My friend Betty wrote the following:
“I think we simply don't know enough unbiased "facts" about almost everything/anything to have an informed opinion, only "interpretations of facts." Given that we all have different life experiences and therefore have different filters, of course we are going to have different opinions.â€
In addition to this comment, last winter, my brother and sister and I were having political discussion, (which we commonly do), and were discussing a particular issue about which we disagreed, and my sister made the comment that, “It just depends on your perspectiveâ€. While I agree that perspective drives everything, the issue that we were discussing was not one of perspective, but of fact.
When my sister made this comment, it really set me back and made me think. When Betty added her comment above, it brought this back to the top of my mind.
I think that we have a crisis going on right now, and that crisis is our difficulty in discerning the difference between fact and interpretation (or perspective). It is just now striking me how big a crisis this is. There is a big difference between fact and perspective, but we seem to be struggling with that difference today.
Below, I have some examples to review, but before I get to those, I want to discuss this problem. You see, when the media creates this confusion by mixing opinion with news, as they have been doing for the past few years, they create an environment where we don’t seem to see the difference. There is not a gray area here – facts are facts. What you do with those facts, and what they represent to you, that is where opinion comes in.
I don’t think that there is such a thing as a “biased factâ€, there are only facts. The bias occurs when only some of the facts are shared, and the reporting of those facts is overlaid with opinion. If the media is actually reporting news, it is difficult for it to be biased – only the listener can add bias based on their “life experiences and filtersâ€, as Betty says.
But there is very little actual “reporting†in the media today, and quite a bit of overlay. This is a change from years past, when there was a clear delineation between news and commentary. In addition, the “news†that you see or hear depends entirely on which outlet you watch or listen to or read – I am often astounded at the difference in coverage that the same story receives depending on the source.
Then there is the laziness issue. People don’t want to be challenged. We don’t want to have to think and be open to change. We have been taught that all that matters is that we be on a “winning teamâ€. We listen to the sports talking heads to be indoctrinated on what we should be saying regarding sports. We listen to the political talking heads to find out what we should think and say about politics.
This is not football, this is life. If we want to be lazy about sports, fine. But when it comes to politics, we need to turn off the talking heads. We need to hear all sides of the story, and form our own opinion, and have that open to change as the information that we get changes. Since the news sources will only tell their half of the story, we have to be willing to listen to all sides – even the ones that we don’t agree with. And most of all, when we listen, we need to filter out the nuggets of “fact†that are hidden within the commentary, and clearly see the difference.
I think that it “is only a matter of perspective†if I am only listening to one side of the story. If that is the case, then it appears that my “facts†are different than your “factsâ€. I need to be willing to hear you and “take your side†long enough to sift through what you say and vet the facts out of it, and find where those facts disturb my universe. Because clearly, no matter how hard I try, my presentation of the facts will sometimes (not always) reflect how I am interpreting those facts.
Let me use a few examples that will hopefully stir everyone up.
- FACT: Our federal budget has been running deficits for many years. The deficits are masked to some degree and larger than they initially appear because we have been using Social Security trust fund money to fund the operating fund of the budget. This money will have to be repaid to the trust fund for it to remain solvent. These deficits add up year after year and become the “national debtâ€. One can view the debt in terms of actual dollars, in which case you will see the graph spike a bit during WW1 and WW2, then steadily decline until around 1981, when it begins to explode. One can also view the debt in relationship to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product, or how big our economy is). Viewed in relationship to our GDP, you will see the graph spike up during WW1, then steadily decline until the Great Depression, when it begins to climb again, then it spikes to its highest level during WW2. It steadily declines following the war as we pay down our war debt. It begins to rise again in 1981, and rises steadily until about 1993 or 1994, when it reverses and begins to decline. This decline continues until 2000 or 2001, at which point we have reduced the debt to about the level that it was in 1956 or 1957. In 2001, the debt begins a sharp rise, and continues to rise today so that it is now higher than the previous high point in 1992 – 1993, headed toward the 1945 -1946 wartime high unless the trends are reversed. In fact, current projections show a continued rise, and a crisis in 2017 or 2018 when the trust funds need to be re-funded with the dollars that we have been using to subsidize general operating funds since about 1980. Right now, the federal debt equates to over $100,000 per American family.
REFERENCES:
 http://www.aier.org/2004pubs/RR20.pdf
 http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=noll.publicdebt
 http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp153
 http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/feddebt/debt-facts.html
The above is fact – it is not perspective. Google these subjects on your own to research the subjects.
Perspective A: Federal debt is not a bad thing, and the current rise in debt is a result of our war on terrorism. Like all wars, this debt will be repaid as the economy continues to grow. The rise in debt during the Reagan and Bush senior years was acceptable as it resulted in economic growth, just like the rise in debt during the 30s was OK as it resulted in saving the economy and the country.
Perspective B: Debt should not be increasing EXCEPT to fund a war effort or to fund extraordinary rescue efforts, (such as the Great Depression or Hurricane Katrina.)
Â
- FACT: During the period 1959 – 2004, tax rates for individuals have risen (combined federal and payroll taxes) from about 10% to about 13%, while tax rates for corporations have fallen from about 4% to about 1.3%. When you add the fact that an increasing tax burden has been placed on state and local governments, this disparity is sharper. In addition, all of the individual tax increase comes in payroll taxes, which are slanted heavily toward redistributing the tax load onto low and middle wage workers.
REFERENCES:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp153
 Again, the above is fact.
Perspective A: Private enterprise and wealthy individuals power the economy, and should not be penalized with high tax rates. The early part of the 20th century was marked by a lean toward socialism, and the resulting penalizing of private enterprise, and in recent years we have simply reversed that trend and put the tax burden back where it belongs – on all of the people.
