I like to think [my confirmation bias is] not as bad as some (I’m contrarian, analytic, and more libertarian than conservative anymore)

That\’s why imspecialism is only a minor crime; after all, it may be justified. (Though I wouldn\’t try to navigate the circular logic required to justify it to oneself.)

All the same, point out the many instances of bias that go the other way.

It\’s not required by my position to produce this kind of evidence. If I ever need it, I\’ll let the Mark Crispin Millers point out perceived biases that go the other way. (Of course, I disagree with his analysis, too.)

More generally, I didn\’t make my case properly. I think my misuse of \’sinister motives\’ threw off my argument. I\’m not beating a straw man here. I\’m claiming that most perceived instances of subconscious bias are due to sloppiness and sloppiness alone. I found it appropriate to argue this here because I believe your criticism of the article is based on one of these misdiagnosed errors.

You think subconscious bias let a pro-Democrat sentence slip through: the writer read the poll results, then in her mind conflated support for some proposal with support for the Democrats\’ proposal. I think sloppiness let a vague sentence slip through: neither the writer nor copy editor noticed that the sentence could be interpreted in the groundless pro-Democrat way, but would have fixed it if they had. Now, both our explanations are plausible. However, I think sloppiness causing vagueness is more plausible than subconscious bias causing conflation, and therefore a better explanation.

I condensed my previous post (hoping to fix it) before sending it to you. The excised bits contain several concessions. I agree that subconscious bias exists and causes errors, often via sloppiness. We disagree, however, over how often bias is the culprit. I think bias causes only a small percentage of the errors published in political articles. Sloppiness has cornered the mistake market.

My point is that bias that sneaks in through sloppiness will naturally tend towards the particular biases of the author. As you say, deadline pressures and the rest will cause quick, unanalyzed writing. This means biases are less likely to be filtered. Additionally, the author is less likely to notice bias favoring his/her positions upon quick review. Considering that polls have shown the vast majority of those in journalism are liberal, this means that bias via sloppiness is more likely to be liberal. Sloppy bias isn’t positing sinister motives, it’s merely positing that people will manifest their biases in writing generally, but especially so when the writing must be done quickly and with little review.

To be sure, I think there is occassionally purposeful bias in reporting (what is reported and how), but, as you suggest, given the nature of the fast-paced news business and the sheer amount of stuff it produces, it would be silly to think this is always the case. Indeed, so much time would be devoted to plotting, little news at all would get reported. But that (that all or most bias is from sinister motives) is not the claim I’m making here, so stop beating the poor straw man. You’re making him sad.

If you get involved in the journalism game, though, I’d be interested in talking to you more about this since you’ll have a different perspective on it as somebody on the inside.

I see far more that’s sloppy to the favor of liberals and liberal positions than to the respective converses.

I’d caution you to look out for your own confirmation bias. Aren’t conservative readers more likely to notice alleged instances of liberal bias, and less likely to notice alleged instances of conservative bias? Can you in good faith claim to be an accurate judge on this matter? Claiming so makes you either guilty of the minor crime of imspecialism (“most can’t, but I can”) or the major crime of inconsistency (“many can, except those journalists, idunno why”).

Let me clarify what I think’s going on in the example that started this. I think the reporter intended to report that the poll shows support for the Democratic senators’ broad proposal to develop a withdrawal plan of some sort. I think the sentence was written poorly, though, and could be interpreted either way (that includes the correct, non-biased way). Why did it slip through? My hunch is deadline pressure, not bias.

Why think this? It’s an inference to the best explanation. Sloppiness appears everywhere, tainting nearly every article on every subject, political or apolitical. Read articles about stuff you’re even a mild expert on, be it your profession, a friend who got on a game show, or an interview you did last friggin night. Chances are, it will be rife with sloppiness, half-truths, and humorous errors. In apolitical articles, it seems pretty clear that this is not the result of a deep-seated bias against, say, puzzle movies (http://qaqaq.livejournal.com/29964.html). It’s simply hit-and-run journalism gone bad. Why impart sinister motives to explain what appear to be similar errors in political articles? Off with the excess, Occham.

