When you read this blog, there is one thing you should know about me, and that is that I am a suspect writer. I write biased, opinionated things about my own life – and my understanding of things can often be limited and faulty because my own life sometimes confuse the hell out of me. Hell, I’ve shown things I’ve written to Mark, and he just snorts and says ‘shows how much you know’.
In Journalism there is the clichéd admonition that has probably never been true to begin with: “Just the facts, ma’am”. All writers, and all writing, are biased and comes from a particular point of view. The selection bias starts already when you select a theme for an article, blog-post, or essay. The selection of the premise, or punch line, itself limits the amount of truth that can be had from a piece of writing.
One of the things that my school has really stressed over the last two years is to distrust any writing in magazines, newspapers, and books without independent verification of the actual source. Is the journalist that wrote the piece about Global Warming in Guardian a Climate Scientist, or does he or she have knowledge about Climate Science that would replace the need for a formal degree? Is Paul Krugman a scientist or a pundit in his role as a opinion writer for The New York Times? Is Phil Platt stance on scepticism valid despite not having a formal degree in Philosophy?
When I instinctively disagree with something, say something that David Cameron and the Tories have proposed, is it actually my intellect speaking, or just my general dislike of “the nasty party”? Are my credentials enough to outweigh something that Ed Milliband say? Are my feelings about Nick Clegg more important to me than any truth?
Are my emotions in fact more important than the facts. Have the clichéd admonition I opened with in fact been reversed to a “Not the facts, ma’am”? Do I use lots of words and non-essentials to affirm my emotional instincts, instead of absorbing facts?
If so, I think I’m not alone, and the whole of the reading public has been reduced to looking for emotional kicks rather than cold hard facts that may or may not be aligned with their feelings.
Observationally acute.
I know that anything I say about the leaders of any of the three main political parties will these days be clouded by my own feelings of detestation regardless of any words they may be uttering to sweeten my disposition. About the only thing that might raise a smile is hearing we’ve renegotiated ourselves into a trading partner in the ‘Common Market’ as we were and are no longer to pay vast sums to the EU and adopt laws that don’t suit the UK into practise. The problem is I’ve become such a cynic these days I wouldn’t believe whoever was telling me. I would think my ears were telling me what I wanted to hear.Our judgements are clouded by the promises politicians make and don’t keep,by the scientists who say “Global Warming” and then by those who say “Not true”, by the policeman who tells us accident and the coroner who says murder. It’s a case of finding a balance between the varying factions and trying to find your own proofs, Not at all easy.
Great post Colin. It used to be that non-fiction was about facts and fiction was about entertainment, or /persuasion/ – i.e. writing an imaginative story in such a way that you jolly your readers into agreeing with some basic premise.
That line was crossed a long time ago and now, sorting fact from fiction is extraordinarily hard. The Climate Change ‘debate’ is a perfect example of bias, and public ignorance, at work. These days, to get at the facts we have to become sleuths because even scientists aren’t all trustworthy. If scientist X says human induced climate change is a furphy I have to check /his/ credentials. Oh, looky here. Scientist X has a PhD in toe-nail clippings; maybe his views on climate change are no more expert than mine.
As for politics…. none of us trust politicians any more, even on the odd occasions when they’re actually telling the truth. :s
I have to ask the question though: do you distrust politicians because you feel bad about them, or because they factually are wrong?
Both. The sly, and patently obvious twisting of the truth annoys the shit out of me at a human-to-human level. And then the incompetence has me pulling my hair out.
As a person who is very interested in Science and who worked in state government in the Health Department’s Infectious Disease Bureau, I had to deal with the fallout from sloppy journalism or biased opinion pieces. Your opinion is valid if it is based, as they say in court, on the preponderance of the evidence. You are right to ask hard questions. In the case of Climate Science the number of articles in professional peer reviewed journals is overwhelmingly on the side of those that believe there is strong evidence that man caused carbon emissions are warming the planet. With each passing year the evidence has accumulated and former deniers have become convinced that human activity is gradually warming the planet.
When it comes to politicians, most of whom are not scientists, I trust the individual who surrounds him/herself with people who are knowledgeable in the aspect of policy and action they advise the politician on. That, and a person who holds beliefs that are closest to mine in the areas that are most important to me. Which brings us back full circle to my own personal bias.
Have you ever considered writing something darker? As in, seriously dark… I think it could be interesting for you.
I also think that any retelling of events will be either intentionally or unintentionally biassed. The best way to get to “the truth” is to use multiple sources and attempt to build a fair picture, and that is the inevitable state of affairs.