Sep 7th 2016

The Curse of False Equivalency

by Jeff Schweitzer

Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist and former White House Senior Policy Analyst; Ph.D. in marine biology/neurophysiology

For reasons that remain obscure, we seem in our culture to experience a gender bias in the willingness to turn off lights when exiting a room.  With limited data, and at the high risk of infuriating many readers, I would suggest that more women than men tend to leave lights burning when nobody is around to enjoy the benefits of illumination.

During a typical day at home I will, in trail of my spouse, stubbornly flip off lights 10 or 20 times, day in and day out, like an annoyingly persistent mosquito determined to pester my wife into submission. Alas, to no avail, a reality that finally dawned on me after 32 years. I’m a slow learner.  However, and now we come to the point of this domestic tale, I will on rare occasion rush from my office and forget to turn off the light upon my hasty retreat.  If my wife chances by, she will do the honor of extinguishing the electronic flame, followed sometimes by a reminder that we are both equally guilty of burning more oil than necessary.

But no, we are not.  This is a claim of false equivalency.  Indeed it is true that we both are in the absolute sense guilty of leaving lights on, so superficially it would appear we have similar histories that could be equated one to the other.  But frequency, patterns, consistency over time and persistence matter; combined they create functional differences that result in qualitative and quantitative dissimilarities profound enough that we can reasonably conclude one set of actions is distinct from another.  On the domestic front this is appeal to false equivalency is trivial, of no consequence.  Not so in presidential politics on the nationals stage.

 The media have made a tragic error in creating a false equivalency between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Yes superficially we can claim equivalency: both are running for president, each representing a major political party after securing victories in the primary season following multiple debates with opponents.  But the comparison is just that – superficial – and meaningless.  And dangerously naïve. 

Put aside for a moment whatever animosity you may feel for Clinton.  You may wrongly believe her to be more dishonest than any other politician (admittedly a low bar), or believe the focus on Benghazi is something other than a GOP witch hunt, or think her email debacle is somehow worse than Bush and Cheney deleting 21 million emails from an RNC server, or conclude that her use of private emails for government business involving classified information is different than what Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld did routinely, or dismiss General Petraeus sharing classified information with his mistress Paula Broadwell.  Or perhaps you are offended by her liberal views on abortion or climate change, or simply hate her because she is a Clinton. OK, that’s great.  But even with all that, Clinton is by any definition qualified to be president, hate her or not.  Senator, Secretary of State, veteran of a previous presidential campaign, a major player on the global stage, Clinton has the history and experience typical of presidential candidates consistent with all who have come before. 

Opposing a candidate does not mean we believe he or she is unqualified, only that we hope he or she is not elected.  In previous campaigns many of us vigorously opposed McCain and Romney and thought both would make terrible presidents implementing wrong-minded policies; but both men are undeniably qualified for the presidency based on temperament, sense of history and respective experience in the U.S. senate and governor’s mansion.  Clinton, Romney, and McCain are all properly considered equivalently qualified as presidential candidates even if they have radically different views, agendas and policies.

The huge and potentially existential mistake the media have made is to include Donald Trump in that group of qualified candidates.  They have erred in promoting the idea that just because he is the GOP nominee he deserves to be treated like other legitimate candidates.  This may be the worst case of false equivalency ever witnessed in public life.  Sarah Palin, so thoroughly unprepared and unqualified for office, pioneered the low path for Trump’s arrival on the national scene but she was a running mate, not the main event.  In any case, as a consequence of the media’s inappropriately equating Trump to actually qualified candidates, he is taken seriously no matter how outrageous his pronouncements may be.  He is given media coverage unworthy of the buffoon that he is, of the clown he has become.  He is offered by the media the respect of a legitimate candidate without offering in return to the American people the behavior, disposition or character befitting someone vying for the nation’s highest office. 

