I am thus immune from, not to say monumentally disinterested in, that stock staple of political journalism: "Look what a whack job/evil bastard one of my opponents is!" The quotes have to have them advocating genocide and denying the Civil War before I am ready to believe, without further evidence, that they are especially evil. This can make the task of reading political blogs slightly wearying.
But then who would want to defect from a left which saw itself as uniting certain universal values, values like freedom and equality and justice, with the interests and struggles of the unfree, the wronged and the oppressed everywhere?
Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor.
(HT: This Ain't Hell.)
On April 21, 2004, I wrote my first posts at Dreams Into Lightning. Two years ago, I began posting on TypePad but continued to cross-post at the Blogger site.
A lot has changed over the last four years but I have no intention of quitting blogging any time soon. In the interests of efficiency, I am going to discontinue cross-posting on Blogger; from now on DiL - Blogger will carry summaries and links to posts here at DiL - TypePad. So this is where it's at, baby.
Also in the interests of streamlining, I'm going to change the date format on Morning Report to ISO date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which will make the typing a lot easier for me.
Last weekend I disabled several of my more daunting comment-screening features and so far I have not been overrun by trolls, so I am going to leave the setup as it is for the time being. You do not have to register, pass a Turing test, or wait for my approval to post a comment. (Don't worry, if you're a troll I can still delete you.)
Finally, a big thank-you to all readers. I typically average around 50 to 100 visits a day - that's small potatoes compared to big guys like my friend Michael Totten, but I do check my stats daily and I appreciate every hit. Thanks for stopping by, and please come back soon.
Comments on this blog are moderated.
This means that when you submit a comment, I have to approve it before it will appear.
Even if you submit the same comment seven times.
World War Two was won through sheer industrial might and brute force. It was the conventional warrior’s wet dream and something that will probably never be seen again (and thank God for it).The War on Terror is something entirely different. Inasmuch lethal action has a role to play (because, as they say, “some men you just can’t reach”), non-lethal action has to be the driving force in this war. Otherwise, logic demands that you must wipe out vast swaths of population to convince them they’re wrong and we’re right (essentially the driving strategy behind WW2). ...
The last time Ahmed al-Shayea was in the news, he was in the hospital at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, being treated for severe burns from the truck bomb he had driven into the Iraqi capital on Christmas Day, 2004.Today, he says, he has changed his mind about waging jihad, or holy war, and wants other young Muslims to know it. He wants them to see his disfigured face and fingerless hands, to hear how he was tricked into driving the truck on a fatal mission, to believe his contrition over having put his family through the agony of believing he was dead.
At 22, the new Ahmed Al-Shayea is the product of a concerted Saudi government effort to counter the ideology that nurtured the 9/11 hijackers and that has lured Saudis in droves to the Iraq insurgency. ...
Psyop continues:
The trouble is that, in the Arab world, you cannot communicate with another person without referencing Islam. It is as much a part of those people’s culture and mindset as oil is a part of the ground there. And, by simply refusing to play, the Army allows the extremists to dominate the field and convince the fence-sitters that Allah commands them to go and kill Americans and those who support them. Without another opinion to listen to on the matter, the issue is pretty much decided for them.A low literacy rate contributes to this. It is not unlike the Catholic church in Europe during the Middle Ages. Liturgy was in Latin only, as was the Bible. Because the local priest was the only man who could speak or write Latin, he could pretty much tell the people whatever he wanted and, because it was the “church” speaking, it was the truth. Burn a heretic, send your kids on a crusade, give me money… you get the idea. Imams in many of the towns and villages across the Arab world have that same power.
Convincing detainees (or EPWs or whatever you want to call them) of the wrongness of their actions can be done. This story proves it. However, it has to be done through the venue of Islam and Arab culture, not the progressive, western, Christian way of doing things.
Instead of locking ‘em up and throwing away the key, which will ultimately NOT pass a Constitutional litmus test, they could be turned and then let loose to spread their new ideology.
