Scott Adams on Censorship and Voting

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert and host of daily video blog Coffee With Scott Adams on YouTube and Locals) posted this tweet with a provocative thesis.

Censorship determines the narrative. The narrative determines public opinion. Public opinion determines the vote. The vote determines who runs the country.

We have replaced voting with battles over who gets censored.

In response I posted this:

Behind the censorship is the postmodern idea that those who have the most power can decide and determine what is true.

Although I agree with Adams, I think he doesn’t go back far enough to the source of the censorship. The censorship Adams talks about doesn’t spring out of nothing like the Big Bang. We need to identify the beliefs that people use to justify imposing censorship that prevents certain ideas from being expressed or facts from being uncovered.

I believe postmodernism plays a role in many issues. I summarize postmodernism as the belief that there is no objective truth. Therefore, “truth” is determined by those who have the most power over the tools of communication such as social media, news media and over our language which includes the meanings of words and what is considered acceptable uses of these words. (There are some who claim that even silence can be oppressive because if you don’t vocally repudiate something that means you secretly support the “offensive” idea.)

Therefore, I now use the term “partial news” when referring to the news media. (I know, it's not as catchy as Trump's "fake news." I’m also thinking of using “skewed news.”) Here the word “partial” has two meanings. The first meaning refers only part of the story being told so that leads us to the conclusion they want us to reach. The second meaning refers to our news outlets as being partial rather than being impartial (i.e., objective). Postmodernism lies behind this because postmodernists believe there is no objective truth. When the truth and facts no longer serve as a yardstick, your political agenda takes over. News stories can then be crafted to steer us to a predetermined conclusion rather than presenting other sides of the story. 

Americans Distrust of Mass Media: Gallup Article

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media BY Megan Brenan

This article features an eye-opening graph that plots how much trust in the media Democrats have versus Independents and Republicans. It’s 73% for Democrats, 36% for Independents and 10% (!) for Republicans.  

This graph could confirm what the right claims: the media leans left and their Democrat audience trusts these sources precisely because they share the same worldview. I have liberal friends who believe their news sources are 100% objective with no bias and mock anyone who dares to watch Fox News because Fox is biased and unreliable. However, the chart (below) produced by AllSides shows that the “mainstream” networks such as ABC, CBS, MSNBC and NBC fall into Lean Left or Left categories. The main outlets that fall into the Center category include the BBC, NPR, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. Examples of Right leaning sources: New York Post, Reason, The Federalist, National Review, and of course the much-reviled Fox News.

This article (Why Being ‘Anti-Media’ Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity By Meredith Conroy) from Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight tries to build a case that Republicans live in a bubble because they predominantly rely on Fox News while Democrats show more balance. “Hostility and distrust of the news media, in other words, has become a point of political identity among Republicans.” (I would argue that hostility and distrust of Fox News has become a point of political identity among Democrats.)

Conroy refers to a finding in a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in which Republicans heavily rely on Fox News over other news sources.

“This finding stands in stark contrast with the views of Democrats, who said they trusted a variety of news sources [Note: emphasis added], and it marks a further decline in Republicans’ trust of other news sources since Pew last conducted a similar survey in 2014.”

The comment that I emphasized above about Democrats trusting “a variety of news sources” caught my attention so I looked up the Pew Research studied that was cited in this article. 

The Pew website shows a chart (shown below) with the top five sources for Democrats were: CNN (67%), NBC News (61%), ABC News (60%), CBS News (59%), and PBS (56%). As I noted above, the AllSides site rates all of these sources except PBS as Lean Left or Left. The chart for Republicans has this breakdown: Fox News (65%), ABC News (33%), CBS News (30%), Hannity (radio) (30%), and NBC News (30%). While Republicans clearly favor Fox News about a third of them still get news from sources that are considered on the Left. Meanwhile, Democrats rely on CNN as much as Republicans trust Fox but almost all of their other sources fall into the Left side of the spectrum (again the exception being PBS).

I’d say the alleged “variety” of sources that Democrats trust is not a variety of political points of view. As I noted at the beginning many of my liberal friends believe their news sources are completely unbiased and totally objective when they are not. What bothers me is that they claim Republicans live in a news bubble when in reality they're in their own bubble.

Media Bias 101: The Difference Between News, Analysis, and Opinion | AllSides or How to Recognize Skewed News

Media Bias 101: The Difference Between News, Analysis, and Opinion | AllSides

I've referred to AllSides before as a source for analyzing bias in news reporting. This article explains the three different aspects of a news story: news, analysis and opinion. Here is how AllSides describes each category.

News: What happened.

Analysis: What happened and why — writer considers facts and draws conclusions.

Opinion: What I think about what happened.

The article provides three examples of a story about a protest with a headline of "violation of human rights."

