theTomWeekly.com - ARTICLES - On Bias, Bogotry, and PCness

Departments

----------

The thinking person's background music -- Click one of these links to hear clips of "The Editors," our own little in-house band.

-COVERS- -ORIGINALS-

----------

theTomWeekly.com?

Who are we, really, and what have we

done with our editor,

Herschel Krustofski?

Are you interested in an online magazine? Are you looking for freelance writers, writings, articles, commentary, e-myths, essays, almanacs, short stories, weekly columns, or columnists? What about humor or humorists? How about satire, satirists, comedy, humor, a funny story, politics, or political critiques? Does miscellaneous writer stuff interest you? Are you looking in the Metro Detroit, Michigan (MI) area? Are you looking for tom ersin? www.thetomweekly.com/Links.html Copyright © 2006-2008, theTomWeekly.com Your use of this site constitutes your acceptance of the

LEGAL RESTRICTIONS

AND TERMS OF USE.

Editor:

Herschel S. Krustofski

(aka Tom Ersin)

it. Even if they did something outrageous, such as naming a new product Only for Caucasians Cappuccino or White Trash Tea, our society, thus their customer pool, would work this out for them. Unfortunately these types of vicious labels have proliferated in the past, but our group maturity and sensitivity is more keen today. Skinny latte will live or die based on our current state of consciousness.

I've been accused of using bad taste in my choice of fictitious, racist examples of coffee shop drink names (see above). I was told "That is not nice" because that choice of shocking terminology can evoke emotional responses. But that's my point: Our consciousness has been raised so that even if a company foolishly did attempt to invoke these types of cruel stereotypes, our current society would stop it through the power of public opinion and the power of the (closed) pocketbook. Sometimes you have to be a little shocking to sell your point--not Don Imus shocking but thinking person shocking. You may not agree with my methods, but when it comes to fighting bigotry, I am committed--and I am unanimous in that [sic]. I chose to illustrate examples of bigotry using Caucasian slurs because I am Caucasian. I would not slur any other group of you people, even as an example, because that would be inappropriate, and I could be misunderstood. That would be "not nice."

Speaking of ad hominem references, Ann Coulter is well known for unsubstantiated accusations, name-calling, and other attacks. I recently read her article A Baby Daddy for Both Americas about John Edwards' alleged marital infidelity (Coulter, 2008, July 30). To begin with, directly over the article headline she displays a prominent link to her new book If Democrats had any Brains, They'd be Republicans. Ann Coulter exhibits a type of caricaturistic ultra-conservatism that is embarrassing to respectable conservatives. Even Dr. Laura says she goes too far. Though I suppose we should appreciate the ethics of her up-front declaration of her political position (bias).

In this article Ann states that: John Edwards cheats on his cancer-stricken wife; John Edwards is an ambulance chaser; John Edwards is a sleazy carnival sideshow trial lawyer; John Edwards spends inordinate amounts of money on his hair; and, John Edwards is unhip (Coulter, 2008, July 30). But Ann, as well as many of her contemporaries (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.), is expert at carefully framing her logical fallacies and vitriolic prevarications so that she has deniability without accountability: "Oh, I didn't [technically] say that John Edwards cheats on his cancer-stricken wife." "Oh, I didn't [literally] call John Edwards an ambulance chaser." "Oh, I didn't [actually] say that Suddam Hussein was connected with the 9/11 attacks." (I know. She didn't mention Saddam--in this article.)

The danger here is that some impressionable readers and listeners may not realize that Ann is essentially a human cartoon character whose primary goal is to stay in the public eye and sell books. I have difficulty accepting that she believes some of her own extreme statements. The other danger is that people who are drawn to her brand of commentary tend to isolate themselves from objective media. She preaches to the choir, the choir sings louder and more often, and this biased presentation of the "facts" is increasingly accepted as the Gospel.

Let me inject a sidebar, if I may. Extremist media conservatives like Ann, Rush, and Sean have skillfully figured out how to move the goal posts in the political spectrum football game in their efforts to influence our population's political middle: the independents, or more often, the apathetics. What used to be appreciated as objective, unbiased reporting of news and current events is now labeled by them as left-leaning. Opinion-free news reporting through their prism is now part of the so-called liberal media. What used to be the home team 25-yard line is now the 50-yard line--the middle of the field (road).

John Edwards may or may not have actually cheated on his cancer-stricken wife. We may or may not ever know. What we do know is that Ann Coulter wants us to believe it, true or not--not because it might be substantiated by facts, but because Ann Coulter loathes John Edwards and the Democratic Party. When is the last time she has ever written about anything negative concerning one of her cohorts except to accuse the liberal media of a political witch-hunt? Rush Limbaugh's big sin was not his drug use and abuse--it was his hypocrisy in condemning drug use (and advocating tougher penalties for it) before he was exposed.

Ann could fix this article. She could eliminate the name-calling, the unsubstantiated accusations, and the ad hominem attacks. But if she did this, she wouldn't be the far-right wing media darling that she is, and she wouldn't sell books.

EDITORS' NOTE:

On August 8, 2008, John Edwards admitted to ABC News in an interview with Bob Woodruff that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign employee in 2006. He conceded that he has consistently lied about it, as recently as two weeks prior to this admission. Edwards vehemently denied fathering the woman's child and stated he was unaware of any hush money paid to her. He said that he told his wife, Elizabeth, about his mistake after the affair ended in 2006 and before he launched his presidential campaign. Subsequent fact-checking has shed doubt on the veracity of Edwards' qualified admission.

