about "bias":
I was listening to forensics investigator describe analyzing a crime scene, and doing so "without bias."
She wants to sifts through evidence w/o knowing, for example, that the spouse of a murdered person had a history of violence or had threatened to kill her.
I was listening to forensics investigator describe analyzing a crime scene, and doing so "without bias."
She wants to sifts through evidence w/o knowing, for example, that the spouse of a murdered person had a history of violence or had threatened to kill her.
But when she finds the husband's police record, his smoking gun, and a bloody note saying "I'll kill you" among the evidence, SHE DOESN'T REPORT THAT THE SUSPECT COULD BE ANYONE AND SHE HAS NO "BIAS" TOWARD THE HUSBAND.
This is what reporters should do.
In 1975, NYC reporters should have read this discrimination lawsuit against Fred and Donald Trump without bias.
They should have spoken to the Trumps and to the litigants, again without bias.
And then they could have concluded, on the evidence, that Trumps were racist.
They should have spoken to the Trumps and to the litigants, again without bias.
And then they could have concluded, on the evidence, that Trumps were racist.
And then if they had ever wondered over the next 46 years “is Trump racist?” they could review the facts of 1975 and remind themselves that yes, he is.
And then print that in good conscience that they had reviewed the evidence without bias.
And then print that in good conscience that they had reviewed the evidence without bias.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
