about allegations of bias

When considering arguments and reports such as that finally offered by CBS to explain the 60 Minutes II problem with election stories, Lindgren describes a very good indicator to consider.

The motivation to seek and expose the truth is a pretty powerful one by itself, and motivations are complex. As I have said many times before, first you determine if the facts that someone is asserting are true or not. Only if they are false do you begin to ask why they would be putting forward false information, whether pushing false information might be the result of political bias. [Jim Lindgren. Comparing Blogger Political Agendas With CBS’s Lack of an Agenda. Volokh Conspiracy. 10 Ja05]

Consider, for instance, the case of the SwiftVets or the current ruckus in the Washington Governor’s race where a hundred or so votes was considered a near tie up until the third recount when the small margin was turned the other way or the Boxer and Black Caucus ruckus about certifying the Ohio vote.

The perversion of assignation of a person’s motivations to always be crass or selfish is in itself an indicator that can be used to evaluate arguments. The report sidestepped making firm conclusions about two critical issues but made the evidence very clear in appendices. These are those concerning political bias in creating the environment for the gross errors made and the near certainty that the documents used as a basis were fabricated.

Anyone tempted to look at the evidence for the questions they raise and to try to find out what really happened is immediately lambasted as acting solely on the basis of political motivations. This is the excuse used in the attempt to rewrite history in the Clinton library.

Let the facts speak for themselves. Lindgren offers good advice.

Comments are closed.