This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2013/jun/13/peter-king-partisanship

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Most of us are coherent in our partisanship. Not Peter King Most of us are coherent in our partisanship. Not Peter King
(4 months later)
As you may have noticed, New York Republican Congressman Peter King has been doing what he does best: calling for journalists to be prosecuted. The latest recipient of this badge of honour is the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, whose behaviour King characterises as treasonous, thanks to his reporting on Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, and specifically for "threatening to disclose" the names of CIA agents.As you may have noticed, New York Republican Congressman Peter King has been doing what he does best: calling for journalists to be prosecuted. The latest recipient of this badge of honour is the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, whose behaviour King characterises as treasonous, thanks to his reporting on Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, and specifically for "threatening to disclose" the names of CIA agents.
This last charge is pure fantasy, emerging from the mind of Peter King: Greenwald has threatened nothing of the sort.This last charge is pure fantasy, emerging from the mind of Peter King: Greenwald has threatened nothing of the sort.
Just watched the King video; everything he said is based on the blatant *lie that I threatened to disclose names of CIA covert agentsJust watched the King video; everything he said is based on the blatant *lie that I threatened to disclose names of CIA covert agents
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 12, 2013— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 12, 2013
But that's nothing new: trying to understand King's positions on the basis of principle or connection to reality is an exercise in futility. He's a passionate defender of American freedom, except for the freedom of the press; he's one of Washington's most full-throated opponents of terrorism, except for his long history of support for the IRA; he claims to think that most US Muslims "are as loyal and patriotic as any Americans", but also that there are "too many mosques" in the country. It's appropriately decorous that the Guardian, in its official response to King, describes itself as "surprised". But speaking in a personal capacity, I'm not.But that's nothing new: trying to understand King's positions on the basis of principle or connection to reality is an exercise in futility. He's a passionate defender of American freedom, except for the freedom of the press; he's one of Washington's most full-throated opponents of terrorism, except for his long history of support for the IRA; he claims to think that most US Muslims "are as loyal and patriotic as any Americans", but also that there are "too many mosques" in the country. It's appropriately decorous that the Guardian, in its official response to King, describes itself as "surprised". But speaking in a personal capacity, I'm not.
It's interesting to consider King's outburst – and, indeed, the whole cacophony of opinionated responses to the Guardian's NSA revelations – in the context of a fascinating study highlighted on the Washington Post's WonkBlog the other day. It's a truism of America's partisan politics that people on different sides of an issue can't even agree on basic facts. Supporters and opponents of the Iraq war will express radically different views of the casualty rates there; Republicans are more likely to tell you that unemployment fell during the Bush years, while Democrats will claim (correctly, in this case) that it rose. But a new paper from researchers at Yale and the University of California at San Diego reveals something intriguing: offer people a material reward for answering such questions correctly – in this case, an Amazon gift card – and the gaps between partisans' answers shrinks by 55%.It's interesting to consider King's outburst – and, indeed, the whole cacophony of opinionated responses to the Guardian's NSA revelations – in the context of a fascinating study highlighted on the Washington Post's WonkBlog the other day. It's a truism of America's partisan politics that people on different sides of an issue can't even agree on basic facts. Supporters and opponents of the Iraq war will express radically different views of the casualty rates there; Republicans are more likely to tell you that unemployment fell during the Bush years, while Democrats will claim (correctly, in this case) that it rose. But a new paper from researchers at Yale and the University of California at San Diego reveals something intriguing: offer people a material reward for answering such questions correctly – in this case, an Amazon gift card – and the gaps between partisans' answers shrinks by 55%.
In other words: when there's money on the line, people get less partisan. Why? A reasonable conclusion is that, when money isn't on the line, their judgments aren't solely based on an honest appraisal of the facts – and that, consciously or unconsciously, they're heavily influenced by the desire to signal their affiliations with certain positions, parties or groups. On issues that divide Republicans from Democrats, each wants to demonstrate, whether to others or themselves, that Republicans or Democrats is what they are. On issues such as the NSA revelations, which divide us along different lines, all those columnists arguing in favour of trusting American power and of not rocking the boat want to show that's where they stand. And of course, we anti-surveillance, pro-Snowden types don't escape the charge, either. I have to accept that my position isn't just an unprejudiced assessment of the facts.In other words: when there's money on the line, people get less partisan. Why? A reasonable conclusion is that, when money isn't on the line, their judgments aren't solely based on an honest appraisal of the facts – and that, consciously or unconsciously, they're heavily influenced by the desire to signal their affiliations with certain positions, parties or groups. On issues that divide Republicans from Democrats, each wants to demonstrate, whether to others or themselves, that Republicans or Democrats is what they are. On issues such as the NSA revelations, which divide us along different lines, all those columnists arguing in favour of trusting American power and of not rocking the boat want to show that's where they stand. And of course, we anti-surveillance, pro-Snowden types don't escape the charge, either. I have to accept that my position isn't just an unprejudiced assessment of the facts.
In a sense, this simply underscores the most obvious truth imaginable about political opinions: that our backgrounds and loyalties shape the views we hold, while cynics like Peter King will spout any old nonsense to pander to their constituencies. Still, it's striking to see how far this affects even our understanding of basic, measurable facts, such as casualty rates or unemployment figures. When it comes to topics such as the likely impact of the Snowden leaks, the influence of affiliation-signalling is presumably vastly worse, since there's so much we still don't know and perhaps never could.In a sense, this simply underscores the most obvious truth imaginable about political opinions: that our backgrounds and loyalties shape the views we hold, while cynics like Peter King will spout any old nonsense to pander to their constituencies. Still, it's striking to see how far this affects even our understanding of basic, measurable facts, such as casualty rates or unemployment figures. When it comes to topics such as the likely impact of the Snowden leaks, the influence of affiliation-signalling is presumably vastly worse, since there's so much we still don't know and perhaps never could.
This is all especially relevant in the rancorous world of op-ed columns and online commentary, which is systematically biased against expression of the kind of ambivalent stances that Ian Leslie writes about in Slate today. (Ambivalence is to be distinguished here from centrist "moderation", which gets a huge amount of column inches.)This is all especially relevant in the rancorous world of op-ed columns and online commentary, which is systematically biased against expression of the kind of ambivalent stances that Ian Leslie writes about in Slate today. (Ambivalence is to be distinguished here from centrist "moderation", which gets a huge amount of column inches.)
Yes, I'm inclined to believe that the world will be a significantly better place for Snowden's revelations. But it's worth never forgetting that my views on the matter – along with everyone else's – aren't simple and straightforward responses to the available facts. Even if they are rather more grounded in reality than the anti-journalistic witterings of Peter King.Yes, I'm inclined to believe that the world will be a significantly better place for Snowden's revelations. But it's worth never forgetting that my views on the matter – along with everyone else's – aren't simple and straightforward responses to the available facts. Even if they are rather more grounded in reality than the anti-journalistic witterings of Peter King.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.