"Facts are awkward. They take sides. They do not conveniently distribute themselves evenly along the spectrum of opinion and, therefore, they lack balance." (Richard Seymour/'Lenins Tomb' blog).

If only journalists could get that point through their heads...it's a source of unremitting frustration and annoyance that no matter how blindingly atrocious some behaviour is, where powerful, establishment-approved people/corporations/governments are concerned most journalists will, zombie-like, go out of their way to render hard evidence of even appalling behaviour tame and innocuous in the name of a thing they call 'balance'.

I'm inviting a discussion of the most obvious examples of this phenomenon, if anyone is interested.

Hear hear.

Though I must say, that's a particularly nasty can of worms that you're opening Aragon. Count me in.

Facts are biased and when someone tries to interject so called 'balance,' one is really attempting an act of neutralisation. Agenda is something that must be axamined in parallel with this.

Michael Clifford in the Tribune reminds us of an obvious one:

Quote :

Bertie Ahern, the nurturer in chief of the bubble, was a great
man for common sense. He liked to portray himself as a simple man who
made it to the top through sheer hard work, a person for whom common
sense is your only man.

Then we found out about the
sterling and the horses. Common sense suggested that he had received
large wads of cash, the source of which he was attempting desperately
to hide. Common sense went out the window as he and his apologists spun
wildly for 18 months. And large tracts of the public bought it. When
Bertiespeak was pitted against common sense, the man who won it on the
horses was first past the post with the public.

Which he links in with similar inability to process the facts in more recent news stories:

Quote :

Take our great and good friend, Seanie FitzPatrick, the man who once
told us he had created the boom with his balls. When he resigned as
chairman of Anglo Irish, he pointed out that his deception in moving
around €87m was not illegal. That doesn't make sense.

How
could deceiving investors of vital information not be illegal? Viewed
from the vantage of common sense, it's the kind of stuff that sounds
not dissimilar to insider trading. Seanie had knowledge about the bank
that investors did not. The knowledge would have affected how investors
might act. Common sense says there must be a law against what he did.

On
the other hand, maybe not. Common sense isn't just a victim in the
world of fatcat businessmen. It has gone walkabouts right across public
life. Maybe the law is encumbered with a deficit of common sense.

Denial is an insidious thing, and it can affect hundreds of thousands at once, it seems...

http://www.tribune.ie/news/editorial-opinion/article/2009/jan/25/michael-clifford-this-failure-to-grasp-the-obvious/

Israel is another one of course. The 'balance' principle in reporting of it leads to the most incredible distortion, as if there has been some sort of equality in the level of suffering on both sides. Utter nonsense, but some media seem to run scared of accusations of bias in this particular case than in most others, which leads to a different bias, such is the tyranny of 'balance'...

Facts are awkward, but not because they take sides. They're awkward because those who use them don't have or may not want to have access to all of them and when they do, they have to make choices.

To quote Edo, 'you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.'

Interesting thread.

Facts can be awkward, but only to those whose personal beliefs and agenda are not supported by them, mobs for example, don’t like awkward facts.
Balance can be awkward too, but only to those for whom personal belief and agenda are more important than justice or truth.

When you don’t like the “facts” or “balance” of any situation, it’s only because they’re telling you something you don’t want to hear.

tonys wrote:

Facts can be awkward, but only to those who’s personal beliefs and agenda are not supported by them, mobs for example, don’t like awkward facts.
Balance can be awkward too, but only to those for whom personal belief and agenda are more important than justice or truth.

When you don’t like the “facts” or “balance” of any situation, it’s only because they’re telling you something you don’t want to hear.

There's also a form of denial don't you think? Some facts are simply too horrible and may shock some people out of their cosiness, who don't want to be shocked out of their cosiness ... Have you seen the footage of the white phosphorus-burned baby in Gaza for example?

There's also:
women and men who love animals but won't watch how they might be treated in farms;
women and men who will shut out facts on abortion;
people who shut out facts on animal mistreatment in laboratories;
people who refuse to accept the reality of unemployment facing them;
people who refuse to digest uncomfortable political facts because they might end up somehow involving them personally and lots of people do not want their steady little boat rocked now do they?.

tonys wrote:

Facts can be awkward, but only to those who’s personal beliefs and agenda are not supported by them, mobs for example, don’t like awkward facts.
Balance can be awkward too, but only to those for whom personal belief and agenda are more important than justice or truth.