Concerning Coulter's other charges: It has been uncovered that Edwards was, in fact, seen driving behind an emergency rescue vehicle once in 1997. His hair care expenses have not been determined due to mysteriously missing invoices--Coulter has filed a Freedom of Obfuscation Act request. Additionally, tests of Edwards' hipness have been inconclusive, but reports have probably been exaggerated.

TOP OF

PAGE

There are two brands of bias: inherent and acquired. Inherent bias is not bigotry. The phrase inherently biased is not synonymous with offensive. For example, my inherent bias might be that my name is Percival and I was born with a silver mouth spoon and a big fat trust fund. But my acquired bias might be that I bend over backwards to show that I empathize with the poor and that I always cast my U.S. Senate vote in favor of the poverty-stricken, no matter what the consequences.

Everyone, everywhere, has inherent biases. These are related to congenital traits (e.g., your family of origin), your chosen profession, the city you live in, the person you marry, etc. These defining factors would be difficult or impossible to change. I might have been born rich, which I can't change (inherent), or I might have developed the opinion that rich people are superior to poor people, which I could easily change with a dash of critical thinking (acquired). So if you are inherently a woman, a man, a mechanic, a politician, or a smart, sensitive, and attractive reader whose discriminating intellect has kept them on this Web site, these things are who you are.

Even an acquired bias may be perfectly innocent and non-offensive. It's harmless to root for your own kid's baseball team to win the game. Few would criticize someone for this. You could change this point of view, but why would you want to? There are other times when bias can be a good thing. If I have a broken femur protruding from my bloody leg, and I believe in standard medical practices, I don't want a Christian Scientist to set that bone--even if they were willing. In this situation I'm biased toward an M.D.

Bias on its own simply exists. It's not necessarily good or bad--until it turns into bigotry. Here's the thing: There's a distinction between bias and bigotry. Bias does not necessarily equate with racism, sexism, or species-ism. (Those damn invertebrates--they never stand up for themselves, and they're always dirty.) In some organizations and individuals it may--and in those organizations and with those individuals, it should be fought hard and consistently.

In any ethical discussion or writing, it's important to declare a bias on a subject if you have one. If I'm extolling the virtues of chiropractic medicine, you need to know that my mother raised three chiropractors. This may or may not influence my opinion, but the listener or reader still needs to know of this relationship to evaluate the validity of my gushing. If I'm writing that the University of Michigan is a much better school than Michigan State University, you need to know that I live in Ann Arbor and my daughter is the Dean of Students at U. of M. And if I'm writing that it's better to be a male than a female, guess what the reader needs to know about me? Bias in its worst, bigoted, discriminative forms is obviously an evil thing. But we can't escape it in all of its other forms. We are left only to be aware of it, embrace it, and minimize its effects on us. When writing or speaking on a topic, especially a provocative one, it is not our duty to not have any inherent biases--that's like trying not to have blood in our veins--but it is our ethical duty to declare our biases, then let the audience decide our level of credibility. If we have been diligent in recognizing, acknowledging, and balancing our biases, that will show through.

In my humble opinion (IMHO), ethics in communicating means a commitment to accuracy while maintaining a zero-tolerance policy of not offending anyone with ad hominem remarks, references, or attacks. (If, however, we offend the Ted Kaczynskis of the world with our computer printer instruction manual addendum, so be it.) This means that we must be aware of outdated terms and references and avoid even the appearance of any ethnic or sexist slur. Some may negatively call this political correctness (PC). But I believe the reason many people rail against PC is to enable them to continue saying offensive things with apparent impunity. Some of these people are dinosaurs who refuse to grow and mature. They don't want to change (for the better) with the times. And criticizing political correctness gives them something to hide behind.

The positive side of political correctness is that it is a reflection of our society's consciousness having been raised. As women were given the vote, and apartheid was condemned, many other lesser offenses have also been corrected through consciousness-raising. Men don't call their female servers Honey or Darlin' or Nurse anymore. (You're not still doing that, are you?) The term midget has been replaced by little people. And the term Oriental has been corrected in favor of Asian. I ask: What is wrong with this? What is wrong with people deciding for themselves what they want to be called? What is wrong with rooting out racism and sexism from our everyday language as our society matures? If this is political correctness then give me more and more of it. Things change as society grows and matures. In the 1920s the words Negro and colored were acceptable. In the '60s a poll determined that Black was the preferred term, now joined by African-American. And as Ross Perot found out in the 1984 presidential campaign: Don't ever refer to an entire ethnic group as you people.

Some of you may be familiar with the recent brouhaha surrounding a certain Seattle-based gourmet coffee chain's advertising campaign featuring the term skinny, as in a skinny latte or an iced skinny venti upside-down caramel macchiato. (Whoo--let me catch my breath.) Some are arguing that the term is derogatory toward any human being who is not skinny. This could be one of those issues that's on the legitimacy border; maybe it's offensive or maybe it's ridiculous.

I believe Starbucks will work this out as they see fit, which may mean reacting to how they have been affected or influenced by the apparent controversy. The public will help the company decide how to handle

COLUMN