In yet another landmark legal case in the United Kingdom regarding Internet-based terrorism, a judge in London has sentenced a group of five British-born youngsters to a total of 13 years in prison for conspiring to use the web in order to accumulate vast amounts of terrorist propaganda in hopes of eventually traveling to Pakistan and joining Al-Qaida's forces there. The convicted defendants--Mohammed Irfan Raja, Usman Malik, Aitzaz Zafar, Awaab Iqbal, and Akbar Butt--were all between the ages of 17-21 and had made contact with each other through an Internet chatroom. In explaining his decision, Judge Peter Beaumont admonished the defendants: "Each of you is British. You were born here, your families lived here, you went to school and university here, you hold British passports. You live under the protection of its laws, which give you freedom of speech and religious observance, yet each of you were prepared to break its laws. Why? Because in my judgment you were intoxicated by the extremist nature of the material each one of you collected - the songs, images and the language of violent jihad - and so carried away by that material were you that each of you crossed the line. That is exactly what the people that peddle this material want to achieve and exactly what you did... To stop them and you and to protect this country and its citizens abroad, a message has to be sent."
M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD Chairman will be a guest today with William Wolf on "Middle East Radio Forum" on KKNT 960AM from 12PM-1PM PST. They will discuss Islam vs Islamists. Topics will include the controversial PBS documentary (see www.freethefilm.net ) which is set to appear locally on Channel 8 KAET on August 14, 2007 at 10 PM and other national and global issues related to the topic of Islam and Islamism.For those outside Arizona, the program can be heard online at:
http://www.middleeastradioforum.org
This week’s Pew study results are dangerously oversimplified. Improvements in economics and moods in the developing world are in no way reason enough for the sharp decline in support for suicide bombing. The recent 45-doctor plot in London and Glasgow told us that much. For now, it is not only too early, but downright irresponsible to have a collective sigh of relief.As we have often seen, Pew avoids the why. In their latest report, they again ignore the most central global question: Islamism and its conflict with America and the West.
What if, in fact, the general support for the tactic of terror was decreasing simply because the Islamist enemy was beginning to achieve their ideological goals in their native countries? What if the Islamists were actually sensing a general global retreat of the uniquely American ideologies of pluralism?
Terror is only a means to the ends of political Islam. If political Islam is on the rise, doesn’t it stand to reason that apologetics for terrorism may then actually decrease?
Certainly freer markets, economic growth, and education may ultimately drive Muslim populations away from autocracy and corruption. But to where will it drive them? What alternative Muslim narratives are available in this war of ideas? With the current American mainstream-media (MSM) distractions, Islamists are free to control Arab and Muslim media alongside their dictators and monarchs and spread political Islam in the Middle East and in the West.
Our private and governmental resources have yet to hardly focus on the anti-Islamists and anti-Wahhabist Muslims. The Bush administration and MSM would similarly rather avoid any critical ideological engagement of Islamist movements around the world. Our public diplomacy has actually turned into “Islamist facilitation.”
Manifestations of Islamist fascism (i.e. terrorism) may wax and wane depending upon how threatened the Islamist ideologues are with extinction. The underlying disease — political Islam— however, will never go away without a direct ideological counter-jihad and counter-Islamism from within the faith. ...
"I'm an Iraqi agnostic that lives in the UAE. I was part of an online community where everybody was free to share his ideas. Until I started talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict. I said that Arabs were making a lot of massacres, as well as the other side. I was insulted and kicked out.After that, a lot of users asked me make another free Arab forum. The forum is now in the design phase. I have a handful of thinkers, believers and non-believers. I am now looking for Arab Israelis who can give their side. I grant full freedom of speech, providing that everything is supplied with evidence. Looking forward your help, Irshad." - The Free Arab
NOTE: Irshad put The Free Arab in touch with with another Arab dissident, who wrote this to him:
"In agreement with what you said, here are only some examples of Arab/Muslim atrocities committed against our own which we are too proud to admit:
Pakistan’s General Yahya Khan slaughtering Bengali Muslims in 1971.
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein slaughtering the Kurds and Iranians using chemical weapons.
The Taliban slaughtering Shi'a Hazaras, committing war crimes comparable to the Serbs killing the Bosnians.
Jordan’s King Hussein and Pakistan’s General Zia ul Haq slaughtering Palestinians during Black September.
Syria’s President Hafez al-Assad slaughtering 40,000 Muslims and leveling the city of Hama.
The Amman bombings of November 2005 when Zarqawi even proudly claimed responsibility for the attacks.
On-going ethnic cleansing in Darfur...