When you don’t like the “facts” or “balance” of any situation, it’s only because they’re telling you something you don’t want to hear.

How very very true!

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Facts can be awkward, but only to those who’s personal beliefs and agenda are not supported by them, mobs for example, don’t like awkward facts.
Balance can be awkward too, but only to those for whom personal belief and agenda are more important than justice or truth.

When you don’t like the “facts” or “balance” of any situation, it’s only because they’re telling you something you don’t want to hear.

There's also a form of denial don't you think? Some facts are simply too horrible and may shock some people out of their cosiness, who don't want to be shocked out of their cosiness ... Have you seen the footage of the white phosphorus-burned baby in Gaza for example?

There's also:
women and men who love animals but won't watch how they might be treated in farms;
women and men who will shut out facts on abortion;
people who shut out facts on animal mistreatment in laboratories;
people who refuse to accept the reality of unemployment facing them;
people who refuse to digest uncomfortable political facts because they might end up somehow involving them personally and lots of people do not want their steady little boat rocked now do they?.

Just so.
In all the examples you mention the “facts” and a bit of “balance” can be damnably awkward, but only for those whose mind was made up sans “facts” or “balance” to start with.

So to you, the vast majority of consumers of meat who believe animals are not mistreated, on finding out how chickens they eat for example ARE raised and slaughtered and are repelled by it can be considered a mob ?

I presume those in that case fall outside your example and categorisation of a mob but the propaganda pushers don't .. ?

yehbut_nobut wrote:

tonys wrote:

Facts can be awkward, but only to those who’s personal beliefs and agenda are not supported by them, mobs for example, don’t like awkward facts.
Balance can be awkward too, but only to those for whom personal belief and agenda are more important than justice or truth.

When you don’t like the “facts” or “balance” of any situation, it’s only because they’re telling you something you don’t want to hear.

How very very true!

Indeed it is.
There is of course the very “awkward” situation for some people whereby they confuse established fact with what they believe to be true, without having the necessary “facts” to sustain that belief.
This is where some who are aware of the possible confusion, bring “common sense” into play, by which they usually mean that which they believe to be true, despite the lack the facts to prove it, but they wish to believe it anyway.

Or: Occam's razor, tonys. It has a nice name given to it by a dedicated philosopher all those years ago.

Auditor #9 wrote:

So to you, the vast majority of consumers of meat who believe animals are not mistreated, on finding out how chickens they eat for example ARE raised and slaughtered and are repelled by it can be considered a mob ?

I presume those in that case fall outside your example and categorisation of a mob but the propaganda pushers don't .. ?

You've lost me now.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So to you, the vast majority of consumers of meat who believe animals are not mistreated, on finding out how chickens they eat for example ARE raised and slaughtered and are repelled by it can be considered a mob ?

I presume those in that case fall outside your example and categorisation of a mob but the propaganda pushers don't .. ?

You've lost me now.

Yeah we're going to go down a cul-de-sac with this but I'm interested to know what it is you consider a mob.

Aragon wrote:

"Facts are awkward. They take sides. They do not conveniently distribute themselves evenly along the spectrum of opinion and, therefore, they lack balance." (Richard Seymour/'Lenins Tomb' blog).

If only journalists could get that point through their heads...it's a source of unremitting frustration and annoyance that no matter how blindingly atrocious some behaviour is, where powerful, establishment-approved people/corporations/governments are concerned most journalists will, zombie-like, go out of their way to render hard evidence of even appalling behaviour tame and innocuous in the name of a thing they call 'balance'.

I'm inviting a discussion of the most obvious examples of this phenomenon, if anyone is interested.

Climate change, creationism - the list goes on. It's an overt phenomenon, though - the 'balance' only tends to disappear when an agenda is being pushed at the editorial level. Otherwise, you'll have a widely held and properly supported view on the one hand, and on the other some nut in a basement whose view is unique to him and supported only by his mother - until the article is published with those two views apparently equal in importance, whereupon tens of thousands of muppets will like the sound of the madder one. If von Daniken proves anything, it's that there's a huge market out there for bullshit.

