There are people who know better but let their biases direct their conclusions.
People are different and think differently—and that is something that is very healthy. Imagine taking three individuals and making them watch a short video in which a person walking along a sidewalk slips on a banana peel. The first subject laughs so hard that he can barely breathe. The second person sees nothing unusual and wonders why he was forced to watch such a banal event. Our third subject immediately calls for an ambulance and wonders if the person is badly injured. That’s how people are and that’s wonderful.
One of the rarest of human traits is intellectual honesty. Of the many scientists I have known since I was a kid roaming my dad’s chemistry lab, I would say that the number of truly open-minded scientists I know I can count on one hand. When a scientist designs an experiment, the goal is to learn something specific. The experiment is designed so as to afford a result that may support an expected outcome. A great scientist follows the data, even if the result is different or even the exact opposite of that which was expected or desired. Less lofty researchers will keep pushing for a given outcome, possibly for personal, scientific or financial reasons. I will never forget a talk in Madison in the early 1990s when a fellow put up a slide with AID$ with a dollar sign—that’s where the money in research was to be found, so go put in grants to get it.
Let’s look at a recent example of honest evaluation being manhandled by external considerations: the mRNA vaccines. It is clear to all that the manufacturers were not straight with the public on multiple scores. They claimed many things: very high levels of success, that the vaccines would prevent illness and transmission, and that the vaccines were safe. Those were the outcomes they wanted. The data, much of which are not publicly available, apparently raised questions from the get-go. The producers knew that there were problems but hid them, papered over them, or designed experiments so as not to address unfavorable issues. We can see from the governmental VAERS website that many people claimed to be adversely affected by the vaccines, with outcomes ranging from serious illness to death. This is where science goes bad. The British vaccine had to be pulled from the market while many young men experienced heart damage from the American shots.
A similar phenomenon occurs within the human brain. Let’s say that you have an internet personality who does not particularly like Jews and outright despises Israel. He has the liberty to select which guests to bring on his or her podcast. They can choose what data to present and what to ignore. This practice, generally known as “fake news,” has been a staple of the left since the presidency of Barack Obama. The problem is that we have today the same on the right and middle—those with large followings who claim not to be on either side of the political spectrum. Nobody has an obligation to love either the Jews or Israel; those who wish to claim truth as being in their corner do need to be as fair and unbiased as humanly possible. When people like Victor Davis Hanson and Douglas Murray speak, they brings the receipts. They present all of the relevant data and give a fair and honest conclusion. Others ostensibly on the right start with the anti-Israeli posture and then fashion an entire case to prove their case, leaving out details or changing the value of relevant points as needed.
When Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan met recently in the sands of Saudi Arabia, they interviewed each other. During the banter, there was an incredible back-and-forth. Tucker Carlson said that he will not be lectured by someone who admitted off-camera that he hates Israel with “every fiber of his body.” Morgan was caught off-guard and claimed that he never made such a statement. I don’t believe that Carlson was lying—why would he risk his name and for what benefit? So, if Morgan said as claimed and feels that way, how hard would it be for him to direct his writings and programming towards an anti-Israel outcome? Hamas attacked Israel in an unprovoked manner. One who hates Israel could claim that pre-attack Israeli behavior (open air prison, etc.) brought about the pogrom or that Israel’s response has been too strong or even genocidal—though by all reasonable standards it has not been. We cannot know the mental state of people, and much of what goes on in court involves what a person was thinking at the time he committed a crime. Was it murder or manslaughter? Did he mean to defraud the government or was it an honest oversight?
There are individuals on the right who have millions of social media followers. They do themselves a great disservice when they let their hatred of Israel, and possibly Jews, skew their thinking and guest selection. Some recent guests on various podcasts have made wild claims from Hitler didn’t really want to kill Jews to suggesting that an aerial attack on Iran will lead to thousands of dead GIs. I remember those who screamed that the first Iraq War would be another Vietnam, with tens of thousands of dead Americans. Much to their disappointment, General Schwarzkopf was a heck of a lot smarter than they were and ran a clean and very efficient drubbing of the Iraqi forces.
Finding and expressing the truth is much more difficult than it would appear. All of us have personal views and dispositions. At times, we have to overcome our biases and do our best to analyze information as dispassionately as possible. In our lawsuit against the PLO, it was the Biden Department of Justice that came to our side in court; I was grateful for their support, even if I disagreed with the Biden White House on many issues. I was equally grateful when the Trump DOJ continued its support through our recent hearing at the Supreme Court, something for which they had zero obligation.
We live in a very strange age. On the one hand, we have easy access to all human knowledge in our pockets. On the other hand, it’s a challenge to get to the truth. Long before I submitted my first column to Townhall, I regularly read the articles here because I felt that I was getting the real deal. I have seen “conservative” websites lose their minds over Donald Trump not being conservative enough in their eyes. I have witnessed very bright people distorting information to get the results they wanted. Wikipedia is infamous for contorting things left. While an entry on the variation of the sun's circumference may be scientifically correct, another entry on the veracity of the 2020 election will only be as honest as the last super-editor's changes.
We have to be vigilant: we need to know the truth to move forward but finding it is oftentimes very hard.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member