Remarks. Some men you just can't reach. But there are some people who can be reached, and that's where the real action is in this war.
Respect your father.
The fact of the matter is that he has become his father in terms of foreign policy, and and his "domestic agenda", to the extent that he seems to have one, seems to consist largely of pushing through an immigration plan that is opposed by a significant majority of Americans.At one point, it was clear that President George W. Bush stood for something, whether or not people agreed with him. Now, he's a lame duck who has seemingly capitulated to his political adversaries............
Posting has been light lately, again due to a busy personal life. But I don't want to let Erev Pesach fall without posting something.
First and foremost, thanks to Cinnamon Stillwell for the link! Welcome, CS and Kesher Talk readers.
Via Neo: "Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?" Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger has some ideas about how you can help stop Congress from abandoning the Iraqi people. Go here to learn more.
Finally, I don't have anything particularly inspired to post about Passover right now, so I'll leave you with these links: A prayer for the captives at Kesher Talk, and ShrinkWrapped's magnificent Passover essay, "We were slaves."
Chag sameach ... happy Passover!
I'm very pleased to announce that Kat at The Middle Ground is back from her hiatus, and keeping an eye on those Copperheads. Go check out her latest posts. And don't forget to bookmark The Middle Ground on your browser!
From reviewing my site stats, I now know that Syd Barrett was Jewish, Muslim, and gay.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Orson Scott Card on the 2006 Elections:
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.
But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide. ...
As you already know if you've been reading for any length of time at all, this is a pro-feminist, pro-gay-rights, pro-war-on-terror site. What that means in practice is that I will often be too liberal for some people and too conservative for others. Deal with it.
There are some things I write about here at Dreams Into Lightning, and there are some things I don't write about. My range of subjects is pretty eclectic, I think, and I like to try to keep the site interesting and informative. But I don't have unlimited time or energy, and I cannot be all things to all people.
I don't post on sports simply because I don't follow sports. Sometimes I wish I did, but I don't. I generally avoid celebrity gossip and I don't usually spend a lot of time on what stupid celebrity said what stupid thing. I do not write about who is wearing a bra or who isn't wearing a bra or who should be wearing a bra. I don't do flame wars and p***ing contests.
I don't write about Adrienne Barbeau, but maybe I should start. Adrienne Barbeau fan club, anyone?
I occasionally write about movies but I resist getting into discussions of the politics of a film, simply because it's really easy to get in over one's head in those debates.
As a rule, I try to avoid debates about very broad or very abstract subjects. I am not going to get into an argument about whether liberalism is better than conservatism or conservatism is better than liberalism; whether feminism is good or bad or whether Islam is good or bad; whether one group is "more oppressed" or "more privileged" than another; and so on. Debates about broad classes (of people or of ideas) are by definition very broad, and this type of argumentation is way outside the scope of what I feel competent doing and what I am interested in doing. Also, I am not going to get into debates where there isn't enough common ground for a meaningful discussion. If you are really looking for an argument, please go here.
Generally I avoid posting on individual terrorist attacks or gay-bashings, unless the event is particularly egregious or raises an important issue.
I do aim to provide timely and accurate information about the war against fascism and dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere, and about the continuing struggle for mutual respect and understanding among members of the diverse societies of the Western world. I endeavor to make a positive contribution to the debate when I think I can.
I will be happy to discuss specific, relevant issues with anybody. Of course I am always open to factual corrections. Thanks for reading this post, and I apologize if it sounds pedantic and obnoxious.
We now return to our regular programming.
In my info page and in index listings, I usually describe Dreams Into Lightning as "culturally liberal, politically neoconservative". What do I mean by "culturally liberal"?
Two things in particular. In one sense, "culturally liberal" refers to the cultural milieu of self-identified liberals, that is, the culture of political liberalism. If you grew up liberal and hung out with liberals most of your life, you know what I mean - the social circle, the music, the food, the clothes, and so on. And in another sense, I'm referring to cultural pluralism - I'm carefully avoiding the term "multiculturalism", which has come into well-deserved contempt, but I do mean respect for multiple cultures in a genuine and ethically positive sense. (As opposed to the shallow, value-neutral foolishness that excuses Islamic fascism as just another "cultural expression".)