News: Crackdown "Violation of Human Rights"

• attributes information to a source
• uses quotes, cites source
• describes what is objectively observable (something was said, something happened)
• to be truly balanced and unbiased, the piece would also include a quote from the other side (in this fictional example, the perspective of law enforcement, or perhaps a bystander or another organization who has a different account of what happened)

Analysis: Crackdown Violation of Human Rights

• explains what events may mean
• someone with experience, knowledge, and background considers evidence and interprets events
• conclusions are drawn based on evidence (they may or may not be accurate conclusions)

Opinion: Crackdown Violation of Human Rights

• offers judgement, viewpoint, belief, feelings, or statement that is not conclusive (notice the writer does not directly describe what happened)
• language is colored by subjective spin words and phrases

The AllSides article highlights the problem when all three factors are mixed together in a story. The resulting stew results in what I call "skewed news" which I think is more accurate than Trump's "fake news." I say skewed because most news outlets leave out key information that doesn't support the narrative they want to create. In this case the term "news story" is accurate if we take the word story to mean crafting a narrative or trying to lead the consumer to reach a specific conclusion. We tell stories to influence the listener or reader to agree with us.

For examples check out the weekly Blind Spot report of Ground News. Each week Ground News provides examples of stories that the left will cover much more than the right and vice versa.

 

Sneaky Bias

I normally don’t bother trying to document examples of biased reporting because, frankly, I don’t have the time or interest. Years ago a friend and I put together a course on critical thinking that we gave at a local center for adult education. My partner and I used examples from various publications like the Boston Globe or Newsweek. We had absolutely no trouble finding examples. They were literally on every page. It was a target-rich environment. 

However sometimes I see particular example of how sneaky the bias is in the reporting. Here are two, both related to the controversy over mail-in voting.  I have my own concerns about mail-in voting, just to be transparent. I’m not going to talk about them here because the point I’m making has to do with how some news reporting tries to influence your opinion by their choice of the words they use … or don’t use.

The first example comes from the local Boston evening news. They showed Trump saying that absentee ballots were OK but that mail-in voting was subject to fraud. When they cut back to the news anchor he says, "There is no evidence of mail-in voter fraud." Period. The anchor doesn't cite any sources while saying it like it's an established, unquestionable fact. They then immediately shifted to a different story. So this leaves the uninformed viewer with the impression that Trump is wrong as usual and that mail-in voting has no risk.

The second example comes from the CBS This Morning Show in their coverage of the 2020 DNC convention. After showing some clips from the convention the anchor briefly reported on what Trump was doing at the same time and his “unsubstantiated” claims about mail-in voting fraud. Period. The anchor provided no substantiation for this statement.  If you’re not listening critically words like “unsubstantiated” slip by your filter and could influence your opinion. I think this is intentional, not accidental.

You could argue that the available time in news shows is too tight to get into detailed counterarguments. Fair enough. However, I’d say they could add something like, “Some experts say there is no evidence of mail-in fraud.” In fact, I used to see statements like that added at the end of a story where the news aired a claim by someone who challenged something like the validity of claims about global warming. I haven’t seen that recently.

My main point is to show how they sneak in their own unsubstantiated claims as if it were an indisputable fact. These days there is no such a thing!

Media Bias Chart | AllSides

Media Bias Chart | AllSides

AllSides recently updated the chart they post on their web site on media bias. I generally agree with their ratings which are: Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right and Right. I also like how they caution readers not to automatically assume that Center means no bias or that it's better than being on the left or right side of the spectrum. Here is what they say:

Center doesn't mean better! A Center media bias rating does not always mean neutral, unbiased or reasonable, just as "far Left" and "far Right" do not always mean "extreme," "wrong," or "unreasonable." A Center bias rating simply means the source or writer rated does not predictably publish opinions favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. A media outlet with a Center rating may omit important perspectives, or run individual articles that display bias, while not displaying a lot of predictable bias frequently. Center outlets can be difficult to determine, and a case can often be made for them leaning one way or the other.

Three Resources for Checking News Bias

Scott Adams recommended an app called Ground News in one of his Periscopes. I checked it out and installed the app. When you open the app it lists the latest stories with a banner beneath it with the following categories: Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right and Right. It shows which news outlets in each category have covered the story. You can click on the five buttons for the political bent you want to check out to compare how each news outlet reported that story. Here is their URL. https://app.ground.news/top

If you sign up for their weekly email it shows examples of stories that show the "blindspots" of the coverage on the left and right. They'll post stories with a breakdown of how many news outlets in the five different categories of bias covered that story. They breakdown might show that, say, no outlets reported a particular story on the right or on the left. 

There is another site called AllSides that does pretty much the same thing. I don't think they have a phone app like Ground News does. Their home page lists stories in three columns: News from the Left, News from the Center and News from the Right.

AllSides also has a chart under the tab Media Bias that ranks news sites by their bias. You can vote to indicate whether you agree with their rating. There is a table that includes a column that shows whether the site's users agree with the AllSides rating. https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

You can follow both Ground News and AllSides on Twitter or Facebook.

6/3/2020 Update. Found a third site that also compares the news reporting of the left, right and center. https://leftright.news/

Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson is one of the sources I refer to often for an objective (I think!) take on the news. Attkisson was a correspondent and anchor at CBS News, PBS, CNN and in local news for thirty years. She also won the Emmy Award five times, and received the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting. 

