Do you also think Aesop demonstrated poor knowledge of zoology in his fables?

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:00 AM in response to On Bias

Clearly the word "bias," when used in a scientific context to level a serious charge, is not used in the same sense as I used it above. So, in that sense, I can see why it might be confusing.

Now, let me give another analogy, like you requested.

There are two record reviewers, and they are reviewing the same record. The first loves early D.C. Punk, and over the years she has seen many of the bands play. The record she's reviewing is a new release by an old D.C. Punk band. She wants it to be good! She listens to it several times, thinks it's great, and writes a glowing review.

The second reviewer gets a shitload of payola from the band's record company. She also wants the record to be good! She listens to it several times, thinks it's great, and also writes a glowing review (without disclosing the payola).

Now, I have seen this happen before where the first reviewer would get a lot of angry letters to the editor, accusing her of bias. However, she's a good reviewer, and happened to be very knowledgable about a specific subgenre of music, and the record was, in fact, good. The second reviewer, I have seen this a lot too, gets zero hate mail, and a few years later it turns out she was corrupt, but by that time she's walked through the revolving door into some A&R position at a major label.

Was the first reviewer biased? Hell yes! But in this case, was it a bad thing? Hell no! In fact, both reviewers were biased. They both wanted the record to be good. The first wanted it to be good, because she's passionate about that style of music. The second wanted it to be good, so it would take some of the edge off of lying, being bribed, etc... if it were good it would cover her tracks a bit more. But she wasn't just biased-- she was corrupt.

Now, I can also tell you that people who are very passionate about music might seriously take issue with my use of the word "bias" here, just like you did with science. They might say that she has no right reviewing records in the first place if she can't be objective, and come to them with a completely open mind. People take this very seriously. You might argue that science is different, and this is a form of relativism on my part, to equate a subjective art with something as objective as science. However, you would at least grant that corruption and bias in my three analogies (journalism, music, science) are just that-- analogies. They are imperfect, but illustrate this point: Corruption = really bad, really clear cut; Bias = not as horrible, very subtle.

Posted at May 12, 2008 12:16 AM in response to On Bias

Right Craig! That was really close to the point I wanted to imply here.

Here's my real point: talking about bias is a waste of time when there is large evidence of corruption. Even on this site, how many posts, comments, and articles did we see about a Pro-Obama or Pro-Clinton Bias; an Anti-Obama, or an Anti-Clinton Bias. Let's say a story hit the front page on Website X, it was unfavorable to Obama, and then someone believes it was unfair... and they start to see a pattern of unfairness toward Obama.. and finally a story they feel is very unfair to Obama hits, and they've just had it... and they write to the editor, or write a blog, and say "Website X Has An Anti-Obama Bias!!!" Here's my answer to that: 1) what a waste of time, 2) this is unknowable, 3) so!?

It is possible to measure something as subtle as bias... let's say here, in an individual news organization. You conduct surveys of staff and readers, take polls of the staff, create a database, design some double-blind testing, etc. But this is small potatoes! There is real corruption going on in our media. The NYT Pentagon propaganda story is one such story... loads of corruption. The networks don't have a "Pro-Pentagon Bias." They are corrupt! Another type of corruption is conflict of interest... For example, people like Begala or Carville or Stephanopoulos doing network news analysis, when they have worked for Clinton. There are thousands of examples of such political corruption in our media-- so why focus on something as subtle as bias?!

Posted at May 11, 2008 11:40 PM in response to On Bias

You have a Pro-Distinction-Bias-Bias Bias. Careful, we might cross over.

Posted at May 11, 2008 11:14 PM in response to On Bias

I agree that it isn't the best analogy. I, in fact, thought of putting together three different analogies (three is always a good number), but I thought this would be a waste of everyone's time (I realize you have a passion for science, but cut me a little slack).

But is a journalist who doesn't check his sources still a journalist? (I would also answer no). Is a journalist who reports spin instead of fact still a journalist? (I would also answer no). Is a television news station that allows military propaganda be reported as fact, still a "news" show? (I would also answer no). So, I think my point was made, and this is just a semantic difference. I could have said "one scientist falsifies his research (and later it was discovered, he was disgraced, and no one called him a scientist anymore-- also, he stopped being a scientist the very moment he published his falsified research, instead, let's call him Bob, and imagine sort of "carrying" the Bob, like you would mentally carry the two in arithmetic, between the sentence where I say "scientist" and the sentence where I say "falsifies research")... but that might have taken up too much space.

By the way, I'm a quarter of the way through Overshoot right now-- I can't wait to pick your brain once I'm done!

Posted at May 11, 2008 11:10 PM in response to On Bias

This is sooo DF.

Posted at May 11, 2008 5:19 AM in response to I, Lieutenant Worf, Endorse Barack Obama For President in Your Year 2008

I agree. Oh, and, for the record, I realize that Goodyear means the man, not the tires.

Posted at May 11, 2008 5:09 AM in response to What Do Hezbollah and the Myanmar Junta Have in Common? John McCain!

You have a Pro-Distinction Bias.

Posted at May 11, 2008 3:17 AM in response to On Bias

Sorry! Didn't mean to steal your thunder that stole idiotic's thunder by stealing idiotic's thunder (and thereby, your thunder)!

Posted at May 11, 2008 1:19 AM in response to idiotic

I don't follow... are you saying you have access to the JCON database, and you, personally, are leaking this? If this is everywhere, and you're simply reposting, this is a new story for me.

Posted at May 10, 2008 11:51 PM in response to POW FOIA: DOJ JCON Database Review in re "Leading Question"