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.

[Boris]

Your three examples have many more problems than being biased. If I thought Michael Moore made his documentaries with any sincerity in trying to address social problems, I might pay more attention to him. But I'm pretty sure he makes his documentaries with the sole purpose in mind of making gobs of money and gaining prestige.

The Swifties were the product of election year nastiness. Who cares?

For true bias from people who are sincere in their beliefs I like Lewis Lapham, editor of Harpers, from the left and the WSJ editorial board from the right.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm pretty sure he makes his documentaries with the sole purpose in mind of making gobs of money and gaining prestige.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when are these bad reasons to do anything? By your logic, the fruits of capitalism should be ignored.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
ur three examples have many more problems than being biased. If I thought Michael Moore made his documentaries with any sincerity in trying to address social problems, I might pay more attention to him. But I'm pretty sure he makes his documentaries with the sole purpose in mind of making gobs of money and gaining prestige.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that I don't give a rip what Moore's intent was. The fact that he is seeking money and prestige from making movies shouldn't shock anyone. He raises thought provoking questions that can lead to interesting discussions.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that I don't give a rip what Moore's intent was. The fact that he is seeking money and prestige from making movies shouldn't shock anyone. He raises thought provoking questions that can lead to interesting discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discussions, sure. What I have a problem with is when people use the works of Moore, Coulter, Franken, etc. to form conclusions. Sadly, the people who do this most often are usually the ones who would most benefit from some honest discussion.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
He raises thought provoking questions that can lead to interesting discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun violence and corporate ethics are not new issues. They get discussed all the time. We don't need Michael Moore to make movies letting us know that these kind of problems exist. Moore's approach to examining these issues is exceptionally emotional and anti-intellectual. This approach of evaluating a problem pisses me off. Therefore I say F Michael Moore.

[JoeC]

My main problem with Moore is just the obscene lack of logic in his movies. My favorite Moore moment was when he blamed Dick Clark for that one school shooting...but Lila "All families of soldiers hate Bush now" Lipscomb is a close second.

Overall, though, you make a good point. Republicans and Democrats don't even respect each other's sources anymore, so there's no longer any common ground for debate.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Gun violence and corporate ethics are not new issues. They get discussed all the time

[/ QUOTE ]

When was the last time you had a discussion with anyone about why the US has a higher gun violence rate than other similarly situated countries? People just don't have discussions like that without a catalyst like Moore. You can say that conversation happened all the time prior to Columbine, but my memory would be very different from yours in that regard.

[Utah]

I think you raise an interesting point.

I think the problem lies, not in the valid questions, but from the biased basis for that discussion, which severely corrupts the debate. I was trying to make a similiar point with Cyrus on the "20 stories" thread.

When you start a discussion from a biased and tainted starting point you rarely dismiss that starting point out of hand. Unfortunately, this leads to a frenzed battle trying to prove or disproved the provacators facts and conclusion. This is a hoplessly flawed approach.

For example, Moore hasn't been a catalyst for anything. IMHO. There have been discussions about Bowling for Columbine ad nauseam. However, I have yet to hear an interesting discussion about the central question you propose. That is because the discussions all start from Moore's slanted story.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, Moore hasn't been a catalyst for anything. IMHO. There have been discussions about Bowling for Columbine ad nauseam. However, I have yet to hear an interesting discussion about the central question you propose. That is because the discussions all start from Moore's slanted story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. Boring documentaries don't succeed because they are boring and nobody watches them. Documentaries such as Moore's don't succeed (assuming success is measured by affecting a change in either the way we discuss the issue or a policy change) because their slanted style leads people to discuss the film itself, not the content/questions raised.