Why are you so biased? We both can’t be right

As I approach the milestone of 85 years on February 26, my mind often wanders down memory lane, reflecting on the core beliefs that have shaped my life. Among these, one concept stands out with particular clarity: the notion of bias. It’s a concept I believe we all grapple with – a universal human experience that transcends age and time. 

For me, bias was once an opinion tainted by a lack of objectivity, coloured by personal prejudice, and devoid of balance. But as I’ve grown and learned, I’ve come to see it as a reminder of our human fallibility and the importance of open-mindedness. This shift in perspective has deepened my understanding of how easily our perceptions can be skewed and of the importance of a vigilant, open heart in the pursuit of truth.

It’s a frustrating topic, much like the relentless grip of rust – it seeps into every corner. One of the most prevalent forms of bias can be witnessed in the realm of sports. Picture the fervent football supporter, so entrenched in their loyalty that they become entirely blind to the merits of the opposing team. I, too, have found myself in similar situations, where my loyalty to a particular viewpoint or belief has clouded my judgment. This unwavering devotion colours our perspective, leaving no room for recognising even the slightest redeeming qualities in those we consider rivals.

Collingwood Football supporters in the AFL are often branded as the most passionate and fiercely devoted fans, with an energy that can sometimes border on the ridiculous. (Am I pushing away any friends with this observation?) Bias seeps into advertising as well, where we are bombarded with messages that brazenly favour one product over another, leaving little room for unbiased choice. This tendency toward partiality isn’t confined to marketing; it permeates the corporate landscape, manifesting itself in how profits are reported and in surveys that seem tailored to paint a favourable picture of the company.

Polls often seem biased, neglecting what appears to be obvious public opinion. Where a specific outcome seems beneficial to the person who commissioned it, religion shows its bias when it will not allow certain health practices or exclude sex education in its schools. 

Omission bias is when crucial information is deliberately overlooked or intentionally erased, leaving the audience with a skewed understanding of the situation. In simpler terms, it’s like reading a book with some pages torn out. The story you get is not the whole truth. In a parallel vein, sensationalism takes the spotlight, often overshadowing the everyday realities that might actually bear more truth and significance. 

Then there’s concision bias, a phenomenon in which succinctly articulated opinions are favoured, effectively sidelining the more unconventional viewpoints that require deeper exploration and a bit more time to articulate. In today’s fast-paced world, we often prefer quick, easy-to-digest information. However, this rush to brevity can lead to a narrow narrative that glosses over the complexity and richness of diverse perspectives. It’s like trying to understand a complex issue from a tweet-length summary. You’re not getting the whole picture.

Social bias manifests itself in various forms, often favouring or disparaging specific races, religions, genders, ages, sexual orientations, ethnicities, or even individual personalities. It’s a complex web of perceptions that can uplift some while unjustly attacking others. In contrast, the realm of science stands firmly on the bedrock of empirical evidence, prioritising facts over emotions and ensuring that truth remains uncompromised by personal feelings.

Historically, bias has always existed. Here are a few examples of accusations over time. These I picked up from the internet. They make for interesting reading.

In the United States, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited newspapers from publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government, including any public opposition to any law or presidential act. This act was in effect until 1801.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln accused newspapers in the border states of bias in favour of the Southern cause and ordered many newspapers closed.

Chancellor Adolf Hitler of Germany, in the years leading up to World War II, accused newspapers of Marxist bias, an accusation echoed by pro-German media in England and the United States.

Politicians who favoured the United States entering World War II on the German side asserted that Jews controlled the international media, and that reports of German mistreatment of Jews were biased and without foundation. Hollywood was said to be a hotbed of Jewish bias, and films such as Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator were offered as proof.

In the 1980s, the South African government accused newspapers of left bias. It instituted government censorship. In 1989, the newspaper New Nation was closed by the government for three months for publishing anti-apartheid propaganda. 

Other newspapers were not closed, but were extensively censored. Some published the censored sections blacked out, to demonstrate the extent of government censorship.

In the USA, during the labour and civil rights movements, newspapers supporting liberal social reform were accused by conservative newspapers of communist bias.

Film and television media were accused of bias in favour of mixing of the races, and many television programs with racially mixed casts, such as I Spy and Star Trek, were not aired on Southern stations.

During the war between the United States and North Vietnam, Vice President Spiro Agnew accused newspapers of anti-American bias, and in a famous speech delivered in San Diego in 1970, he called anti-war protesters “the nattering nabobs of negativism.”

So we have established that bias exists and it always will. It’s a human emotion. How do we describe it? There are many different dictionary definitions; however, I came up with my own.

“It is an opinion that, in the absence of objectivity, is prejudiced and unbalanced. Its foundation is untruth and therefore cannot be impartial.”

My thought for the day

Presenting facts to people who have reasoned by their feelings that they are right is totally futile.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team