Very interesting thread. Thanks Aragon.
Some things I have read here:

1. Aragon's point, backed by Toxic Avenger: ther can be censorship by "balance": in order to portray two sides as equally culpable, when they are not, facts are omitted, or presented in a soft focus way in order to portray a false version of reality.
2. Auditor's point: people can go into denial over harsh facts, because they are horrible, threatening or because they might force us to take action.
4. Kate P's point - facts can be used to support and agenda, that isn't a problem. The problem is, the facts we have may give a very incomplete and therefore incorrect picture.
3. Tonys first point: facts are awkward when they show that the world is not how we believe it to be. This I agree with.
Tonys second point: mobs don't like facts that contradict the idea that motivates their anger. I agree with this, too. People in action don't want to contemplate.

Tony's third point, I am not clear about - he says "When you don't like the "facts" or "balance" of any situation, its only because they're telling you something you don't wan't to hear."

By "facts" of a situation, I take it we all mean the objective reality, that is there whether or not we like it or know about it.

What do you mean here by not liking the "balance" of the situation, tonys? Are you suggesting that on all occasions, when people feel that the "balance" with which they are presented is a distortion of the facts, they are wrong? If not that, what do you mean?

Then you say that facts are only awkward for people whose mind was made up without facts or balance in the first place. The reason I disagree with that is that you seem to equate facts with balance, in spite of the fact that this thread demonstrates that they are not the same thing. Also, some facts, like the present economic crisis, are awkward for us all.

The facts about Gaza seem to be most disturbing to those who want to maintain a picture that is balanced, but unreal.

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

"Facts are awkward. They take sides. They do not conveniently distribute themselves evenly along the spectrum of opinion and, therefore, they lack balance." (Richard Seymour/'Lenins Tomb' blog).

If only journalists could get that point through their heads...it's a source of unremitting frustration and annoyance that no matter how blindingly atrocious some behaviour is, where powerful, establishment-approved people/corporations/governments are concerned most journalists will, zombie-like, go out of their way to render hard evidence of even appalling behaviour tame and innocuous in the name of a thing they call 'balance'.

I'm inviting a discussion of the most obvious examples of this phenomenon, if anyone is interested.

Climate change, creationism - the list goes on. It's an overt phenomenon, though - the 'balance' only tends to disappear when an agenda is being pushed at the editorial level. Otherwise, you'll have a widely held and properly supported view on the one hand, and on the other some nut in a basement whose view is unique to him and supported only by his mother - until the article is published with those two views apparently equal in importance, whereupon tens of thousands of muppets will like the sound of the madder one. If von Daniken proves anything, it's that there's a huge market out there for bullshit.

Are you using the term "balance" in the sense suggested in the O.P. ? or are you equating facts with balance ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So to you, the vast majority of consumers of meat who believe animals are not mistreated, on finding out how chickens they eat for example ARE raised and slaughtered and are repelled by it can be considered a mob ?

I presume those in that case fall outside your example and categorisation of a mob but the propaganda pushers don't .. ?

You've lost me now.

Yeah we're going to go down a cul-de-sac with this but I'm interested to know what it is you consider a mob.

The classic example of the white lynch mob is a good one, they might have been otherwise reasonable people but because of their preconceptions concerning “black” people they were only too willing to believe the victim guilty of anything suggested. Even at the time they would have been aware they didn’t have any actual proof of wrongdoing on the part of their victim, but any set of loose circumstances and their preconceptions made for a lethal if totally unjust result. In other words they used their “knowledge” of “blacks” and “common sense” applied to circumstantial evidence to negate the need for “facts” and the strength of their own bias did the rest.

In the present context, any group who rely on their collectively bolstered preconceptions rather than on the proven established facts of any particular situation.

Facts are always important and the more awkward they are, most probably, the more important they are.

