Auditing Bias

Steve Postrel,

You say:

How can you have “no idea” why independent errors all pointing in one direction suggest political intent?

First, they’ve been called “misrepresentations”, not “errors”, because the author focus on claims he considers misleading.

Second, they have not been shown to be independent, something that affects their accounting.

Third, there are lots of different bias, some of which are not ipso facto erroneous.

Calling these so-called independent errors “misrepresentations” shows a very big auditing bias, insofar as we see the same pea and thimble game where an auditor uses technical nits to dogwhistle his editorial.

Read More

Speculations are invited

The Auditor, providing two hints, the first one being that the post could have been entitled Mole 2.

If, for example, you don’t care about the quality of your answer or you are answering the question the same way […] it takes scarcely any time to fill out the survey.

The Auditor, also hinting that people can use anonymizers.

But why use it?

The Auditor, wondering why.

If so, …

RomanM, elliptically.

Actually, “untrue” does not really do justice to the measure of untruthfulness […]

Steve, not really doing justice to the measure of untruthfulness he “reasonably suggests”.

Left as an exercise for readers.

Steve, not answering the questions he just asked about BP’s scapegoat and the Muir Russel panel.

My guess is that this decision had a material impact.

Steve, unassumingly guessing.

Wonder what she’s hiding.

Steve, wondering what Joelle Gingis hid by deleting her entire blog, whence it’s on archive.org, contrary to his own website.
Older posts RSS