Be Aware of Confirmation Bias

Herbert J. Gans, an American sociologist, stated that journalism is the process of deciding what is news. This directly shows the dual nature of traditional legacy media in news production. Media outlets provide information that ordinary people cannot access or may never know. There were numerous cases that once remained hidden but came to the surface through the media. This was part of their role and responsibility. On the other hand, the media were able to keep certain things secret, whether intentionally or not, even when they were fully aware of what was happening. If they judged that an event lacked news value, it could not be broadcast to the world.

With the emergence of the information-communication revolution, the authority of the media, once as secure as Fort Knox, was cracked. The rise of “YouTube journalism” started to tell people stories that the mainstream media either ignored or chose not to cover. Therefore, the media’s power to selectively inform people weakened. However, in exchange for the freedom to make autonomous choices when it comes to information, rather than relying on the traditional media, people have tolerated an epidemic of confirmation bias. Algorithms and big data systems are instilling a mindset incomparable to anything in the past, one that only values attention to information that aligns with one’s pre-existing beliefs, while completely neglecting the rest.

The great thinker, John Stuart Mill, already warned about the risks of confirmation bias over 160 years ago in his book On Liberty. According to him, it is difficult to explain why one’s claim is more reasonable than others, unless one is aware of the opponent’s viewpoint and considers their pros and cons. He insists that, if one is unable to do so, it would be more sensible not to make a judgment. If people only listen to the side that favors their own beliefs, fallacies solidify into prejudice, which is then exaggerated by the opposite side, ultimately precluding the discovery of truth in the discussion.

Someone could conceivably object that it is not that easy to remain neutral, avoiding confirmation bias. That may be true, but there is a significant difference between not trying at all just because it is difficult to accomplish and at least making an attempt. More importantly, neutrality here does not mean blind neutrality. Everyone has different thoughts and behaviors. Nevertheless, these thoughts and behaviors must exist within the framework that our society has agreed upon: constitutional, liberal democracy.

Strong criticism must be directed at those who damage the constitutional order. Discourse aimed at destroying liberal democracy should not be treated respectfully under the guise of objectivity and neutrality. Vigilance against confirmation bias is only valid when used to pursue the truth, without regard for empty courtesies. Clear efforts to prevent confirmation bias will yield a healthy society that embraces and respects people of all backgrounds and beliefs moving forward.

By Choi Daniel, Editor-in-Chief