Latest News and Politics For Justice, a Bias for Truth is Essential. Duh.
| For Justice, a Bias for Truth is Essential. Duh. |
 |
 |
 |
 Not all bias is bad. Look up the word bias, and you will see its synonyms
not only include prejudice, but also bent or tendency. The question we
should ask is not whether or not we have bias; or bents, tendencies, prejudices,
because
we all do. The question we should ask is if the bias is rational or irrational, conscious or subconscious.
A bias against one person you know is not as absurd as a bias
against a group of people you don't know. In the former case, you have empirical
evidence and experience to buttress any tendency against trusting said person.
When is bias essential then, and when can it safely be embraced? A bias for truth is essential for justice, logic and science. It is a rational, judicious bias. A bias for the subjective, emotional or hateful is irrational, as they obfuscate truth in the motions to justify itself. Truth and falsehood are often absolutes, and discerning which is which requires a rational bias for truth, because only truth can find truth. You cannot find truth with a map full of false directions. Here, the neutral mind, treating veracity and falsehood alike, becomes reduced to paralysis. Want a Neutral Reporter? Find One that Doesn't Vote Is a bias against those individuals who clearly embrace corruption irrational? No. It is a rational bias. Racism is an irrational bias based on the fallacy of generalization and hate. Sexual bias is irrational because at bottom, it only masks anger or insecurity and has no basis in logic, and at extremes suggests neurosis. But to defend corruption in a favored candidate and condemn it in another, this isn't just hypocrisy, it is the hallmark of irrational political bias, and more so when one is overlooking corruption or incompetence simply because of a prejudice towards s sex or race. You won't find perfect objectivity here, at the Impious Digest, and you won't find it in the mass media. It does not exist. The best you can hope for, with journalists, are those who will tell you outright what their bias is and dispense with all pretenses, because the wary know journalists will be picking and choosing what to report and what not to report inasmuch as it helps their candidate. If a candidate runs a dirty campaign and lies about his or her record, if the corruption disenfranchises voters, a conscientious voter has every right to harbor a bias against the candidate. Conversely, the same voter may also have a bias for candidates who don't diddle themselves to Karl Rove, and try to run a clean campaign. Journalists who vote have already chosen, or are leaning towards, a candidate. Again, their bias is manifested not by what they report as much as by what they do not report, i.e., anything negative about their candidate. For this reason, a story that seems objective may be betrayed by it's lack of relevance to an informed decision. Pro-Hillary journalists that write 10,000 pages on an unconfirmed allegation against Obama and 20 words on a confirmed fact that condemns Hillary exhibit the same kind of bias, or worse, than someone who's writing in the editorial pages, because the same reporters have the nerve to say they are objective and impartial.
For the time being, the collective, quite rational bias at Impious Digest is anti-Hillary, because she is,
with all due respect,
|
