Not Buying Bias

Dick Meyer over at CBSNews.Com has this take on the question of bias: You're Biased, I'm Not

Bias – The Issue – has become the great red herring of political argument.

But it's worse and more serious than just a distraction, albeit an obnoxious one. The omnipresent charge of bias has become an embedded obstacle to normal give and take about politics, culture and current events. The word-weapon "bias" is now a structural bar to communication and dialogue between people who don't belong to the same right-thinking affinity group.

I agree with Meyer in the sense that the charge "bias" can be more of a slur, along the lines of "racist" or "homophobe", than anything else. As such it becomes a conversation stopper, not a starter. Those are never good things.

However, I think Meyer overplays his hand a bit. To that end I sent him the following email:


Mr. Meyer,

I agree with you that, as most often used, the charge of "bias" is less an accusation (that could be supported by evidence) and more of a slur meant to impugn someone's character. In that way the term "bias" is following the course of other terms like "racist" "homophobe" "communist" etc. Its effect, as you state, is to end discourse. That is the nature of all slurs. It's a persons way of saying "I have nothing real to add."

However, this does not mean that a reasonable charge of bias as an accusation is impossible. To use as up-to-date an example as I can find I turn to the Chicago Tribune's editorial page. There I find an editorial defending Ward Churchill's tenure, A contemptible professor's rights. In this piece there is no mention of the numerous examples of fraud (adademic & otherwise) perpetrated by Mr. Churchill, frauds that can easily lead to even a tenured professors dismissal. These actions by Mr. Churchill have not been under-reported, even a cursory glance at The Rocky Mountain News - clearly the paper of record on the matter - would have supplied the Tribune with all the information they could desire. But the Tribune insists that the Churchill tenure decision is only a question of his free speech rights (which BTW I also support). Why? There are two possibilities, A) Ignorance,and B) Bias. Possibility "A" would require a shocking level of incompetentness on the part of the Tribune. We are supposed to think that the Tribune just didn't read up on the matter before taking an editorial position? Its possible I suppose, but it doesn't seem very likely. The other option is that they are deliberately ignoring readily available information in order to strengthen their defense of Mr. Churchill. Why would anyone do that? Can you think of a reason that wouldn't involve bias of some sort?

I'm not saying that the Tribune cannot take a position on controversial issues -indeed, that is one of their important duties- but another duty of an "independant newspaper" (or magazine or TV network) is to attempt to present all relevant information fairly. For the Tribune it is evidently more important to defend Ward Churchill's tenure then it was to actually present the facts upon which he might be rightly dismissed. Withholding information that might be damaging to someone you support may be the job of a defense attorney, but it is not the job of a major metropolitan newspaper, even on the editorial page....ESPECIALLY on the editorial page!

A charge of "bias" isn't always a slur. Sometimes it is well and truly earned.

It will be interesting to see if I get a response.