Perspective B: The Progressive movement in the early part of the 20th century moved us toward a more just and progressive world, with progressive tax rates that asked the wealthy to share their wealth with others at a higher rate than the poor were asked to share. This is reasonable in a just world, and resulted in an unprecedented economic boom that placed the US firmly on top of the world economy. By regressing back to regressive tax rates, we are simply redistributing wealth into the hands of the wealthy, and putting the brakes on the economic engine of the last century, dooming millions to essential servitude and inescapable poverty.
- FACT: While in office, Bill Clinton engaged in sexual activity with an intern. He tried to cover-up the activity. He lied to the American people and to Congress about the activity. (I don’t think I need to put any references in here at all…)
Perspective A: This is shameful activity by the leader of our nation, and we should all be embarrassed. We need to restore dignity and honor to the office. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg – if you can’t trust the man, what else has he lied about?
Perspective B: Not only did he engage in the activity, but he probably enjoyed it, and frankly, why should I care? Hillary should be good and pissed-off, but I don’t hire Presidents based upon their marital arrangements or sexual habits. The big crime here was the fact that we spent $50 million investigating the man’s sexual habits, and that is just the formal investigation – who knows how much more we spent on the impeachment process etal? The fact that the press produced, published, and distributed pornography by their continued coverage of this silly ordeal is probably the worst offense of all. He did the deed, he lied about it, and who cares? I would probably lie about it too. The rest of the world was laughing at us, not with us on this one.
- FACT: The Bush administration used 9/11 as a tool to carry out a pre-existing desire to invade Iraq. I could spend pages documenting sources, but I will refer you generally to insiders such as Richard Clark and Paul O’Neil, as well as the 9/11 report itself, and the now public official British documents – the Downing Street Memos. In addition, as recently as today, those close to Bush such as Trent Lott admit that this was the case. It is clear from insiders and pre-existing documentation that there was a desire to invade Iraq, and that within days of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and those in his administration began an effort to tie Iraq to terrorism to justify attacking and occupying the country. This effort included citing evidence of WMD that they knew to be false, (the yellow-cake, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame story, well-documented in many sources). It also included the “fixing†of intelligence to meet their requirements, (the now public Downing Street memos). We went to war to rid Iraq of the WMD that we “knew†were there. (Again, many public sources of Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials stating that they “knew†the weapons were there, and in some cases, knew where they were.) But in fact, the basis of this knowledge was weak or fabricated in many cases. According to the CIA before the war, there was no link at all between bin Laden and the terrorists on one hand, and Saddam and Iraq on the other. President Bush and his administration repeatedly tied the two issues together, suggesting that we needed to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over hereâ€. According to polls, a high percentage of Americans came to believe that there was a link, (in the teens to over 50% depending on the poll and the time) even though CIA intelligence and common sense suggested otherwise. (Saddam and Osama hated each other, and each represented exactly the thing the other was trying to get rid of.) It cannot be established as fact that the campaign of the administration resulted in the American people being misled, it can only be established that the administration engaged in a campaign to mislead, and that the American people became misled. President Bush lied to both Congress and the American people on this issue. Since our invasion, the CIA reports that Iraq has now become a major training ground and recruiting ground for our terrorist enemy.
REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240541,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM501A.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-h.htm
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
Perspective A: Regardless of what happened in the lead-up to the war, Saddam was an evil man, and the world is better off without him. Period. If we had it to do over, we should do the same thing. The ends justify the means.
Perspective B: This is an honesty and integrity issue. It is not alright to lie to the American people in order to carry-out your agenda, and certainly not within the moral fiber of our nation to invade another on false pretense. If we wanted to have a national debate about whether we should invade other countries in order to rid them of evil dictators, then we should have done that, and Iraq probably would not be high on the list – there are other nations where we could have greater impact at less cost. In terms of national security, the action that we have taken has made us far less secure by providing an excellent recruiting tool for the terrorists. Our deception leading up to the war has reduced our credibility in the world, and thus our ability to lobby and pursue diplomatic solutions to problems. The diverting of resources from our “homeland†has made us less secure here. The actions of our President are shameful, and he should be impeached. We need to restore dignity and honor to the office. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg – if you can’t trust the man, what else has he lied about?
And here’s a fun one…
- FACT: The Christian church, as we know it today, was formed in the 4th century CE. Prior to that point, there was a movement that began with Jews who were devoted to a man named Jesus, and grew into a fairly broad movement of both Jews and non-Jews. This movement had many factions, with sometimes broadly divergent theology, as well as widely differing beliefs about who Jesus was, and how they should live their lives. In the 4th century, when Constantine decreed Christianity the official Roman religion, he essentially “endorsed†one of the “factions†within the movement. This faction became “Orthodox Christianityâ€, or Roman Christianity, while all other forms became heresy. From that point forward, there have been multiple instances where this Roman Church has used violence and destruction to wipe out competing beliefs and “theologyâ€, most especially competing Christian beliefs and “theologyâ€.
Perspective A: Orthodoxy is the “true†Christianity, and there is evidence that links the orthodox beliefs back to the earliest believers. Other beliefs are, indeed, heresy, and are evil influences within true Christianity.
Perspective B: There is evidence linking “orthodoxy†back to the earliest believers, just as there is evidence linking gnosticism back to the earliest believers, and many other “forms†of the emerging Christianity. There is great wisdom to be found in these different forms, most of it tied back to Jesus, and it is this wisdom and the seeking of it that ties us together as Christians.