"Second, I think that distinctions can usefully be drawn among several concepts that are often assumed to be interchangeable: bias, objectivity and neutrality. 'Bias' is usually used pejoratively; I would use it to mean reporting news in a way that is in fact slanted, while purporting to report it neutrally. I would say that the New York Times is biased, but Power Line isn't. 'Objectivity' I understand to mean, essentially, fairness. Being objective means to weigh evidence and arguments fairly, as, for example, by reporting that President Bush turned in a mediocre performance in a debate, even though the person making that judgment supports the President. I would say that Power Line is objective, or at least tries to be, while 60 Minutes is not objective. 'Neutrality' means indifference as among competing parties, candidates or ideologies. Power Line is not neutral; neither is the Washington Post. There are probably a few truly neutral news sites or commentators, but not many."
If he means by fairness that a description put forward corresponds honestly to the thing being described without actively distorting it, then I would agree. It would imply some intellectual work and self-discipline in order to get things as close to right as possible. In other words, using some intellectual process that would seek correspondence with the thing being discussed. "Fairness" would then mean giving up the laziness of merely marking assertions in favor of something others would agree to and consider as a "fair" characterization.
The relative value of things is another matter. We may objectively capture the essence of something without necessarily valuing it. To value something means it is preferred over other things. To have a conservative bias might mean lack of objectivity or it can mean what Deacon seems to mean when it refers to actively choosing one point of view among competing views. That choice of course could be based on an irrational, religious-like act of faith in one viewpoint or it could be based on a more rational method of wisdom which attempts to compare and coordinate the various viewpoints along a scale of good to bad as to their relative moral efficacy in conducting human affairs.
"Not everyone will agree with my definitions; maybe no one will. But I think it is helpful to distinguish among these various concepts. In general, 'bias' is not a term that it is helpful to apply to commentators, as opposed to reporters. Paul Krugman is a liberal and Ann Coulter is a conservative. One could say that they are both 'biased' because they argue for a particular point of view, but that would be meaningless and unhelpful, in my opinion. With respect to commentary, which is what we at Power Line generally do, the relevant questions are: Are the facts accurately and fairly represented? Are there other, obviously relevant facts that are omitted from the analysis? And, are the arguments made on the basis of the facts logical and persuasive?"
These are rich thoughts as they push us to make comparisons and distinctions among writers and perspectives according to their facticity, comprehensiveness, fairness in representation, and rationality. Should we actively pursue these methods of comparison, the relative value of the various perspectives regarding their truth and morality should become clear. That is why we can say some perspectives (for example, those governments based on protecting freedom and justice) are better than others (based on centralized control and force).
"People often refer to blogs as expressing 'opinions,' just as some columnists are referred to as 'opinion columnists.' Indeed, some newspapers take the position that the usual concepts of truth and falsity are inapplicable to opinion columnists because everything they write is, by definition, only an 'opinion.' (The New York Times, for example, has only recently abandoned this view.) This seems to me to be silly. No columnist or blogger who only expresses his or her opinions will last long. The question is: how persuasively does the commentator support his or her conclusions (call them opinions, if you want to) with facts and logic?"
If I am not reading too much into this, I believe this is a very hopeful idea. If we pursue objective and rational discussion, we can transcend mere assertion of opinion that is relatively worthless. He seems to be saying, we needn't be stuck in a relativistic quagmire of throwing assertions at each other. The truth can and will emerge from actively seeking facts and rational discourse.
