Rob Douglas: Blinded by political bias


Rob Douglas

Rob Douglas' column appears Fridays in the Steamboat Today. He can be reached at

Find more columns by Douglas here.

From the Yampa Valley to Washington, D.C., it is nearly impossible to cut through the deliberately misleading political noise that clouds any search for facts required at the outset of meaningful public policy debate.

How can residents of Routt County decide whether universal background checks for gun sales will reduce murders in the U.S. when Democrats and Republicans jockeying for political advantage distort the current percentage of sales that take place without a background check?

How can Coloradans determine what steps are reasonable to protect air and water quality from potential hydraulic fracturing pollution when the environmental movement and the oil and gas industry trumpet wildly different statistics about existing fracking pollution?

How can Americans make decisions about whether we need to alter our national energy policy in order to combat global warming when lobbyists on both sides of the issue skew and hide scientific data in order to appease their respective puppet masters?

The distortion of facts when it comes to public policy issues only benefits politicians, lobbyists and the media. Meanwhile, the nonstop spinning often prevents us from addressing an extensive list of problems we truly need to confront. In short, how will we solve the economic and social crises that burden our communities and nation if we can’t agree on basic facts?

To illustrate this point, take as much time as you need before answering this question: To date, did federal spending increase more on an annual average basis under President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama?

What is your answer? How did you arrive at that answer? Did you go to a resource you frequently use? If so, why do you use that resource? Did you use a search engine like Google, Yahoo or Bing? If so, how did you select your answer from the dozens of returned resources? Or, like most of us, did you answer the question by drawing upon what you think is common knowledge? If so, how did that answer come to be common knowledge to you?

Given human nature, no matter how you arrived at your answer, it’s a safe bet you were influenced by confirmation bias. In other words, it’s likely that what you think is common knowledge or the resource you select as authoritative when seeking answers to questions with political implications is heavily influenced by your preexisting political ideology. Further, the more confusion surrounding a public policy issue, the more likely you are to seek sources — no matter how wildly inaccurate and easily refuted — that substantiate your view.

So if you lean to the right politically, you probably think spending has increased more while Obama has been in office, and you will seek out a resource that provides information that matches your predisposition. If your politics reside on the left side of the spectrum, you probably think spending increased more under Bush and will seek sources and data that reward that belief. The more partisan your convictions, the more likely you are to blind yourself to any evidence that undercuts your preordained answer.

Eradicating confirmation bias is not as simple as turning off MSNBC or Fox News, the hackneyed examples where confirmation bias constantly is on display. Even those who intentionally expose their minds to information sources that challenge their views easily can fall into the mental trap of denying any countervailing facts that should cause them to question their biases. Still, as individuals, we should strive to reduce confirmation bias if we’re ever going to have meaningful dialogue on the important issues of the day.

Let’s go back to the test question. To date, did federal spending increase more on an annual average basis under Bush or Obama? According to my research, the answer is Bush. Then again, as a libertarian with a record of excoriating Bush for his profligate spending, I might be blinded by political bias, and the resources and metrics I employed to reach my conclusion might have served only to confirm my prejudices.

I’ll let you decide.

To reach Rob Douglas, email


Scott Wedel 4 years ago

A big part is the general media that writes articles as if there are two sides with equally credible facts. So an article which has one politician quoting a scientific study in a peer reviewed journal will be given the same credibility as another politician quoting a highly biased opinion piece from a partisan think tank. So the public is allowed to believe the scientific field is split on an issue when, in fact, the consensus of the field is well established.

And the general media very often doesn't tell the public of what was found by researchers, but quotes biased "experts" on the possible implications of the study. So instead of reporting what the study found, the public learns of the spin.

If you read scientific journals then you'd get a far better sense of what is factually known. Not only do you learn of the result, you also see the methods used and what exactly was being measured. It is not uncommon for politicians to quote two different studies as if one was right and the other wrong, but the authors of the studies see that they are measuring different things and there is nothing wrong with the other study.

But studies that generally agree with current theory and provide more detailed knowledge are generally ignored by the media. The study making grandiose claims is often given attention by the media even if the study is deeply flawed.


Dan Kuechenmeister 4 years ago

Rob, Interesting article. Unfortunately it doesn't matter, except to the far left and far right zealots (aka the party bases), who has increased federal spending more. What matters to me is the take away that federal spending continues to increase. Here is info from a piece I read by John Mauldin. "In fiscal 2010, according to numbers published by the Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), net spending by all levels of government in the United States was $5,942,988,401,000. That equaled $50,074 for each one of the 118,682,000 households in the country. In that same year, according to the Census Bureau, the median household income was $49,445. That means total net government spending per household ($50,074) exceeded median household income (49,445) by $629..."

This was from 2010, my guess is the level of spending by the federal government has not decreased since then. The USA, does not have the money and while it appears that we are going to spend ourselves into oblivion we can not and attempting to do so means this massive spending will end in tears, regardless of who you or any others choose to blame. Cheers, Dan


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.