Read on Twitter
If you ever wanted a clear example of confirmation bias, watch the "commentary" and "opinion" of any big court case and the "analysis" of the each side's arguments and their counsel.
I won't speak of domestic cases - although that's what I have in mind. I'll use a foreign example though.
Here's John Crace's piece in The Guardian analysing day one of the big prorogation case: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/17/lord-pannick-lord-keen-supreme-court-hearing-parliament-suspension
Here's John Crace's piece in The Guardian analysing day one of the big prorogation case: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/17/lord-pannick-lord-keen-supreme-court-hearing-parliament-suspension
So some background and context:
The case was happening at the zenith of the UK's pre-withdrawal from the EU. PM May had just heen toppled, PM Johnson was forcing though Brexit, and Parliament was fighting the Executive.
The case was happening at the zenith of the UK's pre-withdrawal from the EU. PM May had just heen toppled, PM Johnson was forcing though Brexit, and Parliament was fighting the Executive.
Supposedly to up the ante, the Executive prorogued Parliament (suspended its sitting, something it normally does), for 5 weeks and over the key period when Parliament could have scuppered PM Johnson's plans.
That's the controversy the UK Supreme Court was asked to resolve.c
That's the controversy the UK Supreme Court was asked to resolve.c
Crace - and The Guardian - are firmly pro-EU. They oppose Brexit. Fair game.
But look at the "analysis" Crace offers.
Glowing reflection of Lord Pannick'e arguments (which supports his beliefs).
Utter derision for Lord Keen who was making the case for the Government.
But look at the "analysis" Crace offers.
Glowing reflection of Lord Pannick'e arguments (which supports his beliefs).
Utter derision for Lord Keen who was making the case for the Government.
Apart from being unfair and ungenerous to Lord Keen - a senior, seasoned, and serious lawyer of the highest professional pedigree - in his role as counsel, the "analysis" doesn't even pretend to engage with what Lord Keen said.
Instead, the Government's position was debased by attacking Lord Keen's appearance, style, and manner. Mockery took the place of debate.
Okay, so Crace is a sketch writer but that's not good enough. You can make fun of bad arguments - they're bad. But Crace is beyond the pale.
Okay, so Crace is a sketch writer but that's not good enough. You can make fun of bad arguments - they're bad. But Crace is beyond the pale.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that journalists, publications, and public commentators have biases - and agendas. They're allowed to. That's part of the game.
So please be careful when your faves offer analysis of serious issues that amounts to nothing other than peddling.
So please be careful when your faves offer analysis of serious issues that amounts to nothing other than peddling.
