The truth is we're all biased. We all have our preferences, the things we like, the things we don't like. We all have our perspectives. We all see things the way we see them and will report them the way we see them. Isn't it interesting, then, how you can pick up on these things from the way we say them? In fact, it's really hard to report some things without expressing bias.
The most obvious place you'll see this idea is on the topic of abortion. If I speak of "Pro-Life", you will automatically know that I believe that abortion is killing babies. If I speak of "Pro-Choice", you'll understand right away that I see abortion as a choice rather than murder. The same is true when speaking of the opposite side. Are they "Anti-abortion" or "Anti-Choice"? My choice of terms will give my own view away and bias the reader toward my perspective simply in the expression I choose.
I saw a news report the other day in our area (Arizona is obviously a hotbed for news about immigration) about a protest against our local sheriff who is delighted to arrest as many illegal immigrants as he can round up. In the protest there were several signs decrying that immigration raids split up families. Is it true that families are split up when there are raids on illegal immigrants? Of course it is. But the expression tells you who is to blame. The raids are to blame for breaking up families ... evil sheriff. Now, the sign could just as easily read, "Don't bring your family if you're going to come here illegally because you are risking splitting up your family." Maybe not as catchy, but you get the idea. You would never see in a courtroom a protest sign that says, "Don't split up my family just because my husband robbed a bank." You see, from one perspective, "It's our right to violate your laws and you're wrong for splitting up our family." From the other perspective, "You're wrong for breaking our laws and you are bearing the consequence of your choice." It's all in how you say it.We are all biased. We all have our points of view. They don't always coincide. And we cannot help but express bias in our conversation, even when we're not trying. The words that we choose very often betray the positions we hold. Now, if we can just recognize that in ourselves, perhaps we won't be so miffed at the MSM for doing every day what we all do every day. Just recognize the bias and go from there. We don't have to be sheep, you know.
2 comments:
You would never see in a courtroom a protest sign that says, "Don't split up my family just because my husband robbed a bank."
This is a good point, although the law against bank robbery is a just one. I'm not so sure our immigration law is just, however. I don't see in the man's complaint where his welfare or ideas are trumping that of another person, as in the bank robber or the pro-choice (really pro-death) person.
I think the heart of the immigration matter is not so much bias but justice.
Just approaching the legal question, if X is illegal and those caught doing X end up separated from their families, it cannot be said that X is the cause of the separation. It is their fault for knowingly doing X.
But I AM curious about your contemplation that our immigration law is not just. Do you believe that a nation does not justly have the right to control its borders? Does justice demand that immigration not be regulated? Or is there a specific aspect in mind? Like I said ... curious.
I wonder if we shouldn't revamp the requirements, but I don't wonder if the country has the right to control its borders and who comes in. There is a large group that disagrees with me. It seems that the United States (and the U.S. alone, apparently) is morally obligated to give what it has to whomever wants it. That disturbs me.
Post a Comment