impartiality

In the world of punditry, point of view matters. Whether that talking head is a political strategist for a certain campaign or a former lobbyist for a certain movement will likely inform his/her opinion on the subject at hand--especially since that subject at hand is likely to involve the very same movement or campaign.

Right or wrong, we have come to believe that commentators should show "impartiality," but this is a virtual impossibility. I recall writing a paper many years ago on a Shakespeare play where I argued (or more accurately, attempted to argue) that the point of the play was that there was no point. I found it impossible to draw any conclusion, because the conclusion was that there was no conclusion. As I grew more confused, you can only guess what happened to my argument. My teaching assistant sympathized with my dilemma, but couldn't give me better than a B- for a seven-page paper that failed to reach any conclusion.

So it is with punditry. If we argue a certain point of view, it goes without saying that we must take that point of view. On modern news channels, it further follows that the pundit personally agrees with the point of view. This allows him/her to present the sort of impassioned argument that eventually degenerates to the nonsense that we Americans love to watch.

It follows, but it does not have to be so. Lawyers are both admired and despised for their ability to argue dispassionately. A defense lawyer, for example, may represent his/her client according to the laws of the state while finding the client personally reprehensible. But the job is to represent the client, so that is what the lawyer does.

The critical issue is not to have "impartial" commentators, but rather, to ensure that their partiality is transparent. This is best illustrated in the separate field of scientific research. It is important to know that the study showing the great benefits of drug X was funded by the company that makes drug X. It is important to know that the commentator talking about the many positives of political candidate Y just received $20,000 to work for candidate Y.

Neither of the above examples prove, a priori, that the information given is invalid. They simply lead us to conclude that we need further information before we can make an informed judgment. And this is where our great cynicism hurts us, for just as an argument with no conclusion degenerates into nonsense, so a cynicism about bias leads to paralysis. We can't trust A because of B, but we can't trust C because of D. We can't trust E's comments about A and C because D once worked with E on a completely unrelated project. And don't even start about F.

We believe that our cynicism leads to better judgment, but just the opposite occurs. Because we distrust everyone, we fall back to our own opinion--we can't call it judgment, because we refuse to believe any facts about the issue, which are all biased. We end up listening to that which we already believe and ignoring that which we don't. Rather than taking the transparency about a proponent's bias to inform our opinion and remove bias from it, we use perceived bias to dismiss opposing viewpoints, thereby reinforcing our biases.

I have a conclusion for this argument: don't demand impartiality from commentators, but neither fall into the trap of listening only to one point of view. By learning to see the bias in everyone's opinions, we can develop better filters to allow us to reach informed decisions on the important issues of our time.