On Bias
Today we saw evidence of the DOD accusing Rajiv Chandrasekaran of a "liberal bias", by linking him with TPM. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, characterizes Josh Marshall as a "Bush-bashing uber-liberal." I'm with Dick Cheney on this one: so?
Bias differs from corruption. Bias is healthy, and corruption is sick. Please indulge me in an analogy.
A scientist hypothesizes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He performs an experiment, and confirms his hypothesis. Mark Kimmitt would accuse this scientist of a "Heliocentric Bias."
Another scientist also hypothesizes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He too performs an experiment, and it disproves his hypothesis (the experiment was flawed, what can I say). He falsifies his research, and declares, in spite of the facts, that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This scientist is corrupt.
Both scientists reached the same conclusions, and both had the same bias. The difference between them is clear: the first one was clean, and the second was corrupt.
The moral of this parable? The next time you find yourself accusing someone of bias, first look to see if you can prove he is corrupt (evidence would help here, insofar as you are proving something). Otherwise, that someone might just be doing his job.











