The Fact Gap

We are drowning in information disguised as facts.

I believe the statement above is indeed, itself a fact. However, it may only be my opinion. Evidence would seem to support the notion that the avalanche of data posing as credible information is a certifiably true statement-a fact.

Webster defines a fact as:
1) Knowledge or information based on real occurances
2) Something demonstrated or known to exist or have existed
3) Something believed to be true or real

The last definition is troublesome, because something merely BELIEVED to be true doesn’t make it necessarily so. This becomes a very serious problem as issues affecting our future are debated through the lens of competing media sources with opposing political agendas.

The two most prominent outlets—and ones at polar extremes are MSNBC and FOX. It is a catch phrase for talking heads and politicians appearing on both networks to use the following statement when prefacing their OPINION:

“You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own FACTS”. Then, most of them proceed to enlighten us with their OPINION, portrayed as if it were, indeed, fact.

So then, the ability to sway the masses lies with whomever can herd the most gullible people into their “tent” for the ultimate revival meeting—an orgy of misinformation that whips the already converted into an emotional frenzy, complete with its practical manifestations (see “Tea Party”)

The statement: “The Earth rotates around the sun” is a fact. Although the reverse USED to be BELIEVED as truth---the sun rotates around the Earth---science has unquestioningly demonstrated the opposite to be the actual fact.

I enjoy the MSNBC program “Morning Joe”, mostly because there seems to be a true ying and yang, left versus right discussion that is above all, civil. Conservative Joe Scarborough and right winger Pat Buchanan can peacefully co-exist with the likes of Mike Barnacle and other liberal guests without letting it all become mean-spirited. Each side can concede a “point” or two to the other without fearing the appearance of being weak.

While most of MSNBC’s fare is decidedly liberal—and virtually all of FOX’s is conservative, “Morning Joe” stands out for being (forgive me FOX) TRULY “fair and balanced”.

Debating issues around the dinner table, at cocktail parties and elsewhere has certainly increased since the 2008 Presidential campaign. Overall, I see this as a positive sign of involvement in the political process.

What is not so positive is that many discussions are undertaken by opposing sides who have at their disposal, almost ZERO “facts” on which to base their opinion (this last statement by me is, of course, my OPINION). Instead, if they have been exposed to Bill O’Reilly and his biased view on say, health care, he may make a statement like:

“If Obama’s health care plan passes, your premiums will skyrocket and the quality of your health care will go down!”

Is this statement a FACT? Or, is it merely an OPINION, structured linguistically to resemble a fact? If you watch FOX and see O’Reilly make this statement, this premise (faulty or not) will become the cornerstone of your argument against the health care bill, whether or not you know the truth of its impact. You haven’t actually READ the bill—and frankly, Mr. O’Reilly probably hasn’t either.

Conversely, if you are fed a steady diet of “The Ed Show” on MSNBC, you will believe that anything short of a health care plan WITH a Public Option is a dismal failure. This, of course, is Ed Shultz’s OPINION. Many of his viewers will base their arguments on this “viewpoint disguised as fact”—regardless of whether or not it is true.

The truth is that we don’t know the TRUTH. I think this is a fact, but it’s only my opinion.

Let’s watch both sides display their “facts”-first, Bill O’Reilly talks health care:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4p0VtZRMo0


Now, here’s Chris Matthews on “Hardball” with the same topic:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXL6JoWE_gY


Until real-life market forces are applied to any health care scenario, conjecture (however educated ) is all we have to draw on. Well over 90 percent of Americans have never read the Senate bill—and it is likely that we never will. Regardless, we ALL have an “opinion” on the plan—and our views are being heavily influenced by networks with nothing but time to fill and an agenda to advance.

So, I am making a resolution re: the Health care debate—and for that matter, ANY debate on which substantive points can be made either way. That resolution is to simply require every statement be supported by fact--or at least sourced to something other than another person's opinion--regardless of how prominent or knowledgeable they may be.

Therefore, any statement re: the effects of health care reform can be challenged with the simple question:”Where did you get that information? What is the source of that so-called “fact”?”

Most people will not be able to definitively “source” the premise for their arguments (myself included). If one starts off by saying, “my opinion is that….”, I am totally fine with this approach. It combines emotions, gut level feelings and anecdotal personal experience into an argument whose source is the person delivering it. It is, by definition, an opinion. As long as that person doesn’t cloak that assortment of random data incorrectly as irrefutable fact, then he or she (and I) will remain open to be influenced by data that IS factual.

Politics has for too long been a zero-sum game. Patriotism, love of country and the notion that our lawmakers do what is right for the country has no such orientation. Compromise is the currency on which our democracy exists. Placing political victory over national progress is a crime that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Those engaging in such practices should be voted out of office. The networks would also do well to avoid portraying their viewpoints as being factual.

Of course, that’s just my opinion.


If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com