I'm bringing this up because both of these ideas will figure into my response to the much-discussed study by Robert Putnam on cultural diversity which was recently linked at The Belmont Club. As might be expected, social conservatives are reading the study's findings as a broad indictment of diversity, but I don't see it that way. I'll post more fully on it later, but I think commenter American Fool gets it right:
These results are common sense... who isn't more comfortable around like-minded people? It would be rather lonely to be the only family celebrating Christmas... or the 4th of July. On the other hand, growth derives from stepping outside of our confort zone. The point I think is that our society has, in a simplistic manner, pushed for a semi-valid "end" without appropriate discussion of the "means". I like people with different backgrounds; but I do want to watch the Superbowl with my buds... and maybe a new friend or two. And I'd like to see the World Cup with new friends that are soccer enthusiasts. That's called assimilation, and reciprocity. It's building a community. What I don't want is to be forced to watch the Tour de France in a room full of strangers from different cultures (I might on many occasions choose to do this, but I don't want it forced upon me. No matter how enthusiastic one is to experience other cultures, it is an inherently stressful experience for most people.) Multiculturalism as it has been practiced in western societies has resulted in the latter situation. It does not account for the natural distrust and fear of the unfamiliar we all experience, and that we all need a safe space to call home...
Dreams Into Lightning began publishing on Blogger in April 2004 and on TypePad in April 2006.
On September 11, 2006, a reader in Los Angeles, running Firefox on a Linux system and apparently looking for an e-book download of "Redemption Ark" by Alastair Reynolds, became the 50,000th visitor to DiL on Blogger according to SiteMeter.
Also on September 11, a reader in Tucson, running Internet Explorer on Windows XP and looking for information on Ghazal Omid, became visitor number 6,000 to DiL on TypePad and spent almost 12 minutes perusing the site.
Thanks to everyone who takes the time to visit.
TypePad is back up. Of all the days they could have picked for the site to crash ... never mind, I'm just glad we're back in business here.
New readers, remember that this site is just the tip of the Dreams Into Lightning iceberg. I've been blogging since spring of 2004, and all of my old posts - as well as most new ones - can be found at the Blogger site. And it's for occasions just like this one that I maintain it as a backup and archive site. So if you are interested in catching my latest posts, it's not a bad idea to keep Dreams Into Lightning - Blogger on your browser bookmarks.
And what a busy day it's been. If you want to start getting caught up, you can check out my latest posts at DiL Blogger. And pay Kesher Talk a visit, too - there are some great new posts by Judith, Van, and Alcibiades, and I'm posting there now as well.
Thanks to Judith at Kesher Talk for the link - and for inviting me to be a part of KT!
Just a few words on the recent reports - apparently untrue - of proposals to require Jews and Christians in Iran to wear some kind of distinguishing mark or item of clothing. Understandably, this triggered associations with the infamous "yellow star" that Jews in Nazi Germany were required to wear.
Here is my response, edited from an e-mail I sent to a friend:
I've been following the Iranian "yellow star" story pretty closely on the web. I am a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hawk, and I follow Iranian events almost obsessively.From everything I have seen in the last 24-48 hours, it appears certain that the story is incorrect. Amir Taheri offers the following response:
Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun. As far as my article is concerned I stand by it.The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation. Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation, including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. ( In Iran it was formally abolished in 1908). I have been informed of the ideas under discussion thanks to my sources in Tehran, including three members of the Majlis who had tried to block the bill since it was first drafted in 2004.
I do not know which of these ideas or any will be eventually adopted. We will know once the committee appointed to discuss them presents its report, perhaps in September.
Interestingly, the Islamic Republic authorities refuse to issue an official statement categorically rejecting the concept of dhimmitude and the need for marking out religious minorities. I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development. "
Some have claimed that either Taheri or some other party deliberately fabricated the story. I do not believe this is the case. I do think it's very unfortunate that someone of Taheri's caliber allowed himself to be associated with a highly inflammatory story that could not be verified.
I suspect this will turn out to be the Iranian counterpart of the Iraqi "WMD" episode; that is, those who wish to accuse the "warmongers" of spreading deliberate falsehoods will seize on it with the ferocity of a pit bull. What's sad is that the real atrocities of the Iranian regime, like those of Saddam's Ba'athist gang, will be overlooked.
