8 comments for “What is Going On With Devin Nunes – Part 4

  1. Peter Scheu
    October 26, 2017 at 12:44 am

    A new word for what they are doing? Hmmm… We’ll, it’s kind of the opposite of a bait and switch… How about “switchinbait”? They switch the subject then bait their base, and reel ’em in…

    • Tim
      November 1, 2017 at 12:08 pm

      I like “switchandbait” but it’s not quiet there, maybe ‘switch-and-hook’ or ‘switchnhook’? to continue the fishing metaphor.

  2. Chris
    October 26, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    So I think what would help me to get a better understanding of how you see things would be to have a list of your primary sources you use to gather your facts. My trust in “anonymous sources” is pretty low right now. Some of the things you say in these podcasts sound close to “I just trust what this person says, but not that person” with little data deeper than that. From listening to the BHP I know that you can do a great job breaking down sources in ways even a simpleton can understand. I really like how you try to cut through the confusion and how you try to organize things but I like to be able to verify things a little more on my own.

    • Jamie Jeffers
      October 26, 2017 at 4:30 pm

      Everything I spoke about is in the public record and a simple google search will provide you with what you’re looking for. That’s why I cited the NRC, the CFIUS, the statements by Assistant Secretary Jose Fernandez, etc. So that way you can just go pull up their information via a google search.

      Also, it’s good way to practice research in a semi-guided way. And if you want to verify things on your own, you’ll need to get very good at research because most media, politicians, friends, etc won’t cite things for you the way I have.

      • CMBow
        October 26, 2017 at 5:19 pm

        That’s an excellent suggestion, and one’s facility ramps up quickly.

        Also, I habitually use ‘Media Bias/Fact Check’ for the bias vector and credibility of unfamiliar web site news sources. It’s only a general indicator, but it helps me focus better on what types of things to watch for when I encounter something unfamiliar. (As always, be sure to verify that you agree with this site’s judgment each time you use it.).

        Here’s a list of the site’s pick for least biased sources.

        • Jamie Jeffers
          October 26, 2017 at 5:26 pm

          I just did a quick look at that site, and the pages listed on that “least biased” list seem /very/ dodgy. In fact, anything that claims wikipedia is a good source should automatically be looked at skeptically. Further, I find their methodology highly questionable. Looking for “loaded words” is important, but not nearly as important as seeking a full factual account of an issue.

          For example, a site that says Trump lied when he claimed the Steele Dossier was discredited could be flagged as “loaded” for it’s use of “lie.” But the fact is that Trump /did/ lie, and to avoid saying that isn’t being unbiased. It’s just worshiping at the altar of False Equivalency.

          • CMBow
            October 26, 2017 at 8:30 pm

            Thanks for the critique. Your warning is well taken. Hopefully it will ward off any of your followers that may otherwise have accepted the ‘Bias/Fact’ ratings unawares.

            Rereading my comment, I can see how I may have left open that trap. I was in a hurry to comment and return to my routine, and so I did not take time to be thoroughly clear. I’ll do so now by explaining how that site fits into my decoding and comprehension process, why it is effective and efficient for me, and finally, how I determine biases and why.

            As I read news and opinions, I scan for a number of information categories: new topics, familiar topics, facts consistent and inconsistent with what I’ve already verified, and always–point of view, bias.

            Every writer is biased whether or not they admit it to themselves. Every reader is biased, too. The degree to which one can be accurate of both biases controls the validity and reliability of one’s knowledge. I think that’s one tenet of ‘Decode the News’.

            So how do I winnow and judge the flood of data that inundates us all every day? Just like anyone else, I compare the incoming data to what I know. The problem, of course, is that despite my prodigious memory, I can’t keep everything in mu head. So I maintain two databases: one in my mind and one on my computer. I’m comfortable with metaphor, so I think of the one in my mind as RAM and on the computer as Disk. RAM is much faster, but it’s limited. Disk is limitless, but much slower. Together the allow me to quickly evaluate data accurately.

            Of course, ‘accurately’, is the bugaboo. Both databases must contain valid and reliable information insofar as possible. The controlling process is to verify data before storing (believing) it. For me, the ‘Bias/Fact’ site is a convenient first step. As the quality of every site varies from item to item, I risk giving too much credit to a site if the first item I find happens to be relatively accurate. So just to rate a site, I’d need to scan through three tor more items to rate a new site.

            The science of metrics has a wonderful concept: No measurement standard is perfect. They’re all approximations. In fact, there is a study going on right now to completely redefine a number of metric standards, kilogram, liter, etc. The ones we’ve been happily using for decades have been off. It just hasn’t mattered much until recently.

            So, it’s more effective to use a flawed but familiar instrument than to wait years for a perfect one, or to waste time on a cumbersome one. Consider how you use movie critics. You may know that Critic X usually hates movies you love, and so you read X’s reviews to winnow the choices down to to the movies he hates. Then you read Critic Y who is less consistent but offers insights to help you judge.

            ‘Bias/Fact’ is like Critic X in that I am familiar enough with how the site’s ratings relate to my own that it can be a quick first filter. I refer to ‘Bias/Fact’ only when I encounter an unfamiliar new source. I can quickly move to Critic Y, i.e., my own review of an item or two, and feel confident I can evaluate both the factualness and bias of future items from that dite–subject to later data, of course.

            Everyone does similar judging whether explicitly and consciously or not. I I prefer to make such judgments both visible and editable, and with the growing population of ‘news’ sources, I prefer my electronic list. Still, I am well aware that my mind works far differently than most. Everyone will do what works best for them.

            Now, pertaining to your comment about Judging bias, I agree to a point. Tat point hinges upon the fact that the very act of identifying biases inevitably confounds types of meaning. Take your example of ‘lie’. Its denoted meaning is, ‘to speak falsely’ but its bias changes by connotation. It may be judged as neutral due to its ‘obvious’ validity–as is your preference–or it may be judged as biased for its negative emotional load, as in, ‘YOU LIE’. Choosing one alternative over the other is an inherently biased act, depending upon one’s attitudes toward the subject.

            To carry your example forward, you characterize the use of any other word in place of ‘lie’ to be, ‘just worshiping at the altar of False Equivalency.’ Surely your assigning that mental connection hints at a bias. While I believe that the word ‘lie’ accurately communicates your intended meaning, your intent includes your bias, which I infer to be that lying is an extremely negative act. After all, it is bad enough that any mitigation of that word’s negative load is tantamount to a figurative pagan rite worshiping a fallacious god.

            Given your training and current career, I would expect nothing else. From where I sit, it is the bias I want you to have. I just insist that when I consider your opinions–even when you consider them purely factual–I am and remain aware of your point of view.

            Moreover, as I believe this interchange demonstrates, the site I recommended can start the thought process about the issues of bias and truth. Any number of other sites or conversations could do the same. For me the important thing is to avoid following unquestioned gurus, even when their attitudes are nearly my own. Perhaps, especially then.

      • Chris
        October 31, 2017 at 1:46 pm

        Thanks Jamie!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.