In stark contrast to Clinton or those who came before her, Trump has no credentials that would make him a viable candidate for president.  Hate him or like him, it doesn’t matter; he has no qualifications for the presidency.  His temperament, lack of experience, misogyny, bigotry and racism have no place in any campaign for the Oval Office. Yet every day we see wall-to-wall coverage of Trump being taken seriously because the press both left and right have made the potentially fatal mistake of false equivalency, wrongly giving Trump the same deference as a candidate as they afford Clinton. 

This false equivalency seems to be broadly applied across the political spectrum.  Proof of this is seen in the few but prominent exceptions to the rule that the media are giving Trump the absurd benefit of the doubt that he has something serious to offer.  In fact, some of the most vocal opposition comes from traditionally conservative press.  The Dallas Morning News, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, concludes that “Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote.”  The Houston Chronicle, a stronghold of conservativism with the largest circulation in Texas, actually endorsed Hillary Clinton with the following commentary:

 

“Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.”

 

The National Review concludes that, “Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”

But these are indeed the exceptions. Fox News remains strongly behind Trump, giving him daily saturation coverage as a legitimate possible president.  CNN and MSNBC have failed in their primary mission by doing the same as Fox without questioning Trump’s qualifications as they report on his campaign, ignoring or laughing off gaffs that would destroy other candidates.  Media with a liberal bias make the mistake of reporting on Trump as a legitimate candidate in an effort to be “impartial” and “fair” thereby committing the sin of assuming that that every debate has two sides, that all arguments are equally valid. 

People commonly claim that left-wing media bias is no different than what we see on Fox News.  “Both sides are equally guilty” is something often heard.  “The left is just as biased as the right; both sides lie.  It’s all the same.”  This follows the oft-stated claim that media in general are left-leaning.  Sure, those that are left-leaning lean to the left...  But that ignores all the media tilting to the right, including the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, National Review, Breitbart, Free Republic, and conservative commentators like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. 

So yeah, left wing media is biased; right wing media is biased.  But to say that liberal media is as partisan as conservative media is false equivalency in pure form.  We can demonstrate easily enough that media bias on the left, while certainly real, is not anywhere near equivalent to the partiality on the right.  The argument we hear in daily conversations that “they all do it” when discussing bias ignores the form, weight, intensity and tenuous link to reality in the bias we see on Fox News, or with Ann Coulter or Hannity or Limbaugh.  In total there is on the left no equivalent of the massive, organized, intentional bias seen on the right.  We only have to look at coverage of Benghazi to see this clearly. 

During George Bush’s presidency, the U.S. suffered 13 attacks on embassies and consulates in which 60 people died (some put the total at 87).  What is important here:  Fox News (or any conservative media for that matter) mentioned not at all or only in passing any of these attacks and deaths.  Compared to the  never-ending coverage of the deaths of four Americans in Libya, I can find not one single Fox News or conservative media reports on the 8 Americans killed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; not one story of Jim Mollen’s murder, and none on the murder of Edward Seitz.  Are their lives less worthy than those who died in Libya?

The deaths in Benghazi were covered in saturation nearly non-stop for almost two full years after the attacks.  According to MediaMatters, Fox News ran 1,098 segments on the Libya attacks, at least 20 per month, with a peak of 174 in October 2012.  Of these, 281 segments alleged a “cover up” by the Obama administration, without offering any evidence for the claim, and pushing the story long-past when the claim was proven false.  There is and was no cover up.  The House Armed Services Committee report concluded that the Obama administration was “not guilty of any deliberate, negligent wrongdoing.”  The GOP panel confirmed that “no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order” was given to the military.  This is a Republican majority report.  The bi-partisan Senate report on Benghazi came to the same conclusion that there was no cover up.

Equally corrupt, Fox aired 100 segments pushing the blatant lie that the Obama administration issued a “stand-down order” before there was any evidence for the claim and even after the accusation was known to be false.  So Fox aired hundreds and hundreds of segments on an alleged cover up and stand-down order that they knew to be wrong.  Compare this blitzkrieg of false accusations concerning four American deaths to the complete lack of coverage or investigation into the 60 deaths suffered during 13 attacks under Bush. 

