
Mark Penn:
Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator
Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday
Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening
with the press. I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think thatwhen you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems. And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?
Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing
the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a
tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other
candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time." What happened here
very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans
tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented,
because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the
voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility
with them.
Finally, I find astonished that I am being accused of being biased in my analysis of this situation. I don’t think my knee-jerk reaction towards defending McCain is any less biased then assuming everything in the National Review has the value of Lehman Brothers. To say otherwise is incredibly hypocritical. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they try to move away from their knee-jerk reactions and analyze both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion. I expect others to extend me the same courtesy.
3 comments:
Let's put aside whether the Washington Post is a credible news source for a moment. Obama has run more negative ads, but quantity is not the same as quality. The Post story does not account of the disturbing sexual implications of McCain's kindgarden ad for example. So, I'm not sure if we could get any where with this sort of discussion.
However (doublespeak), I think it is a good question as to why McCain's ads are getting more coverage. I know we could say that the media has a left biased (liberals would probably respond that... yeah... facts do tend to have a liberal bias) but that would be us falling into the hostile media bias trap which was pointed out at the beginning of the course.
This is a great little article from Newsweek (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/22/how-the-media-s-real-bias-works-in-mccain-s-favor.aspx) (I normally hate that mag, but there you go) that tries to answer some of that question. What do you think of it?
Okay, I don't think any of us are putting weight on Mr. Rove's statements. We've all acknowledge that he's one of the most conscious and sophisticated political operatives in America today, and what he says has multiple agendas attached to it. I think we could apply the same thing to Penn (although Penn has not historically shown Rove's propensity for discipline).
And even if what you said was the case. That we would have to weight Rove and Penn equally. That does not account for the tremendous variables as to what they actually say. We (or rather I, I can only speak for myself at this point in time) would judge the value or weight of someone's statement based on its content not on who that person is, let alone that person's relationship to someone else in a logical schema I've created for myself.
"I find myself astonished that I am being accused of being biased in my analysis of this situation. I don't think my knee-jerk reaction towards defending McCain is any less biased then assuming everything in the Nation Review has the value of Lehman Brother."
I'm not sure I understand. In the first sentence you appear to be saying you aren't biased. And in the second statement you say your bias is the same as everyone else's.
Look, Daniel, we all have our biases. I know that you have your stances and I respect that, and I believe that you have an absolute right to your positions. However, this is not the place for policy stands. This is the place for media criticism. If you want to have a debate that the two are inseparable, that's great. I'd love to have that debate. But in each of your last three posts you've taken a stand to represent a certain ideology and all that does is distort the focus of our course.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending, after all there's very little I can do once this goes into print and takes on the life of whomever is reading it at the time. My only hope is that you don't take it that way. I'm just trying to help. Looking forward to your response.
Here is what I mean about bias (you cut off the rest of the paragraph in your comment, where I explain why that is not a contradiction): Everyone has their initial reactions to the news they hear. This is shaped by their ideology. If a person chooses to take this as fact, that is bias. However, a even if a person has initial bias, this does not meant that they cannot step out of their ideological cave and try to look at the situation from another perspective. When someone tells me I post in favor of McCain because that is where by political sympathies lie, I cannot deny that. But I can maintain that I considered the alternative position, and rejected it. This will not always be the case. When “some people say” that I reached my conclusions because I support McCain, they are in essence telling me I did not bother to look at the facts before I posted. False. I have provided sources to back up all my claims, which I believe demonstrates I have based my opinion on objective fact. In this case, my initial opinion matched that of my conclusion. Don’t worry; I don’t take this personally, its all part of the intellectual discourse in class. Cheers!
Okay,
So, two things. One, we have a different definition of what a bias is. And two, we have different understandings of the relationship between bias and evidence.
1. Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial. That's, I think, a somewhat fair definition of the term. What you are describing is a bias that stems from an initial reaction without further research. I am inclined to believe that bias is more than an initial reaction. Bias can also be a cultural perspective which we then go out an support through the compilation of research that supports our bias.
Now, if that's the case, if that's what's biassed. Then how do we know the difference between what is biassed and what is impartial. Well, that's #2, the relationship between bias and evidence, but before I go there, I'd like to point out that sometimes biasses are justified. Bias is not a dirty word. In fact, I think all biases are justified with, among other things, ancedotal evidence (jeez I butchered that spelling).
Is that fair though? Is that a proper support for a bias? Well, it depends who you're arguing with. If the basis of the argument excepts the validity of ancedotal evidence, then you're fine. But in another venue, say that of this class, ancedotal evidence ceases to fly.
So, according to this sort of conceptual narrative, bias is often supported by facts, although sometimes those facts are unacceptable in certain discourses. That bias exists, though, at the expense of impartiality.
To use some concrete examples to bring this idea home. In your last post, you ignore the idea of quality vs. quantity, an issue which we did raise in class. It is also one I think has incredible relevance and value in the discussion of negative ad campaigns. It is a valid point. It is also, I think, the responsibility of every argument to anticipate objections, by not doing so, I think that shows bias. Even though it is significantly more than a knee jerk reaction.
Perhaps more to the point. Your formulation of "I have based my opinion on objective fact" is something that I have been trying to point out since the beginning of the course can be a dangerous formulation. In my post on objectivity (I think this was before you joined up) I state my reasons for thinking this way. But, in addendum to what I say there, I think that the idea of objective fact becomes to easy to hide behind as a rhetorical device. Some things are just too darn complicated.
Post a Comment