So much of this hits that I think I might have to answer with a piece of my own. But when I was at WPR (for a short stint), this is what I would argue - that we needed to talk to people about their lived experiences, not just experts. I was told that would be biased. Unless they were callers, we couldn’t reach out to people.
Last year, I did a podcast on reproductive justice. One of the topics was race bias in medicine. People told their stories. My uncle, who is a scientist at Hopkins, told me I was biased because I didn’t get the other side. And I’m like, the medical professionals in question need to listen not reflexively defend themselves.
I’ve also written before about people who understand nuance and people who don’t. If you are the kind of person who understands the world from the inside out - meaning, you are even aware of your gut - then your piece makes sense. If you are someone who gets cues for who they are or should be from outside yourself, then your suggestion is baffling.
Thank you for this! Yes, please write answer with a piece of your own; I'd love to get your perspective and would definitely share with my subscribers.
Avoiding "bias" seems like common sense in media, but it's become irritating to me in recent years. A lot of journalists' attempt to avoid bias looks much more like an inherent bias toward the status quo. (Tara McMullin's recent piece on what constitutes "political content" makes this argument really well: https://substack.com/home/post/p-141606269?selection=9ba9e93c-0b6e-4830-a059-530d7b6542d2)
Hear hear! I've often had the same thoughts. Lived experience, wisdom from elders, and first hand knowledge are extremely valuable, yet we live in an age of "data" being the only thing people consider valid. The ironic thing is that "research" isn't all one flavor; i.e., well-constructed with solid methodology, blinding, and analysis in the hands of those willing to accept what it shows instead of the pre-determined outcome they are seeking. Poor quality data can be just as subjective as anecdotal evidence, depending on the integrity of the study and who is funding it. As the saying goes, "Numbers don't lie but liars use numbers." I say we back off on the data worship and elevate human knowledge, experience, and common sense. A balance would be a smart blend. Oh, and if I hear "data-driven decision-making" from one more managerial / executive idiot, I am going to turn around, walk away, find the nearest ice cream shop, and eat a chocolate sundae. With whipped cream.
So much of this hits that I think I might have to answer with a piece of my own. But when I was at WPR (for a short stint), this is what I would argue - that we needed to talk to people about their lived experiences, not just experts. I was told that would be biased. Unless they were callers, we couldn’t reach out to people.
Last year, I did a podcast on reproductive justice. One of the topics was race bias in medicine. People told their stories. My uncle, who is a scientist at Hopkins, told me I was biased because I didn’t get the other side. And I’m like, the medical professionals in question need to listen not reflexively defend themselves.
I’ve also written before about people who understand nuance and people who don’t. If you are the kind of person who understands the world from the inside out - meaning, you are even aware of your gut - then your piece makes sense. If you are someone who gets cues for who they are or should be from outside yourself, then your suggestion is baffling.
Thank you for this! Yes, please write answer with a piece of your own; I'd love to get your perspective and would definitely share with my subscribers.
Avoiding "bias" seems like common sense in media, but it's become irritating to me in recent years. A lot of journalists' attempt to avoid bias looks much more like an inherent bias toward the status quo. (Tara McMullin's recent piece on what constitutes "political content" makes this argument really well: https://substack.com/home/post/p-141606269?selection=9ba9e93c-0b6e-4830-a059-530d7b6542d2)
“Bias toward the status quo.” Exactly!
I’ll read Tara’s piece.
Yes!
Hear hear! I've often had the same thoughts. Lived experience, wisdom from elders, and first hand knowledge are extremely valuable, yet we live in an age of "data" being the only thing people consider valid. The ironic thing is that "research" isn't all one flavor; i.e., well-constructed with solid methodology, blinding, and analysis in the hands of those willing to accept what it shows instead of the pre-determined outcome they are seeking. Poor quality data can be just as subjective as anecdotal evidence, depending on the integrity of the study and who is funding it. As the saying goes, "Numbers don't lie but liars use numbers." I say we back off on the data worship and elevate human knowledge, experience, and common sense. A balance would be a smart blend. Oh, and if I hear "data-driven decision-making" from one more managerial / executive idiot, I am going to turn around, walk away, find the nearest ice cream shop, and eat a chocolate sundae. With whipped cream.
I love your sundae-based strategy for dealing with idiots. I might steal that.
Love: "Let the story be the catalyst". Great piece!
Thank you!