Let me say here that I unequivocally condemn any and all attempts to "embellish" the crimes of the Iranian regime. The reality is horrible enough and it does not need any help. If more people knew the truth of the atrocities committed by the sadistic gang of thugs in Tehran, the story of alleged "Jewish clothing" would seem very small indeed.
Generally I make an effort to avoid or delay posting very sensational stories, precisely because there's a good chance they will turn out to be incorrect. I didn't post anything on this story for just that reason; but sometimes I do slip up. I'm taking this as a reminder to be extra careful about what I post here, because these are difficult and dangerous times, and people are getting killed. Writing about world events is a serious thing, and sometimes "PIMF" just doesn't cut it.
What are a source's biases? And why is it important to consider a source's biases?
In November 2006, just days before the national mid-term elections, the magazine Vanity Fair issued a press release suggesting that several leading neoconservative thinkers - David Frum, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and others - had renounced their earlier beliefs about Iraq and the Middle East. But according to the neoconservatives, the release grossly distorted and misrepresented their views, and some expressed regret that they had granted the interviews at all: in the words of Frank Gaffney, "None of us who responded candidly on the basis of such promises to thoughtful questions posed by reporter David Rose would likely have done so had the magazine’s true and nakedly partisan purpose been revealed." More at the post Neocons Blast Vanity Fair.
Suppose you are the reader, reading a magazine - or a book, or a newspaper, or a page on the internet. How do you determine the source's biases?
I don't think there's any simple answer, and I'm not sure it's the kind of question you can really find the answer to by typing it into a search engine. But I'll share my own thoughts on it. I addressed the problem of media (and source) bias in an earlier post, "Poison Pill: The Media Today". I quoted a New York Times editorial by Patrick Healy and a post by Neo-Neocon tracing the use of anonymous sources. The media's problem, I argued, was largely created by its own reliance on apocryphal sources - potentially biased, and anonymous, informants whose reliability and accountability are doubtful. As a first step toward correcting the problem, I echoed Neo's suggestion that
If the MSM really wanted to clean up their act, they might follow these sensible guidelines, devised by prominent journalists in a 2003 Poynter report:
• Anonymous sources should be encouraged to go on the record.
• We should weigh the source’s reliability and disclose to readers the source’s potential biases.
• The more specific we can be in describing the source in the story, the better.
• Anonymous sources should not be used for personal attacks, accusations of illegal activity, or merely to add color.
• The source must have first-hand knowledge.
• Journalists should not lie in a story to protect a source.
Now to the question at hand. Journalists are here being exhorted to "disclose to readers the source's potential biases". How would a journalist, or a layperson, make such an assessment? Well, I think it's mostly commonsense, but I'll throw a few ideas out there:
What is the source's ideological orientation? What are the person's political sympathies, their party affiliation, etc? This is not to say that people can't be objective or critical about a movement they belong to - but the potential for bias is certainly there.
What are the source's financial interests? I think this one is a no-brainer, but a person who owns a lot of stock in XYZ Corporation is going to have an incentive to promote pro-XYZ legislation and contracts. In the case of the MSM, we all know that "bad news sells".
Debts and favors. Is the source looking for a payoff down the road? If I go on record saying nice things about Candidate A, maybe I am hoping to get appointed to a nice comfy job if A wins the election.
The medium is the message. News stories go through news networks, broadcast networks, and publishers. Books go through publishing houses. In other words, somebody has to provide the materials for the message to be communicated. Somewhere, a network executive makes decisions about what gets on the air and what doesn't. Somewhere, an editor or publisher decides what gets printed and what doesn't. So if you're reading a book you have to think about not only the author's background and point of view, but also the publisher's orientation: for example, they might publish mostly liberal books or mostly conservative books. Knowing something about the background of a publisher or a broadcast network can help give you an idea of what to expect.
What are the source's own experiences? How might those experiences be relevant, and how might they affect the source's perceptions? First-hand knowledge of any issue is always helpful; on the other hand, a person might have had an experience that was atypical or unrepresentative. A soldier on the front lines is going to have a very vivid, detailed, and specific recollection of a battle. The general in a command bunker may not see the battle up close, but he will have information on the "big picture" of troop strengths, enemy positions, strategic decisions, and other things that the soldier will not know, and may not be allowed to know. The soldier's memory may be distorted by trauma, confusion, fear, or shame (of a real or imagined failiing on the battlefield); the general may ignore or suppress key information, perhaps with his career in mind. Both perspectives are valuable, both have their limitations.