What bugs me is that journalists largely refuse to own up to the problem and cling to this absurd vision of themselves and unbiased agents merely passing on facts of events and issues and not recognizing the role they play as the filter through which the information passes and how that affects the final product.

I agree. Among sins committed by American journalists, LACK OF CANDOR ranks only behind SLOPPINESS in my book. I’m with you in the push for more of the reporting that is found in the National Reviews and New Republics, along with most of the European press. (Although I’m wary of the Nations and Weekly Standards for their less serious crimes of PREDICTABILITY and CHOIR-PREACHING.) The no-voting Jim Lehrer style of impartial reporting is a myth that ought to be given up.

Given what we got, though, I think the ‘objective press’ does OK (not great) bias-wise. I think those journalists recognize the ideal they’re shooting for, and avoiding bias really is often the primary thought on their minds. This is more prevalent than I’m guessing you think. Journalist do fail at this, of course, but far less, I think, than they fail at basic reporting and copy editing skills.

While much may be attributed to sloppiness, I see far more that’s sloppy to the favor of liberals and liberal positions than to the respective converses. That’s because the bias of reporters makes them less likely to realize the liberal bias they have injected and more likely to spot conservative bias and stamp it out before it gets to print.

I’m not contending that all media bias is done on purpose. Some is (primarily big stories), but most, especially the mundane daily reporting, like this article, is not. Rather, the bias sneaks in in how the news is reported and what is reported.

In the first instance, a reporter may make assertions, e.g. the above claim about support for Democratic positions on withdrawing from Iraq, that is unsupported by the evidence. Because of the bias, though, this seems right and so slips through. That is, debatable things will be said, but according to the author’s outlook, they are not debatable, they are fact (or at least highly reasonable assumptions) and so are presented as fact.

In the second instance, media types, if they are liberally skewed, are more likely to find news items interesting when they are damaging to conservatives (or stereotyped conservative values) than to liberals. Thus, certain stories get played up over others. To them, those stories are just more “newsworthy.” Again, this isn’t necessarily overt, purposeful bias (but could be), it’s just bias naturally affecting what gets coverage.

I consider much of it to just be natural human tendencies affecting the profession. That is, the biases of the individual and of the group affect what is said and how it’s said. What bugs me is that journalists largely refuse to own up to the problem and cling to this absurd vision of themselves and unbiased agents merely passing on facts of events and issues and not recognizing the role they play as the filter through which the information passes and how that affects the final product. If they do at all, they usually consider themselves to be acting for the good. This may be worse in that they recognize their bias but allow themselves to think “correctly” biased. There are far too many journalists out there who got into journalism ‘to make a difference.’ If you want to make a difference, go into advocacy.

You might think this is still a defense — aren’t I pleading down the deadly sin of BIAS for the venial sin of SLOPPINESS? Theoretically, BIAS is the bigger boo-boo, but I think in practice SLOPPINESS is far worse, because it is so pervasive. In fact, I think much of what is labeled media bias is just sloppiness. Journalists are a sloppy lot, careless with details and lacking the concept of subtlety as they rush to finish on deadline. As our acquaintance Mike Riordan would say, “That’s the real crime.”

I think I’d call it sloppiness with light bias (which contributes to the sloppiness). It’s certainly nothing like the bias exhibited here.

Your second criticism is more on point, though. There’s a conflation going on between the Democratic senators’ broad proposal to develop a withdrawal plan of some sort and the specifics of the Democrats’ withdrawal plan. It can be inferred from the poll that most Americans support the former, but nothing can be inferred about support for the latter. I’d likely blame sloppiness, not bias, but such sloppiness can be avoided with clearer writing.

In short, where’s the beef?