One of the things often forgotten in arguments between people (and bloggers as well as mainstream media are people) is the difference between problems with reporting (bad journalism) and reaction to the facts (often bad news for one "side" or another).

Something can be reported quite accurately, but if the subject matter, the story, or the facts are distasteful, one person might become quite annoyed and defensive, while another might feel vindicated and triumphant.

Take, as an example, the latest pit bull incident. It's all over the Internet, has been linked by Drudge, ABC, you name it. And frankly, I can't stand the damned story. Usually in cases like this, the closer the news source geographically, the more detail provided. Drudge's "Pit Bull Kills Toddler in West Virginia" story did not provide the details I wanted. In fact, none of the stories really did.

I just wanted to know exactly what the hell happened, and when I am not told that, but instead I am treated to emotional descriptions, I get annoyed and impatient. Now, if the emotional description emanates from the police, that's part of the story, and while reporting it as part of the story doesn't bother me, I when police seem to be invoked as authorities with special knowledge and the ability to make judgments, I get annoyed. Here's a good example:

The homeowners had signs in the windows that said "Beware of the Dog," and the mother and children were told not to go inside the house, Underwood said.

But he also said he was told over the phone by someone at animal control that this dog has bitten another person.

According to Buffington Street resident Eric Mason, the dog has bitten a number of people. He said the dog bit him last week. He lifted up his shirt to show a large scab on the side of his chest -- a bite mark, he said.

His wife, Sara Mason, said she knew the mother and children and had just taken the little girl to the store before the incident. She bought her a sucker.

"It’s terrible," said Deputy Chief Jerry Beckett of the Huntington Fire Department. "I don’t understand anyone owning a vicious dog. You wouldn’t leave a loaded weapon around for a child to play with. A pit bull is just as dangerous. Pit bulls are notorious for attacking children."

The dog that attacked was not right, Price said. The hair was raised on the back of its neck and its eyes were wild, he said.

"Hollywood couldn’t have made this dog look more evil," he said.

"You know if you have a dangerous dog," added Williams of the fire department. "I believe you do." (Emphasis added.)

It wouldn't matter who reported these statements or how, because I am always annoyed by human idiocy. Sometimes, just seeing this fed to me as news pisses me off. Yet that really can't be said to be the fault of the journalists, who are, after all, only reporting statements made to them in the heat of the moment by people who, like it or not, are the authority figures in the case.

The death of a two year old toddler is horrifying by any standard, of course. But would the death have been worse had the child been run over by a car? Or fallen into a vat of caustic lye or acid that the homeowner might have been using to etch glass?

What causes the trouble in analyzing or discussing a case like this is that two people will see the same set of facts in a completely different manner. Certain facts don't seem to be disputed here. One is that the dog was known to be vicious. (Making it analogous to having a wild animal in the house.) Another is the posting of signs warning people that there was a dangerous dog. Here the interpretation of facts gets murkier:

The pit bull's owner, who also was not identified, had posted several "beware of dog" signs and was keeping the dog inside the house because it had previously bitten another person, said Debbie Young, office manager for Huntington-Cabell-Wayne Animal Control.

"A lot of people are under the impression that once they put those warning signs, they are in the clear. … They are responsible for that animal," Young said.

I realize that some people would say yes, and others say no. There's a wide gulf separating these two types of thinking, as one is grounded in individual responsibility and the other in collective responsibility. But factual situations like this one is where the same set of facts can provoke very different responses. Including a reaction to unpleasant facts as being a product of media bias.

I mean, I could scream, "Why did they report this story?" But obviously, they reported it because it was there, and each news outlet knows that if they don't report it their competitors will.

Had the same two year old entered that same house and shot herself to death with the homeowner's gun, that would prompt a chorus of people blaming the gun and wanting gun control. My reaction would be similar to what it is now. Suppose the man had rattlesnakes in his house, and put up a sign, and told people to stay out.

What's the difference?

What kind of mom lets her two year old enter a house with "several 'beware of dog' signs" which she's been specifically warned not to enter?

That's my reaction.

Others, I know, would ignore the mother's conduct, and demand criminal prosecution of the dog owner (who negligently, but not criminally, allowed people on his front porch) as well as laws banning an entire breed.

