posted
A report just released by the Washington Post (and linked to by MSNBC) IAEA: ‘Outrageous’ inaccuracies in Iran report' made me very uncomfortable about our (the U.S') continuing assertions against foreign governments behaviours. Is it even possible to get non-biased facts in such a politically charged atmosphere? This isn't a rant against our current administration, but more of a general question related to the extremely polarized political landscape that is defining our federal government and foreign policy.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if it is the politically charged atmosphere that is causing the bias, as much as this administration's belief that it is wise to slant and distort the facts as far as necessary to get people to believe what you want them to believe. I say this because institutions (such as the IAEA) that haven't taken that approach to truth seem to be giving us accurate facts, despite the polarized world.
I don't think a politically charged atmosphere makes it impossible to get non-biased facts. Instead I'd suspect it is just that a politically charged atmosphere makes it more tempting for poltical groups to try and pass off biased facts as the truth - which in turn makes it harder to figure out what the real, non-biased facts are. In addition, I think a politically charged atmosphere makes it more tempting for citizens to believe a set of facts that supports their viewpoint, even if those facts are biased.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I say this because institutions (such as the IAEA) that haven't taken that approach to truth seem to be giving us accurate facts, despite the polarized world.
Erm, why is the IAEA so trustworthy, and how do you know that they are more accurate than what we're asserting?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, the inaccuracies being referenced appear to be more geared towards what an IAEA person did than any actual conclusions reached by the house report. I do admit it's kind of hard to tell just from that article, though.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No - the facts they have presented in the past, regarding Iraq and North Korea, among other nations.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, it doesn't tell us whether or not the article is true. I guess you could make the argument that because you believe the IAEA was 'more truthful' in the past, this might indicate that we were lying now, but I don't know that that's a safe conclusion to make.
By the way, calling the IAEA--a part of the UN--non-political is kind of funny considering how many corrupt officials have been found in the U.N.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that the IAEA seems to give accurate facts, not that I know this particular article to be true, and definitely not that the IAEA is non-political.
You know, it's a sad day when we assume being a political entity necessarily entails being unable to give fair, accurate facts. That's exactly what we should rely on political entities to do.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we don't know who is accurate in this case, and it seemed like you were implying that the house report was inaccurate because it was 'political' whereas the IAEA was not. Pardon for the misunderstanding.
Anyways, it's not like government just emerged from some golden age of honesty and truth. But I get what you're saying, and I agree that we should push for honesty in government.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
