What Gave You the Idea We Were Politically Correct?

On November 12, 2005, Dr. Helen had a post about the American Psychological Association's 113th annual convention:

An Industrial psychologist discussed what he thought was "blue state" bias during the convention--and mentioned that speakers there made disparaging references to "red state" officials and showed a viewing of Outfoxed, a film that criticizes alleged right-wing bias in Fox News. One of the leaders of the conference stated that the APA "respects" (note he does not say believes in) free speech and wants to make sure that all perspectives are respected and not silenced. (So I guess next they'll be showing Michael Moore Hates America, right? Right.) APA President Ronald Levant stated that these concerns are being addressed by a Task Force on Diversity and the chair of the Policy & Planning board stated that APA has trained its leaders to have "difficult dialogues" with people of divergent views.

On December 28, 2006, I wrote this:

They showed "Outfoxed" at the college I attended, but I didn't go see it. Someone wrote a letter to editor talking about how biased the film was and I thought it was a good article. It is nice that someone capable of thinking went to the film and then commented on it.

On September 15, 2004, The Utah Statesman published the letter "Nothing to learn from ‘Outfoxed’" by Jared Putnam:

This letter expresses my concerns over the presentation of the film, “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism.” “Outfoxed” is a documentary which holds, as its basis, that Fox News Channel is highly biased and misrepresents the news. My concern is that a farce has been presented as valid dissent.  Is that founded? From the Utah Statesman, “The film-makers hired people to watch different segments from Fox News and report on biased and political stories.” Consider, by analogy, that most people consider the water they usually drink to be fairly tasteless, and other water distinctive. Most people consider their regular news neutral; the conclusion is foregone.  The film supposedly contains interviews with Fox staff. Does the above not apply to them? They are closer to the issue, and thus have more insight, but less perspective.

But surely the film is worth seeing, even if only for the controversy value. Journalism professor Mike Sweeney, who reportedly feels that seeing it is important, also states, “I think people will come to see the film and already have preconceived notions about if they like it or not. Whatever their point of view is, I’m sure it will be reinforced.” So it is important to see something that will restrict our thoughts, regardless of what they are?  Should I have presented my thoughts at the discussion following the film? Yes. My only defense is that decent arguments take time to form completely; in this case, several days. I may have embarrassed myself, but, in retrospect, I should have been there.  Nonetheless, the film’s thesis is obvious, so what is there to learn from it? Additionally, it is not the business of a university to expand minds, and not contract them? Dissent is useful for this, but this film, if the Utah Statesman’s article reflects it accurately, has little to offer, and its exposition was a mistake.