Item — HN Reader

I'm not going to do your research for you, I'm just saying that whether either demonised or praised Bush is irrelevant to the claim that was being made - unless you're making specific claims that Bush will verifiably exhibit the ability to possess a little girl, or to drive the demons out of a little girl into a herd of pigs.

Truth is biased; it will ignore every argument you make that contradicts what it knows to be true. 2 + 2 = 4 is irredeemably biased against 2 + 2 = 5. Disturbingly partisan.

1 comments

The only claim made in the hypothetical question was that either op-ed page could be used to become "informed about the realities of the current economic crisis". I was criticizing that assumption, not whether one was a better source of information than the other.

Bias has to do with how we perceive the world. To say that data has a bias comes from a unique perception of fairness, not the data itself. To exclude relevant data to make a point, which these op-ed pages are notorious for, is a form of bias. More definitions here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

I'm not sure what the difference is between something that would make one better informed and something being a better source of information.