Powerline Unbiased and Objective? Not quite...

A couple of days ago, Nick Coleman launched another broadside against the Power Line guys, John Hindraker and Scott Johnson. Coleman's attack was weak, I thought. He is obviously disgusted with the political opinions of the Power Line - yet he inexplicably failed to attack the ideology itself. Instead, he chose to focus on the blogger's alleged disingenuousness about how they create the blog (largely at work), how much money they make of the blog (who cares and there's nothing wrong with it), and that they campaigned for blogger of the year (again, so what? wouldn't you?).

Coleman's column rather incoherently paints the Power Line bloggers as disengenuous, crafty mouthpieces for the Republican party. Ironically, his argument shares an unfortunate quality with the Rathergate memos on which Power Line's fifteen minutes of fame is based: The conclusion is true but the arguments presented are crap. The Power Line guys aren't being disingenuous because they are Ivy League lawyers, or because the blog from work, or make more money on their blog than you or I. They are being disenguous because they claim to be fair, objective and unbiased when the are clearly exactly the opposite.

Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hindraker made this claim repeatedly during the conversation Luke and I had with them on Almanac. Mr. Hindraker clarifies his thinking in a revealing post:

...I think that distinctions can usefully be drawn among several concepts that are often assumed to be interchangeable: bias, objectivity and neutrality. "Bias" is usually used pejoratively; I would use it to mean reporting news in a way that is in fact slanted, while purporting to report it neutrally. I would say that the New York Times is biased, but Power Line isn't.

Hindraker's definition of bias is unusual. In fact, it's deceptive and self-serving. Under this definition, we are all given a reprieve from being biased by admitting them. I am a progressive. Therefore, I am unbiased. A more commonly understood definition is, "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." In point of fact, the New York Times acknowledges and addresses its biases and represents many points of view. Powerline represents only one. By any definition, that's bias.

Mr. Hindraker continues,

"Objectivity" I understand to mean, essentially, fairness. Being objective means to weigh evidence and arguments fairly, as, for example, by reporting that President Bush turned in a mediocre performance in a debate, even though the person making that judgment supports the President. I would say that Power Line is objective, or at least tries to be, while 60 Minutes is not objective.

The concept of objectivity, while related to fairness, is less dependent on point of view. What is fair and what is not is essentially dependent on values. Objectivty can be defined as, "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices." Facts are not conservative or liberal. They are simply facts. I would venture to say that whichever standards Mr. Hindraker, Johnson and Mirengoff use to spin their arguments, they are not objective. They are ideological. The facts used are carefully selected to conform with an ideology that, as near as I can figure, is to the right of the Platform for the Republican Party for the State of Texas. That's not objectivity. It's dishonest to claim that it is.

Finally, Mr. Hindraker writes,

"Neutrality" means indifference as among competing parties, candidates or ideologies. Power Line is not neutral; neither is the Washington Post. There are probably a few truly neutral news sites or commentators, but not many.

Not everyone will agree with my definitions; maybe no one will. But I think it is helpful to distinguish among these various concepts. In general, "bias" is not a term that it is helpful to apply to commentators, as opposed to reporters. Paul Krugman is a liberal and Ann Coulter is a conservative. One could say that they are both "biased" because they argue for a particular point of view, but that would be meaningless and unhelpful, in my opinion. With respect to commentatary, which is what we at Power Line generally do, the relevant questions are: Are the facts accurately and fairly represented? Are there other, obviously relevant facts that are omitted from the analysis? And, are the arguments made on the basis of the facts logical and persuasive?

I do not fundamentally disagree with Mr. Hindraker's relavent questions with respect to commentary. I would, however, add some. What makes a fact relavent? If a fact is left out, why was it left out? One of the most challenging tasks before modern Americans is the identification of truth in our political discourse. Identifying the biases and linguistic strategies of politicians and political writers isn't just helpful, it's essential. Bush and Rove have consistently used language to reshape reality in mind-bending ways. Healthy Forests. Clear Skies. Making good progress in Iraq. Patriot Act. Leave No child behind. Of course the Power Line bloggers would want to argue that they are unbiased and objective, though not neutral, purveyors of the truth. It's a perfect brand. It's unfortunately not true. I think that's what Coleman was driving at.