Psychological factors. There are basic psychological factors that operate in all of us to one degree or another. Resistance to change is one; Neo has written extensively and insightfully on the human reluctance to change familiar patterns of thought. There is a need for approval of others; there is also a need for a sense of autonomy and a belief that we determine our own destiny. And of course we all like to be thought knowledgeable, which is why we are often tempted to speak more than we actually know.
The centrally-managed and -edited traditional media (including radio, TV, print periodicals, and books) have nothing to fear from the internet ... provided they do not contribute to their own irrelevance by ignoring it.
The internet is anarchical, and therefore makes great demands on the individual user in terms of critical thinking skills. How do we know to trust a site? We compare information from multiple sources, listen to different analyses, learn to weed out irrelevant input and compare the picture with what we know from our own previous experience.
With the traditional media, this is all delegated to the editor, publisher, producer, or university. Often we have to do this, because the material is specialized or technical in nature, or because individual contributors don't have the credibility to reliably provide the information we need.
But centralized media can serve their own agendas at the expense of accuracy. That's where the supremely democratic world of blogging comes in.
Traditional media still play a valuable role. But they risk abdicating this role if they fail to recognize the democratizing effects of electronic communications.
Why do we believe what we believe? How do we decide what is true, and what is important? Consider the role of the following factors, and feel free to add others:
· internal consistency (details of the narrative agree with each other)
· external consistency (details of the narrative agree with information previously verified)
· insider details (information available only to an authentic source)
· dialog and dissent (narrative welcomes questions and challenges; fosters better understanding among divergent opinions)
· awareness of objections (narrative recognizes legitimate counter-arguments and seeks to refute them)
· nuance (recognition that a proposition may hold true in general and still admit of exceptions)
· the human voice (an intangible quality that may include a distinctive personality, awareness of ambivalence, self-analysis and self-criticism)
Finally, what does biased writing look like? Bias isn't necessarily bad, but you need to be aware of it and, if necessary, allow for it. Yahoo offers this:
Check for the tone of the publication - pick out opinion statements and check the publication's references (are all of the references from the same author or does the publication offer a variety?). What other articles has the author written - the topics of these may help determine her/his bias.
Does the author present both sides of the argument/topic? If not, which side is presented more often? What is the point s/he is trying to make? Ask yourself these questions and you should be on the right track!
That sums up the main points: variety of sources, obvious rhetorical slant, agenda. Going a little deeper, I'll offer the following ideas:
* Look for "snarl words" versus "purr words" - words that mean the same thing but sound bad or good.
* See if you can tell what kind of overall picture, or "narrative", the writer is trying to present.
* Sometimes an article will seem to present both sides, but will use better arguments to represent one side, and weaker arguments for the other, so that one side sounds more convincing; this is a kind of implicit bias.
* Sometimes people will use bogus arguments (called "red herrings" or "straw men") to evade questions they don't have answers for; these are examples of fallacies or bad logic. Studying the types of fallacies can help you see when somebody is trying to pull a fast one on you; you can find out more about logical fallacies here, here, or here.
Another common form of potential bias is the use of "weasel words" - words or phrases that make a statement appear factual but really undercut the precision of the statement. They're called "weasel words" because they allow the writer to wiggle out of being pinned down to a specific statement that can be proved or disproved. Wikipedia's style manual has an excellent section on weasel words:
Words and short phrases that make a statement difficult or impossible to prove or disprove:
- Some humans practice cannibalism. (True, but useless and misrepresentative)
- Many humans practice cannibalism. (“many” could well be two, three, ten, or even five billion)
- Throughout human history, there have been many individuals with three arms. (to illustrate.)
- Most scientists believe that there is truth
- "Most" can mean any amount over 50% but short of 100%
- A "scientist" could be anyone with any knowledge of science
- The statement gives no necessary contextual data:
- How, when and by whom were the individual beliefs counted
- Whether the statement concerns all published scientists, or all those presently alive, or only those who are qualified in the given scientific field
- The meaning of "truth" varies
- "More and more", "more than ever", "an increasing number"
- "Possibly", "may", "could", "perhaps" and the like
- It is believed that... Anyone could believe anything so it is very important to know who believes that, and why?