There's no bridging these gaps in understanding. Arguments do not work. People talk at each other instead of with each other. The goal is simply winning. I recognize that "winning" is legitimate, and it has its place in adversary systems, such as law or politics. But I don't write this blog in order to "win" anything. People might agree with me, and they might not. I write in order to find out what I think, and share that with others.

My goal isn't to persuade anyone of anything, because people only persuade themselves.

This causes much misunderstanding.

When historical facts are in dispute, it's much worse than a simple news item.

Alger Hiss will do. In a recent column, Jonah Goldberg touched on Hiss, and an important (if now largely obscure) historical point:

One of the many layers to the controversy is the fact that Alger Hiss, the proven Communist spy — once beloved by liberals everywhere — was an advisor to FDR at the conference. How much of a role he played remains hotly debated. But only fools and Communist sympathizers would today disagree with the statement that he played too much of a role.

Alger Hiss has become an American unperson. High schools teach little or nothing about him. I suspect only a very small percentage of graduating high school seniors know about Alger Hiss.

(Might this be because they are taught that Nixon was bad? That in the Hiss case, the forces of Nixon collided with the forces of Stalin, so the kids might get confused?)

Here's Wikipedia's entry:

Whether Hiss was a Communist or a spy for the Soviets remains unproven. Proponents on either side of the discussion will of course characterize the case differently, with liberals charging Hiss was victimized by a prosecutorial vendetta and that the charges against Hiss were actually an attempt to discredit the United Nations, and conservatives charging that the Hiss case proved that FDR hired traitors and spies for high ranking positions in his administration.

The case remains an emotional hot button, because for those who know about it, it was a showdown between Alger Hiss and Congressman Richard Nixon's star witness, Whitaker Chambers:

It was so clear, though, to the political and media elite, e.g., George Bernard Shaw, John Dos Passos, Felix Frankfurter, Dean Acheson, etc., that, in the words of Thomas Sowell, "the tall, trim, cool and well-dressed Hiss was so obviously 'one of us' -- and the portly, rumpled and pedestrian-looking Chambers 'one of them' -- that Hiss' innocence was taken for granted."

Here's the Wall Street Journal:

Refusing to acknowledge what is obvious and established is exactly what Alger Hiss did. Hiss was a high ranking official in the State Department of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. He was also a communist spy. The evidence was overwhelming and interestingly enough also involved a typewriter. Yet, Hiss denied to his death that he was a spy. Because of his denials, even decades later, loopy apologists continue defending Hiss -- despite KGB papers that list the information he stole, his contacts, and what he was paid by the communists. Had Hiss admitted the obvious, no one would defend him. Rather is following the Hiss strategy of denying what is plainly obvious so as to leave the debate at least partly open.

But what is interesting today about this case, in light of the current flap over CBS and Dan Rather, is that as the Hiss case unfolded, liberals displayed a skepticism concerning the authenticity of the evidence that bordered on the irrational. Hiss's own testimony, when confronted with the fact that the duplicated State Department documents in question were definitely typed on his family-owned Woodstock typewriter, was to say that he had no idea how Chambers could have entered his home secretly and typed the documents. Liberals believed this preposterous "explanation," and many still do with a religious fervor that remains amazing.

At first, it appeared that the microfilmed documents retrieved from the hollowed-out pumpkin at Chambers' Maryland farm could not be genuine because Kodak's initial investigation declared that the film they were shot on was not manufactured prior to 1945. That appeared to be a death blow to Chambers' accusation that he received them from Hiss much earlier. Subsequently, Kodak corrected itself and said that the film was available in 1938, and the documents were probably photographed at that time. All the documents were from the office that Hiss worked in during that time period at State.

Years later John Dean, in his book Blind Ambition, asserted that he was informed that Nixon at one point in his Presidency told Charles Colson, "The typewriters are always the key. We built one in the Hiss case." Colson denied ever having such a conversation with Nixon, and it has never been found in Nixon's tapes, despite his having recorded nearly every conversation in the oval office while he was president.

Some facts are not agreed on, and never will be.

The unacknowledged issue is that strong feelings are beyond the realm of debate. For people with strong feelings, facts only supply fuel.

This is why I dislike debates. Feelings always win, and no one is persuaded.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I should probably add that what's on my mind is not pit bulls, toddlers, or Hiss -- but whether a dispute over whether a book went into a toilet is really a dispute over facts.