There is simply nothing remotely equivalent to this onslaught of blatantly biased coverage and accusations fabricated from thin air in liberal media.  Fox manipulated news with the intent of harming Hillary Clinton in collaboration with allies in Congress.  During an interview with Fox News, then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) admitted that the committee investigating Benghazi had set out with the clear purpose of damaging Hillary Clinton. Fox News gleefully covered the Benghazi hearings with no filter.  Bradley F. Podliska, a staffer to the committee, openly stated that the investigation was designed to harm Clinton politically.  (Conservative media predictably subsequently tried to minimize this damaging admission).  Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) reiterated this claim.  You simply cannot point to something this outrageous on the left.  Claiming that liberal bias exists just as it does on the right is false equivalency.

We all suffer from this curse of unequal bias as we witness false equivalency bleeding from national politics back into daily life.  Denying the reality of climate change and its cause, questioning the validity of evolution, promoting an anti-vaccine agenda and fighting blindly against every GMO are all products of the same culture in which objective reality is nothing but a quaint notion from the past when fact was actually given greater weight than unsubstantiated opinion. In our brave new world, the collective opinions of thousands of professional meteorologists studying our climate have been equated to nothing more valid than the uneducated opinion of a radio host.  Such false equivalency in expertise is a sure sign we are in deep trouble: we lose our ability to arbitrate between conflicting claims because everything is equally afforded the patina of validity even in the absence of evidence.  If all is equivalent then we have no means of distinguishing between one assertion and another.  We falsely equate opinion with fact.

Donald Trump is not the problem, we are.  The media that allow him to thrive in the face of false equivalency, and the voting public incapable of seeing past this illusion together conspire to create the primordial goop that nourishes Trump’s lubricous oozing into the national spotlight.  The time has come to stop the madness of giving Trump any offer of legitimacy. We must loosen our embrace of deceitful impartiality and accept that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a candidate is just a dangerous buffoon deserving nothing but our disdain.





Dr. Jeff Schweitzer is a marine biologist, consultant and internationally recognized authority in ethics, conservation and development. He is the author of five books including Calorie Wars: Fat, Fact and Fiction (July 2011), and A New Moral Code (2010). Dr. Schweitzer has spoken at numerous international conferences in Asia, Russia, Europe and the United States.Dr. Schweitzer's work is based on his desire to introduce a stronger set of ethics into American efforts to improve the human condition worldwide. He has been instrumental in designing programs that demonstrate how third world development and protecting our resources are compatible goals. His vision is to inspire a framework that ensures that humans can grow and prosper indefinitely in a healthy environment.Formerly, Dr. Schweitzer served as an Assistant Director for International Affairs in the Office of Science and Technology Policy under former President Clinton. Prior to that, Dr. Schweitzer served as the Chief Environmental Officer at the State Department's Agency for International Development. In that role, he founded the multi-agency International Cooperative Biodiversity Group Program, a U.S. Government that promoted conservation through rational economic use of natural resources.Dr. Schweitzer began his scientific career in the field of marine biology. He earned his Ph.D. from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. He expanded his research at the Center for Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine. While at U.C. Irvine he was awarded the Science, Engineering and Diplomacy Fellowship from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Dr. Schweitzer is a pilot and he founded and edited the Malibu Mirage, an aviation magazine dedicated to pilots flying these single-engine airplanes. He and his wife Sally are avid SCUBA divers and they travel widely to see new wildlife, never far from their roots as marine scientists..To learn more about Dr Schweitzer, visit his website at http://www.JeffSchweitzer.com.


To follow Jeff Schweizer on Twitter, please click here.

For Jeff Schweitzer web site, please click here.

Below link to Amazon for Jeff Schweitzer's latest book.


TO FOLLOW WHAT'S NEW ON FACTS & ARTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE!





