I refer back to a well known phrase: "facts have a well known liberal bias" and accept that my bias runs that way. It is necessary, however, to listen and consider other's views, but not necessarily agree or endorse said views. For that I often rely on blogs that advertise another well known phrase: "we listen/watch/read so you don't have to" and accept those synopses (sp?) as at least generally accurate. Lastly, a grain of salt (gee, I'm full of quotes today!) with whatever anyone says works. Being a skeptic is, after all, a natural consequence of adopting the scientific method of inquiry.

I must admit that I find it very difficult to read even thoughtful conservative thought, if indeed the term itself is not oxymoronic. The visceral reaction it provokes is dangerous to my physical and mental well-being. That said, I occasionally will provide myself a dose of righteous indignation by taking a gander at Bill Kristol and regularly read Brooks, sometimes even finding something to like so long as he's not talking about politics, while other times needing a blood pressure gauge to monitor my heartrate and vowing never again to return.

Within the spectrum of Democratic opinion, however, I try to devour all I can, across the spectrum. During the period before the Iraq war, I read all the arguments in favor by the so-called liberal hawks, and was fascinated by the recent follow up in Slate. It is essential to always maintain skepticism, particularly when someone claims to found an unimpeachable truth and at least within the spectrum of right, center and left wing thought (excluding the religious right) try to keep my disagreements respectful, without questioning the moral character of my opponents. Unfortunately, I don't see much of that on these boards, which are dominated by Obama followers so enthralled with the righteousness of their cause that they see every move by HRC as a nefarious plot to take over the world and whose vitriol rivals that of the vast right wing conspiracy (it really did/does exist). Regularly, the most trifling, cheerleader drivel shoots to the top of the recommended list while any deviation from the orthodoxy nearly always disappears quickly into the ether. I say that as someone who has had a hard time deciding between the candidates, but has been forced into defending HRC merely to try to correct the imbalance and bring a does of sanity to the conversation.

And a more important question. Why can't I make blockquotes or hyperlinks when I'm writing a comment?

Good question. Salon's Blog Report used to provide a good sample (although it certainly didn't confine itself to the thoughtful); unfortunately, they shut that down for some reason.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Atrios posted that bit because an otherwise consistently incisive voice in the progressive blogosphere has been AWOL on matters related to this primary ... other than to chime in with pieces that tangentially, subtly, and finally, all too provocatively, drove readers to ask: So, is Obama the Anti-Christ or should we just ignore the obvious confirmation bias of the siteowner and amuse ourselves with the non-Primary-related content?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/building-peace-by-digby-heres.html

My take, anyway. Somehow I think this was meant to be more of a question about hackish tendencies generally. Oh well.

It's good to recall Robert Anton Wilson's notion of the reality tunnel. Your beliefs are not reality.

I've always been a firm believer that you have to really know something if you're going to hate it, which is why I spent the Eighties studying Richard Nixon and Reagan. But it's hard to follow today's conservative commentators because they're so nuts and nasty (e.g. Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity, etc.) People like Kristol & Brooks are living in a fantasy land.

But I get a free copy of the National Review at work and I'll look at that once in a while and I read Turk's Kung Fu Quip blog. Wolcott seems to read the Right so I don't have to. Quite frankly, if you follow the MSM, you'll be exposed to conservative thought.

That and keep your sense of humor.

Acknowledge your own biases, and pay attention to how they're likely to shape your judgment. You're much more likely to exaggerate the positives and minimize or excuse the negatives of candidates and policies which you support. Be aware of that, and try to force yourself to think harder in situations where your bias is likely to lead you astray. For example, people are much more likely to critique articles that dispute what they believe than those which support what they believe. Reverse that. When you read an article that supports your beliefs, try especially hard to find its flaws. If someone criticizes your preferred candidate, try to avoid a kneejerk reaction. Ask yourself whether you disagree because you've thought the criticism through or because you hate the idea that it could be true.

One finds that people are rationalizing rather than rational. We tend to start from a position of belief then rationalize why we hold that belief, instead of creating conclusions from empirical data. It is rare - a sort of Road to Damascus moment - when one changes that root belief, but it does happen.

I feel a compulsion to be "understood" and tend to see disagreement as an imperfect understanding of my point... I have to check myself to ensure I'm taking input... it's difficult, but I've noticed my central beliefs change.

If one has a discussion and "wins" all arguments, then one has wasted time instead of learning something.

I avoid reading material from individuals whose conclusions I can predict before I read it: that goes for those from the Left or the Right. Usually that material emanates from a tribal instinct more than a rational basis.

I appreciate this thread to help folks become conscious of their own bias and in that way promote Reasoned discussion.

I read Commentary and The Public Interest for years; but about the time I decided to drop the former in favor of the latter, the latter decided to close down in favor of the former. A year or so along I decided to drop Commentary altogether, simply by not renewing: after a third of a century and going on two terms of Bush, enough already, those people had proven what their advice is worth. So I supplemented my long-standing subscription to the The New York Review with one to The Atlantic: centrist replacing neoconservative.

I don't read outside what I've decided is the respectable range, at least in what I might call core politics. But I certainly don't hesitate to read something that seems like factual reporting on a topic where some might insist on reading in political bias, such as an article in this weekend's NY Times about injury patterns to girl athletes, where I imagine I could hear complaints from the more ideological feminists. By now, I'm pretty confident I can for instance read from an embedded reporter with the troops and still understand a reporter really in the midst of Iraqis. I figure I can tell whether I'm getting facts, whether or not they fit my preferred political orientation.

Anyone who's ever worked in a newsroom knows that between editors and writers there is constant consideration about what gets above the daily din. The gatekeeper mentality.

The power of the web is movement beyond these limits, and I agree with every ounce of sentiment expressed here that democracy demands no less.