Two sides to every issue?

nbiggershaft · 01-08-2007, 04:14 AM

We model our media and classrooms around this principle: There are two sides to every issue, and essentially they are equally valid. When reporting a story both sides must be equally represented, any discussion should have two sides equally considered.

At some point I began to believe that this was essentially a destructive force in accomplishing anything intellectually. There seems to be a fine line between bias and logic, and I don't think we know where that line is anymore as a country. Every issue should not have two equal sides, every logical question should not come down to two 'opinions'.

At some point in order to prevent bias we developed this idea that reporting the news can only have a pulse to it if we have huge clashing boobs cancelling each other out in their obvious representation of the 'two sides'.

I'm not sure exactly what would be a better ideological system than the one we have in place. But it seems to me this almighty prevention of an actual right and wrong rational side to an issue is breeding apathy. Nobody really cares because it is always the democrats fault, or always the republicans fault. Global warming is perhaps the greatest example, how can so many otherwise rational people stand a purely scientific issue straight down party lines.

cliffs: I resent my old civics teachers.

Kytro · 01-08-2007, 07:27 PM

I would say there are far more than two sides, in fact there are a number of perspectives. Some are more rational than others and some are completely irrational.

News should be reporting fact, not telling people what to think

RMNIXON · 01-08-2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I would say there are far more than two sides, in fact there are a number of perspectives. Some are more rational than others and some are completely irrational.

News should be reporting fact, not telling people what to think

I don't think this works out the same for media and the classroom. Clearly the media has basic reporting obligations. They can get into News Analysis later and make it clear when they do that.

The classroom should be more of a debate environment. That does not mean to be fair you leave your brains and judgements at the door, just that all sides should be heard. Thinking is involved in trying to figure out who has the better argument and the schools don't encourage as much of that as they should.

For example I had a very liberal woman political science professor who made an outstanding effort to make sure all points of view were not only heard but got respect. On the other hand I had a very liberal American History professor who not only made his current political views an open lecture but was very intolerant of conservative views in the classroom.

Kytro · 01-08-2007, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The classroom should be more of a debate environment. That does not mean to be fair you leave your brains and judgements at the door, just that all sides should be heard. Thinking is involved in trying to figure out who has the better argument and the schools don't encourage as much of that as they should.

Education should be based on fact also, but debate is healthy so long as it is rational debate.

nbiggershaft · 01-08-2007, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The classroom should be more of a debate environment. That does not mean to be fair you leave your brains and judgements at the door, just that all sides should be heard. Thinking is involved in trying to figure out who has the better argument and the schools don't encourage as much of that as they should.

Thats actually the attitude that I think is counterproductive. We set up forums in classrooms like debates. And we encourage people to be the 'devils advocate'. It all leads to arguements that aren't lies, but are certainly not honest, and instead of listening with the intent to learn, we listen with the intent to break down and counterpoint. It is about the better arguement and not what is correct, as if there is no correct.

Diamond Cross · 01-08-2007, 09:17 PM

One person's truth is another person's lie in the realm of politics. For example, it doesn't matter how much evidence there may be to support the claim of the candidate being innocent of a crime they were accused of, if they're a member of the party that is absolutely hated, that candidate will forever be guilty in that person's eyes.

you can see that happening on any kind of political forum like this one.

RMNIXON · 01-08-2007, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Thats actually the attitude that I think is counterproductive. We set up forums in classrooms like debates. And we encourage people to be the 'devils advocate'. It all leads to arguements that aren't lies, but are certainly not honest, and instead of listening with the intent to learn, we listen with the intent to break down and counterpoint. It is about the better arguement and not what is correct, as if there is no correct.

True. I think it depends more on grade level and subject. I am thinking more of the college level than High School or below where teachers become more interested in student expression than learning. That is a bad thing gone out of control...

thatguyoverthere · 01-09-2007, 09:30 PM

Very interesting thread. Initially it reminded me of an old joke about the media trying so hard to be percieved as "non-biased" that, if one political party came out and said the Earth was flat, the next days headline would be "Shape Of Earth: Views Differ."

I think it's extremely important to hear all sides, or as many sides as you can. Just because it's a minority view doesn't mean that it's wrong. I'm against censoring opposing or unpopular statements.

But you make a very good point about when debate and discussion merely becomes a game of who can best counter the other argument, and not about what the actual truth is.