I had a podcast interview with Jonathan Pritchard over at A Life Well Designed. Jonathan uses design principles to analyze challenges in life and business, then applies design techniques to find elegant, effective solutions.
(For some reason I had a tough time enunciating, but I hope the messages were clear.)
I enjoyed the interview immensely, thanks Jonathan!
EOM,
(http://www.alifewelldesigned.com/podcast/alwd-008-leadership-with-ken-wrede/)
One of the hardest comments for anyone to say when speaking of Bill O’Reilly is “I have no opinion about the guy.” He makes it almost impossible to separate the messenger from the message.
Human bias is not part of an intellectual process, it is an emotional one. Almost everyone has a bias regarding O’Reilly. If the bias is positive, people agree with him automatically because he resonates with them emotionally and reinforces the group opinion (several documented biases come into effect that strengthens group membership). If the bias is negative, another group of people disagree, also automatically, with biases that enforce their group feeling.
Full disclosure on my part… My own biases of O’Reilly stem from my perception of his abrasiveness and my lifelong cynicism of self-appointed experts and authorities.
I have to put those aside. Ignore the news hype and make a fair analysis so I can fairly judge O’Reilly and ask the question…
Was Bill O’Reilly really lying?
I recently discussed Bill O’Reilly’s media crisis (here). He responded to his critics and the crisis terribly. I also discussed Brian Williams’ crisis and the mitigating circumstances that I believe contributed to a faulty memory recollection that blew up into a media frenzy (here).
Does O’Reilly deserve the same benefit of doubt that I feel Williams deserves? Do the same mitigating circumstances apply?? Continue reading
I like to sometimes recommend resources that I enjoyed which offer a broader range, more insight, and greater detail than I can possibly cover in 1000 words. More importantly, I like to recommend resources that have greatly improved my decision making skills.
I have mentioned before that decision making is one of the important topics covered in many leadership courses: the decision cycle, decision methods, etc. I have yet to come across critical thinking as it applies to decision making. Specifically, how information (evidence) is gathered and weighed; and if decisions are made in a rational and unbiased manner.
I gladly introduce the podcast “Rationally Speaking”, the official podcast of the New York City Skeptics.
The podcast focuses on rational thought, philosophy, science, and the nonsense that often claims to be the former three. The topics can be sometimes a bit esoteric, but to become good at something, you have work at a level above your current capability.
“Rationally Speaking” is the bi-weekly podcast of New York City Skeptics. Join hosts Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef as they explore the borderlands between reason and nonsense, likely and unlikely, and science and pseudoscience. Any topic is fair game as long as we can bring reason to bear upon it, with both a skeptical eye and a good dose of humor!”
Last week I discussed Brian Williams and the events leading up to his professional predicament and his crisis response to the subsequent public outcry.
The public outcry was one of two responses. First, silence from the people who knew him, but could not defend his error. There was no response that would not sound hypocritical and like an excuse to what seemed to be a blatant lie. Second, the response from other view of the discussion was far more direct and accused directly him of lying.
The error was additionally magnified by Williams’ position of trust as a highly regarded and trusted news voice in the US. According to a 2014 survey, ABC News and NBC News (Williams’ employer) were both tied as the most well known and most trusted television news sources by both US liberals and conservatives. [1] His error is considered especially egregious because he “betrayed” his integrity as a journalist.
The major talking points in the media were that he lied to aggrandize himself and he lied which betrayed the integrity and professionalism of the news media. Neither option is good, but like everything else in the world I don’t think the conclusions are that simple. The events leading up to the crisis are so well known that it presents a great opportunity to examine memory and it how it (as I understand it) works.
(Please, refer to the time line at the end of the article.)
My question is did he really lie? I am not contesting that he told an untruth. There is no doubt that what he said was proven to be wrong.
But, did he lie? Continue reading
K.W. Wrede 