Keith Devens .com

Everyone's biased, but I do find that the BBC are significantly less biased than other sources. Perhaps I've only ever seen the worst of USA journalism, but it always strikes me as pandering to voyeurism and hype, full of logical fallacies and character assassinations. Then again, you'd get the same impression of UK journalism if all you ever saw were the tabloids, so it's certainly possible I've seen an exceptionally bad selection.

I simply don't believe the 54% statistic. I'm from the UK, and I can't remember ever meeting somebody who was pro death penalty. I mean EVER. Is there a source for this statistic? I didn't see one.

As far as avoiding the term "liberal", it's because they are fed up of being shouted down by conservatives. I find that conservatives are more likely to employ ad hominems than liberals. This derails arguments altogether, so if you actually want to talk about a subject without it devolving into accusations of being "foaming at the mouth moonbats" without having your point addressed, then you have no choice but to try and avoid the word "liberal". It's a trigger word that immediately halts productive debate. For one reason or another, the word "conservative" doesn't have the same effect. I believe one contributing factor is that liberals are less likely to resort to ad hominems.

One thing you really should point out is that he's trying to get publicity to sell his book. Consider the source.

I'm aware it's slightly hypocritical to say that after railing on ad hominems, but we are talking about one man's opinion of the BBC, so his personal situation is a relevant factor in this particular case.

The article you link to says:

One thing I have learned as a conservative journalist: liberals are almost always blind to their innate liberalism.

This is either dreadfully naive or damningly hypocritical. BAD journalists are unaware of their biases. What he is, in effect, saying is that good journalists are almost always conservative. Is that something you can honestly agree with? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, he's blind to his own bias when he says that?

I am sorry Jim feels so aggrieved at my highlighting the first insider's evidence of liberal slants to stories the BBC itself has consistently and long denied. It seems to me perfectly valid journalism - as to Damien Thompson who broke the story in print.

But what serious mistake in his tirade was the inference that some are not aware of their own biases. This is a bit strong when I have written extensively (he apparently has not read any of my books or articles) on the issue of 'being upfront with one's own worldviews' or 'prejudices' (actually I have no problem with prejudices Jim, but I have a real problem with denying those prejudices. There is a significant difference).

My point is consistently that whereaas people like myself admit openly to taking a Christian line and a conservative line consistently do not do so.

If I admit to my worldview and prejudices, how then does your public accusation - that I am 'dreadfully naive' or 'damingly hypocritical' (do we really need such strident language?)then stand up?

By the way, my book is indeed for sale...via Amazon, my site et al...I never miss an opportunity to try to foist a copy on unspsecting Brits...

My apologies. Jim queried the figure over Brit who are pro-death penalty. There are a number of stats but the one I used in my book came from Gallup 'Support for the death penalty: US, Britain and Canada' (March 16, 2004).

Britain: for - 55% (sorry it was higher than I had remembered)
against - 41%

US: for - 64%
against - 32%

This and the full moral and biblical case in support of the death penalty are included in my book The Politics of Faith (as is the fact that we all have prejudices - in which I own to mine) ...did I mention that I had a couple of books out, by the way...