Thoughts on Bias

[elwoodblues]

A common response on this forum is "well, you can't believe xyz because [Michael Moore/some Pro Israel site/Fox News/Dan Rather/etc] said it."

The fact that a person with a personal/professional bias made a statement does not necessarily negate the validity of the statement itself. Often biased individuals raise interesting questions that deserve our time and attention (even if the answers that they provide are flawed to the core.) We do a disservice to ourselves to summarily dismiss other viewpoints solely because we don't like the messenger.

For example:

Bowling for Columbine --- the central question asked in the movie is Why does America have higher rates of gun violence than other (similarly situated) countries? The answer Moore suggests might be total crap, and the evidence he provides for that answer might be false, but the question itself (in my opinion) is a good one and we can use Moore's biased work to help frame a discussion.

Roger and Me --- again, a biased work. Often people jump to the conclusion based on this film and his subsequent works that Moore hates capitalism and/or corporations. That doesn't diminish the fact that the film asks an interesting question --- what, if any, moral/civil responsibility does a corporation have to it's employees and to the citizens of the communities in which it resides?

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth --- Swifties are biased and therefore should be ignored; rather than "To what extent should we consider one's military service when voting for president?" "To what extent can an individual remain patriotic and criticize a war?" "To what extent are criticisms of a war justly read as criticisms of the warriors?"

I think we're missing out on a lot of opportunities for good discussions by our shoot the messenger style of debate.