 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Apr 13th 2021
EXTRACT: "Overall, our review has found that there isn’t evidence to back up the claims that veganism is good for your heart. But that is partly because there are few studies ....... But veganism may have other health benefits. Vegans have been found to have a healthier weight and lower blood glucose levels than those who consume meat and dairy. They are also less likely to develop cancer, high blood pressure and diabetes. "
Apr 8th 2021
EXTRACT: "Pollock’s universe, the universe of Mural, cannot be said to be a rational universe. Nor is it simply devoid of all sense. It is not a purely imaginary world, although in it everything is in a constant state of flux. Mural invokes one of the oldest questions of philosophy, a question going back to the Pre-Socratic philosophers Parmenides and Heraclitus – namely, whether the nature of Reality constitutes unchanging permanence or constant movement and flux. For Pollock, the only thing that is truly unchanging is change itself. The only certainty is that all is uncertain."
Apr 8th 2021
EXTRACT: "Many present day politicians appear to have psychopathic and narcissistic traits too. It’s easy to spot such leaders, because they are always authoritarian, following hardline policies. They try to subvert democracy, to reduce the freedom of the press and clamp down on dissent. They are obsessed with national prestige, and often persecute minority groups. And they are always corrupt and lacking in moral principles."
Apr 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "This has led some to claim that not just half, but perhaps nearly all advertising money is wasted, at least online. There are similar results outside of commerce. One review of field experiments in political campaigning argued “the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero”. Zero!"
Mar 30th 2021
EXTRACT: "The Father is an extraordinary film, from Florian Zeller’s 2012 play entitled Le Père and directed by Zeller. I’m here to tell you why it is a ‘must see’." EDITOR'S NOTE: The official trailer is attached to the review.
Mar 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "Picasso was 26 in 1907, when he completed the Demoiselles; de Kooning was 48 in 1952, when he finished Woman I.  The difference in their ages was not an accident, for studies of hundreds of painters have revealed a striking regularity - the conceptual painters who preconceive their paintings, from Raphael to Warhol, consistently make their greatest contributions earlier in their careers than experimental painters, from Rembrandt to Pollock, who paint directly, without preparatory studies."
Mar 26th 2021
EXTRACT: "Mental toughness levels are influenced by many different factors. While genetics are partly responsible, a person’s environment is also relevant. For example, both positive experiences while you’re young and mental toughness training programmes have been found to make people mentally tougher."
Mar 20th 2021

