I've commented on BVE about this before; I've always thought it was ridiculous that the media claims they're not biased. They usually defend themselves as if we called them corrupt. Apparently they don't understand the word bias.
I'm also amused by judges (most visibly those on the supreme court) who make the same claim of complete objectivity.
That Issa story is unbelievable. Here's a guy that's on the panel investigating the "fast and furious" ATF scandal. Just a coincidence?
The NYTimes runs a front page hit piece. Upshot: Issa is using his political power to enrich himself. That's a pretty serious charge. The two pieces of evidence that show this are completely wrong. Even the part about his office being located near a golf course is completely wrong. You'd think if you are doing a front page hit piece in the "paper of record" you'd really want to get the facts right. The story wasn't even close to accurate. Unbelievable.
It's not like there are a ton of sound bites from judges, but during the nomination hearings for supreme court justices they surely claim objectivity in the same vein that the media do. And not just the supreme court, it's part of the entire judicial culture. Judges should obviously aim for impartiality, but two judges often look at the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions. This is the human element at work, aka bias.
Now the Issa story goes beyond bias to corruption, which is also the case for some judges (though hopefully occurring less often than with the media).
I guess there was Justice Roberts talking about how it was his job to call balls or strikes, and not to pitch or bat. so you could say that he was claiming objectivity of a sort.
But then, you could also say that different umpires call balls and strikes differently, or have different concepts of where the strike-zone should be. So maybe interpreting that as a claim of complete objectivity is probably too much.
I guess I think about the bias more narrowly than just having different judicial philosophies. I know Scalia has said, we shouldn't expect judges not to have opinions or priors when addressing a case. The idea that a justice throws out all opinions before deciding a certain case is kind of silly.
But then I'm not sure how exactly I would draw the line between bias and ideology or philosophy.
5 comments:
I've commented on BVE about this before; I've always thought it was ridiculous that the media claims they're not biased. They usually defend themselves as if we called them corrupt. Apparently they don't understand the word bias.
I'm also amused by judges (most visibly those on the supreme court) who make the same claim of complete objectivity.
Who has claim objectivity on the Supreme Court?
That Issa story is unbelievable. Here's a guy that's on the panel investigating the "fast and furious" ATF scandal. Just a coincidence?
The NYTimes runs a front page hit piece. Upshot: Issa is using his political power to enrich himself. That's a pretty serious charge. The two pieces of evidence that show this are completely wrong. Even the part about his office being located near a golf course is completely wrong. You'd think if you are doing a front page hit piece in the "paper of record" you'd really want to get the facts right. The story wasn't even close to accurate. Unbelievable.
It's not like there are a ton of sound bites from judges, but during the nomination hearings for supreme court justices they surely claim objectivity in the same vein that the media do. And not just the supreme court, it's part of the entire judicial culture. Judges should obviously aim for impartiality, but two judges often look at the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions. This is the human element at work, aka bias.
Now the Issa story goes beyond bias to corruption, which is also the case for some judges (though hopefully occurring less often than with the media).
I guess there was Justice Roberts talking about how it was his job to call balls or strikes, and not to pitch or bat. so you could say that he was claiming objectivity of a sort.
But then, you could also say that different umpires call balls and strikes differently, or have different concepts of where the strike-zone should be. So maybe interpreting that as a claim of complete objectivity is probably too much.
I guess I think about the bias more narrowly than just having different judicial philosophies. I know Scalia has said, we shouldn't expect judges not to have opinions or priors when addressing a case. The idea that a justice throws out all opinions before deciding a certain case is kind of silly.
But then I'm not sure how exactly I would draw the line between bias and ideology or philosophy.
Post a Comment