Propaganda: Is Bias Ever OK?

Is it ever OK to have a bias, to be prejudiced, or favour one side over the other? Or is it best to always be completely even-handed. In any dispute to give each side equal time, to consider the arguments without favouritism.

Well right now I think I am going to admit to some bias in certain areas. For example. If there is an argument about whether or not to exterminate the people of some particular race or religion, I would be biased, and I think it is actually appropriate to be biased against the one calling for genocide. They may have arguments, proofs, logic. I might hear their arguments, but you can be pretty sure I would fact check, and if I do not get confirmation from a source I trust, I will call it bullshit. (more politely of course). Even if their arguments check out, I would not be totally convinced of the argument, and would want to place it in a greater context. In other words, I would be biased.

Another area where I may show some bias is in an argument over polluting vs. cleaning up the environment. Those arguing that environmentalists are crazy better have some really good arguments. And every single one of them better be true, because I'll be checking. The only reason I wouldn't fact check a pro-polluter's argument is if I'm just worn out and in that case I will ignore it. That is an example of prejudice, because I am not usually as aggressive in fact-checking the anti-pollution side. That's why it's called bias.

I may be biased about religion. One of the fundamental religious arguments is that the religion is basically good, and atheism leads to evil. Therefore I should be biased towards God, and be especially critical of the Devil-worship crowd. Well, sorry, but that does not make sense if your religion is pro-war. So I am going to insist on some real scientific proof that the "pro-war" God exists.

In every case, my bias tends to be against the self-serving argument. I am always suspicious of any logical rationalization of greed, self interest, fear, and hate. I am usually biased toward people who are trying to make the world a better place, eliminate pollution, preserve nature, and give justice for all.

So in my opinion, bias and prejudice are OK in some cases. Some people may call me stubborn too. In every argument I have ever seen, it is amazingly easy to pick out the logical fallacies and untruths of the side that is in it for themselves, not for the greater good. And I have usually found the side that cares for others to be fairly honest and free from deceit. Yes, there have been cases where environmentalists and anti-war people have been guilty of exaggeration, of distortion, and even some lying and fraud. By in my experience nowhere near the amount of fraud that I found on the side of fear, hate and greed. Why is that? I have not really figured it out yet, but I'm pretty sure there is a pattern.

In the end, you can still get fooled. For example, Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda said it was the Jews who were persecuting the Nazis, and that the Nazis were merely defending themselves from being wiped out by the international Jewish conspiracy. I'm not sure there is any rule anyone can follow blindly if the propaganda is clever enough to twist things upside down.