
file photo by Boyd Loving
Journalism full of assumptions that shouldn’t be.
A. Barton Hinkle | October 19, 2015
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,” William F. Buckley once observed, “but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” He might have been writing about some of the nation’s newsrooms.
Many media establishments obsess over diversity of pigment, while remaining ideologically monochromatic. This produces big blind spots and glaring examples of unconscious bias.
Here is one such example. A recent Wall Street Journal article on bicycle helmet laws began this way: “Helmets help prevent head injuries, so laws requiring cyclists to wear them would seem obvious.”
Really? Why?
Helmet laws seem “obvious” only if you take several things as already given: (1) that government should force people to do what is in their own best interest; (2) that government actually can know what is in other people’s best interest; and (3) that laws designed to promote people’s best interests actually will do so.
The point of the article, however, was to note that cycling advocates take what it calls a “surprising” position: Mandatory helmet laws “make cycling less convenient and seem less safe, thus hindering the larger public-health gains of more people riding bikes. All-ages helmet laws might actually make cycling more dangerous, some cyclists say, by decreasing ridership. Research shows that the more cyclists there are on the road, the fewer crashes there are.” It goes on to cite research showing that the reduction in head injuries is offset by increased obesity caused by people not riding, which thus produces “a net negative health impact.”
In short, given No. 3 might be wrong: A government program passed with good intentions might have unintended consequences.
Imagine that.
https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/19/the-medias-narrow-minds