On bias, nuance, and fact-checkers

So, Monday night was pretty disheartening. But instead of complaining about the presidential debate, I want to offer one nonpartisan reflection on the recent proliferation of fact checkers and the involvement of the media in "fact checking" the election. However, before doing so I want to note three basic premises that inform my views on this topic.

First, we need to recognize that everyone is biased, knowingly or not. This includes everyone in the media, everyone in politics, you, and me. Everyone. This bias cuts across education level, socioeconomic status, skin color, and every other identifying characteristic out there. Second, the issues we are debating in the election are complicated. Despite what many say, there is no easy solution to racism, our vulnerable energy situation, radical terrorism, cyber warfare, the American manufacturing crisis, etc. The world is unfortunately broken, and we as humans are quite bad at solving many problems. Third, massive quantities of facts, information, and data relate to each one of these issues, to say nothing of philosophical ideals and moral principles. As much as we may want to boil a subject like the state of the economy down to three or four statistics, it’s simply not possible. Nuance exists, and we should embrace that difficult principle rather than blindly run into the arms of ignorant simplicity.

Given these three considerations, I urge you to be skeptical of all media figures that attempt to either support or counter the claims of the two candidates by "checking the facts" or looking at the evidence. After all, these people are biased too, and they are attempting to discuss complex issues in 300-word snippets using a small amount of the overall information available out there. They simply can't engage with the issue in a meaningful way or conclusively prove the candidates right or wrong on the basis of their carefully selected facts (most of the time anyway).

So where does this leave us? Who checks the fact checkers?

You. You are responsible for understanding the issues, for looking at the information out there, engaging in arguments with those who agree and disagree with you, and reaching a supported position. You can't read just Vox or RedState, and claim the other side is crazy. It’s not. Nor can you read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal and pretend that you're getting your information from an unbiased source. You're not. Nor can you watch one John Oliver segment and presume that you’re suddenly an expert on charter schools or Medicaid. Oliver’s not and neither are you.

For some reason, we've chosen to delegate thoughtful engagement with the issues to fact checkers and pundits who purport to tell us who is wrong and right in short web posts and YouTube videos. But it's more complex than that. We all have different premises, different goals, and different values. We can't expect to reach the same answer if we start at different places, but we can hope to sometimes reach a compromise by understanding each other and listening with real concern.

So what now? What do we do?

Start small. You can't hope to know everything about everything, especially in the beginning. Wisdom is more about knowing what you don't know than what you do. So start with one step. Start with an issue you really care about, whether it be social or fiscal, international affairs or racial reconciliation. And just because you're a Princeton student doesn't mean you have some sort of special claim to knowledge or objectivity on these issues. You don’t.

For example, take the issue of guns. Look at statistics about gun violence in America, where it happens, why it happens, how guns laws contribute to the issue. Understand the supply chain, figure out what a gun show is and what constitutes a background check. Look at the text of the Second Amendment and understand how different sides view the right to bear arms. Understand the difference between an AR-15 and a Glock handgun, and think about whether that distinction matters. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Compare the U.S. with the rest of the world, and figure out how and why we are different. Ask questions. What about your personal experience? Have you shot a gun? How does that inform your position? Realize your own biases. Get outside of your friend group and listen to someone who opposes you. Talk to someone who agrees with you, but continually ask them why, why, why. Pick apart your own arguments, and reconstruct them with sturdy reasons.

But isn't that hard? Who has time for that?

It is hard. It does take time. And once you start, you’re never finished.

On a personal note, I often spend late nights rethinking my positions on critical issues, wondering if I’ve missed something or failed to understand the opposition.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

However, the task is well worth it. A nation full of uninvolved citizens who don't take time to understand the issues has given us the two nominees on stage Monday night, two wealthy, white, elderly, flip-flopping New Yorkers tainted by scandal and driven by personal ambition. So take the time to figure out the issues. Discover what you believe and why. And listen to everyone. We owe it to each other, our country, and ourselves.

Owen Smitherman is a Politics major from Austin, TX. He can be reached at obs@princeton.edu.