- It remains to be seen... Pointless, since it usually introduces an unverifiable statement.
The following examples often qualify for weasel words by vaguely attributing a statement to no source in particular:
- "According to some (reports, studies, rumors, sources…) …"
- "Actually, Allegedly, Apparently, Arguably, Clearly, Plainly, Obviously, Undoubtedly, Supposedly ..."
- "(Contrary, as opposed) to (many, most, popular, ...) ..."
- "(Correctly, Justly, Properly, ...) or not, ..."
- "Could it be that..."
- "(Critics, detractors, fans, experts, many people, scholars, historians, ...) contend/say that ..."
- "It (could be, should be, may be, has been, is) (argued, speculated, remembered, …) …"
- "(Mainstream, serious, the majority of, a small group of ...) (scholars, scientists, researchers, experts, scientific community...) ..."
- "It has been proven that…"
- "Research has shown..."
- Personifications like "Science says ..." or "Experience has proven..."
- "There has been criticism that ..."
- "It turns out..."'
In an earlier post at Dreams Into Lightning, I complained about the use of vague modifiers in the media:
Have you ever noticed how often they use vague quantifiers like "some" and "many", especially when they're talking about public opinion? But of course you have - Dreams Into Lightning readers are a smart bunch. So you've already figured out that that's an easy way for the "journalist" to introduce his or her own opinion into a story, without having to defend a more stringent assertion, e.g. the claim that said opinions represent a majority (which would require the word "most").
Now go take another look at Wikipedia's list - better yet, print it out! - and spend some time looking for weasel words in your favorite media source. I bet you'll find a lot of them. (How many is "a lot"? Well, try it and find out for yourself!)
Make a game of it: print out a copy of this post, and go through your local newspaper with a pen or a highlighter. Look for anonymous sources, or people who might have an incentive to be partial, or examples of journalists possibly putting their own opinions into the mouths of the ubiquitous "some people". Look for snarl words, purr words, and weasel words. Try to spot logical fallacies. Check for internal consistency, external consistency, and awareness of objections. Ask yourself which analyses come from people who know what they're talking about - those who have first-hand knowledge of the relevant "facts on the ground" and who are prepared to respond to opposing arguments - and which ones are unsupported opinions from people with their own agenda.
I hope you have found this post helpful. But the most important thing in determining a source's biases is to do your own thinking! And that's important for students, too - so if you are a student, please take the time to come up with your own answers to this question. Remember, your instructor can use a search engine just as easily as you can.
Related. On Scott Thomas Beauchamp and source biases.Title and tagline.
I turned your dreams into lightning
Ain't that enough
I held the world back for you
Ain't that enough
- Melissa Etheridge, "Enough of Me"
"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
- Jacques Chirac, on Eastern European nations supporting the United States
Picture- "Queen of the Space Unicorns".
The story behind the "Lady with Unicorn" picture on my sidebar can be found here.
Content.
Mostly world events, with a strong focus on the Middle East, Israel, Iraq and Iran, the Arab and Muslim world, and the freedom movement. Politics and culture from a liberal, pro-Bush perspective. Women. Liberalism and its future. Neoconservatism; neoconservative politics. Lesbian, gay, feminist, and gender-related topics. Spirituality, religion; Judaism and Islam. Science and science fiction. America. In the coming year I expect to add more cultural and creative stuff. Regular features include "Morning Report" (daily headlines) and "Let's Blogroll" (an occasional roundup of interesting posts from around the blogosphere). Past features have included "The L Word: Liberalism in Crisis" (critiques of the contemporary left/liberal movment) and "The New Republican" (responses to articles in The New Republic). New weekly features are planned.
Homepage.
The new homepage URL for Dreams Into Lightning is http://asher813.typepad.com/dreams_into_lightning/.
Alternate URLs are:
http://asher813.com/
http://dreamsintolightning.com/
Introduction.
My first post is here: A Little About Me.
Family history, genealogy, and anecdotes: The Town Down the River.
Best posts - first year.
Please take a moment to visit Best of Dreams Into Lightning - first year.
The Dreams Into Lightning Universe - related and affiliated blogs.
