Parallel

Law enforcement professionals have a wall that seperates them from their fellow man. A sucessful investigation of a crime is one that results in the arrest and conviction of the guilty.

So that means that the only thing that matters is evidence. Stuff that will convince the judge or jury that this guy did this crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The detectives can speculate all they want, but if they don’t have something to back it up then they leave it outside the door when they walk into a courtroom. If they don’t then they’ll probably lose the case and their credibility will be questioned the next time they come in front of the judge. What’s worse is that the perp will walk and go on to commit more crimes.

Of course, it’s an imperfect world. Sometimes a whole case is built on speculation, and sometimes someone is convicted when they shouldn’t be. We rightly see this as a miscarriage of justice, an instance when our society violates the very principles which make up its foundation. It’s where we all agree that the system breaks down.

Read more

Slow News Day

So JibJab has a new flash movie up, poking fun at President Bush’ recent win and the Democrat’s disappointment with same.

Fair enough, but CNN’s Headline News is showing the movie in it’s entirety. They show it right before cutting to commercial, and then they lede with a report about violence in Iraq.

But that’s not really significant because they have a story every 15 minutes about Iraq, all of them negative. (I’m still waiting for them to air a positive report about the situation in Iraq. They might have in the past, but if so then it was so fleeting that I’ve never seen one.) I suppose the big question is why they wasted time with the JibJab movie when they could have devoted the time to yet more items that painted our efforts in a negative light.

No liberal bias to see here. Move along.

Not Again!

I’ve talked here before about news items that talk about incredibly obvious subjects. Here’s another example. The headline reads ….

STUDY: ELDERLY GAMBLERS MAY BET TOO HIGH

The author points out that retirees on fixed incomes don’t have a, you know, income, in order to take care of debts. If they start to gamble away their nest egg they could be in real trouble.

I’m glad they cleared that up for me. Had no idea.

I think this is proof that journalists might not be stupid, they just operate under the assumption that we are. That’s why they so often come off sounding stupid themselves as they try and cater to the imagined intelligence of their customers.

A View From the Other Side

I first started reading the blogs because they were fast. Bloggers would usually post about an upcoming newsworthy subject, discuss every single ramification while fact checking to death, and then go on to something else. Then, two days or so after the blogs had moved on, I’d see the headlines on the front page of my local newspaper.

It’s this desire to find out what’s going on that drives many people to the blogs. Once they get here they soon find that the story they’re reading in the mainstream press isn’t really what’s going on. It’s spun, distorted, altered to conform to the preconceptions and prejudices of the author and his editors.

A dear friend of mine sent me a link to this article in the UK Independent, a British newspaper. The author is Rageh Omaar, whose day job is working for the BBC. He talks about how people in the United States are turning in ever greater numbers to blogs and the Internet to get their news. He gets it right when he says that people have lost faith in the traditional news organizations and are trying to find less biased sources.

What’s I found interesting is that he actually thought that American Big Media was too conservative! He closes his article by quoting Rick Mercier, a columnist for The Free Lance-Star in Virginia. Mr. Mercier is extremely critical of the Bush administration, and sees the invasion of Iraq as a failure of the press to do their job.

Well, you can find always find an op-ed somewhere that will support your confirm your own prejudices. What Mr. Omaar needs to do is take a look at the studies that prove that the American media is hopelessly slanted to the Left, and we’ve had proof of that since at least 1980.

Of course, we are talking about a guy who works for the BBC. The only thing I can say is that he’d better take the time for a little introspection and recognize his own bias while he has a chance. After all, a group of bloggers are nipping at the BBC’s heels even as we speak.

Educated Fools

Glenn Reynolds links to this Reason Online discussion in which journalists and mainly-libertarian intellectual types discuss whom they’re voting for and why.

Some of these people, including Reynolds himself, seem mature and reasonable. But quite a few of the others come across as frivolous, apathetic, foolish or all of the above. Michael Shermer thinks it’s important that Kerry is a bicyclist. Richard Epstein doesn’t remember for whom he voted in 2000, thinks the major parties are essentially identical and won’t vote for either of them in 2004. And the guy from The Independent Institute doesn’t want to soil his hands by voting. (Somehow his attitude doesn’t surprise me — see here and here for some background on an exchange I had with another guy from The Independent Institute.)

So, with some notable exceptions, these extremely bright people, many of whom spend a lot of time giving the rest of us advice on how to make decisions about public affairs, are a bunch of idiots in their personal voting behavior. Yeah, I know: most individuals’ votes are not decisive, voters are rationally ignorant, the major parties are effectively a cartel, etc. These objections are narrowly true but miss the big picture. Voting should be treated as a civic sacrament, because on the margin our system can live or die depending on how carefully the voters vote, and they are more likely to take voting seriously if intellectuals don’t denigrate it as an activity. This is especially true now, when the main issue of the day is of overwhelming importance and the major-party candidates have profoundly different approaches to that issue.

One shouldn’t over-intellectualize this stuff, but I think it’s valuable to look at what people think is important enough to spend their own time on. If ordinary people in places like Afghanistan appreciate how important elections are, both symbolically and practically, even when none of the candidates is perfect, why do so many smart people here miss the point?

Maybe we should skip elections altogether, and appoint leaders randomly (with strictly limited terms, of course) from the telephone book. That might work better than decisionmaking by what Thomas Sowell called “articulated rationality” — the main decisionmaking method used by the people interviewed in the Reason forum. Certainly they sound impressive, but do they make better decisions than does the typical voter? Experience, and now disclosure, suggest not.