It should also be noted that the best way to avoid awkward facts is to make out that your opponents are trying to avoid awkward facts.

evercloserunion wrote:

It should also be noted that the best way to avoid awkward facts is to make out that your opponents are trying to avoid awkward facts.

Hmm.. that would be the "white noise" approach? or a diversion.

Some other ways of avoiding awkward facts:

Head in sand approach aka "denial" e.g. "too difficult" "too time consuming" "too controversial" "nothing to do with me" "too damn boring"
"Balance" - cancelling out an awkward fact with a false equivalent
Denying that there is such a thing as a fact "perhaps this is all in my own head" "everyone sees this in their own way"
Agnosticism - "we may never know the whole truth" therefore we know nothing.

cactus flower wrote:

Tony's third point, I am not clear about - he says "When you don't like the "facts" or "balance" of any situation, its only because they're telling you something you don't wan't to hear."

By "facts" of a situation, I take it we all mean the objective reality, that is there whether or not we like it or know about it.

What do you mean here by not liking the "balance" of the situation, tonys? Are you suggesting that on all occasions, when people feel that the "balance" with which they are presented is a distortion of the facts, they are wrong? If not that, what do you mean?

Then you say that facts are only awkward for people whose mind was made up without facts or balance in the first place. The reason I disagree with that is that you seem to equate facts with balance, in spite of the fact that this thread demonstrates that they are not the same thing. Also, some facts, like the present economic crisis, are awkward for us all.

The facts about Gaza seem to be most disturbing to those who want to maintain a picture that is balanced, but unreal.

If there are and there almost always are, balancing facts to be heard, they need to be heard, what people feel about that is neither here nor there. Having “balance” does not automatically imply an equal importance, it may only slightly negate the wrongdoing of one side, but it needs to be heard and to deny it as some do here and look for 100% right on one side and 100% wrong on the other is in my view a completely unsustainable position, lacking in any objectivity and also, from their own point of view, a totally counterproductive stance.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Tony's third point, I am not clear about - he says "When you don't like the "facts" or "balance" of any situation, its only because they're telling you something you don't wan't to hear."

By "facts" of a situation, I take it we all mean the objective reality, that is there whether or not we like it or know about it.

What do you mean here by not liking the "balance" of the situation, tonys? Are you suggesting that on all occasions, when people feel that the "balance" with which they are presented is a distortion of the facts, they are wrong? If not that, what do you mean?

Then you say that facts are only awkward for people whose mind was made up without facts or balance in the first place. The reason I disagree with that is that you seem to equate facts with balance, in spite of the fact that this thread demonstrates that they are not the same thing. Also, some facts, like the present economic crisis, are awkward for us all.

The facts about Gaza seem to be most disturbing to those who want to maintain a picture that is balanced, but unreal.

If there are and there almost always are, balancing facts to be heard, they need to be heard, what people feel about that is neither here nor there. Having “balance” does not automatically imply an equal importance, it may only slightly negate the wrongdoing of one side, but it needs to be heard and to deny it as some do here and look for 100% right on one side and 100% wrong on the other is in my view a completely unsustainable position, lacking in any objectivity and also, from their own point of view, a totally counterproductive stance.

Got any good examples?

evercloserunion wrote:

It should also be noted that the best way to avoid awkward facts is to make out that your opponents are trying to avoid awkward facts.

A triple edged sword if ever I saw one.

What is a fact?

The amount of times, particularly when I was studying Political Research Methods at UCD, that I have read something which appears prima facie to be very factually based, only to read the raw statistical data and see that it can be construed in a completely different matter if that is what you wanted to do.

Facts certainly can take sides, it depends on how you use them. However, more often than not neither side of an argument is relying on facts. They are merely taking a snapshot which has some factual basis in order to justify their point of view.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

If there are and there almost always are, balancing facts to be heard, they need to be heard, what people feel about that is neither here nor there. Having “balance” does not automatically imply an equal importance, it may only slightly negate the wrongdoing of one side, but it needs to be heard and to deny it as some do here and look for 100% right on one side and 100% wrong on the other is in my view a completely unsustainable position, lacking in any objectivity and also, from their own point of view, a totally counterproductive stance.

Got any good examples?

All my examples are good.

In this case, let your imagination run free.