The city of Homs has been ravaged by war, leaving millions of people homeless an

Mar 20th 2021
EXTRACT: "There are two main rival models of ethics: one is based on rights, the other on duties. The rights-based model, which traces its philosophical origins to the work of John Locke in the 17th century, starts from the assumption that individuals have rights ....... According to this approach, duties are related to rights, but only in a subordinate role. My right to health implies a duty on my country to provide some healthcare services, to the best of its abilities. This is arguably the dominant interpretation when philosophers talk about rights, including human rights." ........ "Your right to get sick, or to risk getting sick, could imply a duty on others to look after you during your illness." ..... "The pre-eminence of rights in our moral compass has vindicated unacceptable levels of selfishness. It is imperative to undertake a fundamental duty not to get sick, and to do everything in our means to avoid causing others to get sick. Morally speaking, duties should come first and should not be subordinated to rights." ..... "Putting duties before rights is not a new, revolutionary idea. In fact it is one of the oldest rules in the book of ethics. Primum non nocere, or first do no harm, is the core principle in the Hippocratic Oath historically taken by doctors, widely attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher and physician Hippocrates. It is also a fundamental principle in the moral philosophy of the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, who in De Officiis (On Duties) argues that the first task of justice is to prevent men and women from causing harm to others."
Mar 18th 2021
EXTRACT: "Several studies have recently compared the difference between antibodies produced straight after a coronavirus infection and those that can be detected six months later. The findings have been both impressive and reassuring. Although there are fewer coronavirus-specific antibodies detectable in the blood six months after infection, the antibodies that remain have undergone significant changes. …….. the “mature” antibodies were better at recognising the variants."
Mar 15th 2021
EXTRACT: "Like Shakespeare, Goya sees evil as something existing in itself – indeed, the horror of evil arises precisely from its excess. It overflows and refuses to be contained by or integrated into our categories of reason or comprehension. By its very nature, evil refuses to remain within prescribed bounds – to remain fixed, say, within an economy where evil is counterbalanced by good. Evil is always excess of evil." ....... "Nowhere is this more evident than in war. Goya offers us a profound and sustained meditation on the nature of war ........ The image of a Napoleonic soldier gazing indifferently on a man who has been summarily hanged, probably by his own belt, expresses the tragedy of war – its dehumanization of both war’s victims and victors."
Mar 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "A blockchain company has bought a piece of Banksy artwork and burnt it. But instead of destroying the value of the art, they claim to have made it more valuable, because it was sold as a piece of blockchain art. The company behind the stunt, called Injective Protocol, bought the screen print from a New York gallery. They then live-streamed its burning on the Twitter account BurntBanksy. But why would anyone buy a piece of art just to burn it? Understanding the answer requires us to delve into the tricky world of blockchain or “NFT” art."
Mar 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "Exercise is good for your health at every age – and you can reap the benefits no matter how late in life you start. But our latest research has shown another benefit of being physically active throughout life. We found that in the US, people who were more physically active as teenagers and throughout adulthood had lower healthcare costs."
Mar 10th 2021
EXTRACT: "Although around one in 14 people over 65 have Alzheimer’s disease, there’s still no cure, and no way to prevent the disease from progressing. But a recent study may bring us one step closer to preventing Alzheimer’s. The trial, which was conducted on animals, has found a specific molecule can prevent the buildup of a toxic protein known to cause Alzheimer’s in the brain."
Feb 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "The art historian George Kubler observed that scholars in the humanities “pretend to despise measurement because of its ‘scientific’ nature.” As if to illustrate his point Robert Storr, former dean of Yale’s School of Art, declared that artistic success is “completely unquantifiable.” In fact, however, artistic success can be quantified, in several ways. One of these is based on the analysis of texts produced by art scholars, and this measure can give us a systematic understanding of how changes in recent art have produced changes in the canon of art history."
Feb 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "The most politically sensitive option we looked at was the virus escaping from a laboratory. We concluded this was extremely unlikely."
Feb 16th 2021
EXTRACT: ".... these men were completely unaware that they had put their lives in the hands of doctors who not only had no intention of healing them but were committed to observing them until the final autopsy – since it was believed that an autopsy alone could scientifically confirm the study’s findings. As one researcher wrote in a 1933 letter to a colleague, “As I see, we have no further interest in these patients until they die.” ...... The unquestionable ethical failure of Tuskegee is one with which we must grapple, and of which we must never lose sight, lest we allow such moral disasters to repeat themselves. "
Feb 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "In 2010 Carlos Rodriguez, the president of Buenos Aires' Universidad del CEMA, created the world's first - and only - Center for Creativity Economics.  During the next ten years, the CCE presented a number of short courses and seminars.  But the most important of its events was an annual lecture by an Argentine artist, who was given a Creative Career Award."
Feb 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "It’s not hard to see why. Although AI systems outperform humans in tasks that are often associated with a “high level of intelligence” (playing chess, Go, or Jeopardy), they are nowhere close to excelling at tasks that humans can master with little to no training (such as understanding jokes). What we call “common sense” is actually a massive base of tacit knowledge – the cumulative effect of experiencing the world and learning about it since childhood. Coding common-sense knowledge and feeding it into AI systems is an unresolved challenge. Although AI will continue to solve some difficult problems, it is a long way from performing many tasks that children undertake as a matter of course."
Feb 7th 2021
EXTRACT: "When it comes to being fit and healthy, we’re often reminded to aim to walk 10,000 steps per day. This can be a frustrating target to achieve, especially when we’re busy with work and other commitments. Most of us know by now that 10,000 steps is recommended everywhere as a target to achieve – and yet where did this number actually come from?"