With that as background I'm sharing a link to Attkisson's website in which she tracks how many "mistakes" the news media has been making in reporting on president Trump. As of this posting her list contains 119 mistakes! 

https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/03/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

She introduces this list as follows:

[A]s self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

 Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.

I think there are several factors at play here. One is that Trump flies fast and loose with his rhetoric. As Scott Adams probably would say, Trump exaggerates or misstates facts but is shooting in the right direction. (As one reporter once said, Trump's critics take him literally but not seriously while his supporters take Trump seriously but not literally.)

The second factor is that the "mistakes" in their reporting. I'm sure some of these mistakes are honest, maybe driven by the desire to break a story first without taking time to corroborate. But I also think some of these errors reveal the news media's bias and disagreement with Trump's policies while denying it. As Attkisson states the reporters and editors have appointed themselves as arbiters of truth. I think the desire to push a preferred narrative and the belief that they have a monopoly on the truth conspire to produce this steady flow of mistruths.

Trump, Ukraine, and Quid Pro Quo

As anyone who reads this blog knows I like to provide links to examples of objective analysis. (Or at least I think they are objective!) The latest story dominating the news cycle is whether President Trump held back funds from the Ukraine government unless it finds dirt on the dealings of Joe Biden's son for his role in the Ukraine based energy company Burisma Holdings Limited.

The first link takes you to an article written by Alan Dershowitz who can hardly be described as a Trump supporter. Dershowitz, who is a scholar of US constitutional law, answers these questions.

Impeachers Searching for New Crimes

[D]id President Trump commit impeachable offenses when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are seeking his impeachment?

The answers are plainly no and no. There is a constitutionally significant difference between a political "sin," on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable offenses, on the other.

Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine -- a quid pro quo exchange of foreign aid for a political favor -- that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable offense.

Sharyl Attkisson provides the thoughts below in her Quid pro quo in Ukraine? No, not yet | The Hill. (Attkisson, a five-time Emmy Award winner, was an investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News.)

A quid pro quo has two essential parts. First, a deal must be understood between the parties. In this case, it would be President Trump delivering U.S. aid if, and only if, the president of Ukraine delivers dirt on Trump’s “political rival” and potential 2020 opponent — Joe Biden. 

Second, the goods must actually be delivered. In this case, President Trump would have had to receive the requested packet of “dirt” on Biden, in order to trigger release the U.S. aid to Ukraine. So far, there is not an allegation that Part Two ever occurred. Without delivery of the dirt, there’s no quid pro quo. Just a quid. 

The most that can be reasonably alleged against President Trump at this stage is that he offered a quid pro quo — something both Trump and the other party, the president of Ukraine, deny — but that it was never consummated. New facts could emerge but, right now, there seems to be less than meets the eye.

I've chosen Scott Adams for my final example. Unfortunately this article probably sits behind The Wall Street Journal pay wall so I've provided a couple key quotes below. 

If you’ve followed the Ukraine phone-call news, you might have noticed reality branching into two completely different movies. In one, President Trump was doing his job of protecting the republic by asking an allied country to help out on an important legal investigation. The other movie involves Orange Hitler bullying a foreign country into meddling in our elections by “digging up dirt” on a political opponent.

Which movie is the real one, if such a thing exists? I’d like to offer a rule of thumb for evaluating political news: If a fact is reported the same by both the left-leaning and the right-leaning press, it’s probably a fact. If not, wait and see.

...

One side says the quid pro quo—in the form of Mr. Trump’s asking his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden at the risk of losing military funds already approved by Congress—was so obvious it didn’t need to be stated in direct language. The other side says every conversation among world leaders carries some kind of implied quid pro quo, and in this case the request for investigation was entirely appropriate. You might even say it was one of Mr. Trump’s highest priorities, given the risk that a potential future President Biden might be compromised in his dealings with a foreign government.

When Adams talks about the two different movies people see depending on their viewpoint, I have run into this myself. A friend asked if I was upset with what Trump said in the phone call with the new Ukraine president. (He referred to Trump as “your president”, not “our president” because he hates Trump and knows that I don’t.) I said that I read the transcript of the phone call and didn’t see something that would warrant impeachment. My friend claims he read the transcript too and disagreed with me. Both of us read the transcript of the phone call but came to different conclusions. I told my friend that this shows that while both of us think we’re being objective we still reached drastically different conclusions.

By the way, Adam’s rule of thumb about evaluating political news is intriguing. I know it won’t work all the time (or even most of the time) because each news outlet spins the facts to fit the narrative they want us to buy. Maybe both sides will present the core facts the same they will conveniently leave out facts that threaten to spoil their spin. For a good summary of the ploys the news media wield to influence us please see How to Spot 11 Types of Media Bias from AllSides; they illustrate each type of bias with real examples.

I subscribe to a variety of daily email newsletters and Twitter feeds. Since I consider myself to be libertarian about three quarters of my news feeds come from libertarian or conservative sources. But I also receive notices from leftist sources to get different perspectives and to test mine.