Bias anyone?

I've been reading a lot about confirmation bias of late. In case you aren't familiar with this malady:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.

In other words, you concentrate on evidence that supports your viewpoint and you disregard or minimize contradictory evidence. In even simpler terms, you hear what you want to and ignore the rest. There's a lot of buzz these days about confirmation bias, especially in relation to the internet and blogs. If you limit yourself to "like-minded" sites, it seems that ALL the evidence supports your opinion. Outside of the blogosphere, this is also a problem in the "real world" as well. Does anyone, besides me, remember the big stink over the "erroneous" CDC report showing obesity NOT to be a big a risk factor as previously thought?

Anyway, confirmation bias has been on my mind the past few days because of the Don Imus incident. In case you've had your head under a rock, Imus made some despicable comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Not unexpectedly, lots of folks are upset with old Don and MSNBC (which broadcasts part of his radio show on TV). Imus issued a "heartfelt" apology and he has been suspended for 2 weeks, but many say a suspension is not enough. Instead, he should be fired.

Personally I can't imagine how he'll keep his job after showing himself to be such an offensive dumbass. But, ...

While it's not exactly a case of confirmation bias, I think it's interesting to compare the "public reaction" to the Imus incident with that of the Dixie Chick disgruntlement (I had to stick with alliteration) from a couple of years ago. In case you've forgotten, Natalie Maines said (on stage) something to the effect that she was embarrassed by the fact the Pres. Bush was from her home state. Then, as now, the comments pissed off A LOT of folks. Then, as now, there were many calls for boycotts of the Chicks and some have not forgiven them yet. What strikes me as different, though, is that many people claimed that it was unfair to punish the Chicks commercially because they happened to express an opinion, yet almost no one is sounding that defense for Imus.

Sure some folks are making the obligatory "free speech" noises, but I haven't seen the same folks who began to buy Dixie Chicks merchandise just to support free speech standing up for Don. In fact, some are just twisting themselves in knots trying to have it both ways. Emil Steiner (in the WaPo) just confuses the hell out of me:

Were Imus's comments hurtful, despicable and racist to a great many people? Yes, but rather than call for his termination, why not boycott his show? If the ratings decline as a result of people tuning out, then certainly CBS and MSNBC would be more than justified in firing him. It seems misguided though and frankly unbalanced to ask them to dump a comedian whose job it is to push the envelope simply because he pushes it too far.

So he shouldn't be fired because people were offended, but if people were offended they should boycott his show and then he could be fired? They shouldn't fire him for "pushing the envelope" too far, but people should boycott him for "pushing the envelope" and then he could be fired? What gives, Emil?

Let me make a few things clear:
First, I am NOT taking up for Don Imus. I think a boycott of his show is justified. If I had listened to him before, I'd not listen to him anymore. He's "selling" a product and if he offends people, they shouldn't "buy" his product. I've taken that approach to a columnist in the Huntsville newspaper.
Second, I did not join in the Dixie Chick boycott. I liked their music before and I liked it after, though I'm not crazy about entertainers using their stages to politic. In general I'm not paying to hear a musician's or actor's political views.
Third, even though I didn't join the boycott, I thought Dixie Chick boycotters were justified. See the Imus argument above. If DC fans were sufficiently offended, they stopped buying the product. To me it's the same thing.

Where, though, are those folks who said things like, I don't care if you agree or disagree with the Chicks, it's just not right to "punish" them in such a way for expressing an opinion? Okay, that's not an exact quote, but I swear there were lots of folks making such arguments back then. Seriously, I recall much wailing over the inherent "wrongness" of using an economic boycott to punish unpopular speech.

As I said, many "enlightened" folks are mentioning free speech as a reason Imus shouldn't be immediately fired, but then they go straight to something like:

[I]nstead, a widespread boycott of the show might be the more effective strategy. Take away listeners and there go the ad dollars — and with them the host. That's a form of free speech, too. [Home News Tribune (NJ) editorial]

I don't recall the "that's a form of free speech too" argument showing up in the media (outside of the far right media) as a reason to support the boycott of the Chicks. No, a quick archive search of my local paper unearthed this nugget written after the Chicks' next album debuted at the top of the charts:

So that means the Dixie Chicks, to whom the country music industry has been deliberately cruel, deserve to gloat a lot. Since Natalie Maines, Emily Robison and Martie Maguire are being excessively polite about their sweet vindication, I'll do a little gloating for them.
[...]
"I mean, the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. And just because — they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street." [Quoting Bush.]

That sounds to me like a pretty clear presidential endorsement of a boycott of the Chicks.

Notice how this editorial derides the "a boycott is free speech too" argument? See, I just can't picture the Decatur Daily standing up and crowing about the virtues of free speech if Don Imus were to somehow bounce back from this and rise to the very top of the radio rankings.

The point of this rant -- yes there is one -- is that there's a 500 pound elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. Lots of folks disagreed with the Chicks boycott because they liked the Chicks' message. Lots of folks agree with a planned Imus boycott because they do not like his message. It's not exactly confirmation bias, but it does seem to be a selective application of the free speech defense -- either for the offender or the boycotters. How do you reconcile this? The way I see it, if you were against a Chicks boycott you should be against an Imus boycott. If you thought folks were justified in boycotting the Chicks, then you can't argue free speech for Imus. Either policy is logically consistent, but I don't see how you can mix the two. Why not just stand up and say, "I disagreed with the Chicks boycott because they didn't offend me and I agree with the Imus boycott because he did offend me." Why try to make either case a matter of principle?

In my opinion this is a common problem with political debate today -- both on the left and the right. [Just think about how both wings (at least the strident parts of each) waffle on judicial activism.] Instead of developing consistent political philosophies, we tend to latch onto to whatever evidence or argument supports our preconceived biases -- yet we want to pretend to be wise sages. I say give in to confirmation bias in your daily life, but don't try to sell it to me as a political philosophy.