The Value of Voice

I just finished Jeff Jarvis' book, What Would Google Do? I have so many thoughts about it but one in particular keeps rolling around in my head like a loose marble.

Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values "creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention." Can't argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist's voice carry?

Admittedly, I've made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all.

I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: "Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots."

I've suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin's resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good?

Jarvis calls for "personal political openness." He writes: "I'd like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy."

But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is "unbiased" a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more.

Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn't.

I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts.

Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don't play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I'm looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas?

In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don't want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn't this what you want from your network? I don't mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday's episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don't have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.

Comments

[johnmcmillion]

Hey Natali,

I value quality commentary, but even on the Daily Show I'm more satisfied to see Jon Stewart hold both sides accountable. For a while, I watched Fox and MSNBC to try and get a sense of both sides. But the more I watched partisan finger pointing and one-sided viewpoints, the less and less interested I became. I crave credibility. But more and more, I'm starving for depth. Real roll-up-your-sleeves reporting. CNN has its moments. The Wall Street Journal too. But the best I've found is PBS Frontline.

I dream of the day when news consists of such unbiased, expert detail, backed by a mountain of sources, it feels like the information presented is what someone would hand the President himself as definitive. Once you have that as your base, then let's get both sides in to comment. How it affects you and I. What the consequences are. And given this gold-mine of information, how we should move forward.

The clearest case today is health care reform. Clearly, there is a problem that needs to be solved. Clearly, one of the main goals is to reduce unsustainable fiscal responsibilities. So, Mr. President. I voted for you. I believe you're a smart guy, and I'm confident you've surrounded yourself with the best and brightest. So, how do we lower costs? Give me short-term long-term. Give me details. Give me a buffet of charts and spreadsheets, facts and figures, backed by independent sources. I want something so convincing, not only does the CBO back you up when they score it, but they are stunned by the extraordinary effect your plan achieves in accomplishing your goal. I want to see you reach across party lines, instead of promising it on the campaign trail. I watched Senator Coburn present a comprehensive amendment to the committee on CSPAN. It made a lot of sense. He knew his stuff. Turns out, he's a doctor. Could be helpful to put aside party, and put Dr./Senator Coburn on your team. Could be helpful to provide clear leadership on exactly what needs to go in this legislation.

Instead, we got the beer summit. Along with award-winning coverage over what brand of brew was more American.

Your voice has value. Personality goes a long way.

But I'll take a glass of facts, with a dash of depth, any day of the week.

[Binky The Bomb]

Journalism is more than just reporting the news, it is also reporting the opinions of those involved, as well as asking the questions you think your target audience wants answered. Bias is a part of the process, because generalised questions never are almost never the right questions, leading to an innacurate report, all for the ake of not offending someone.

Impartial questioning, done carefully to not offer any type of opinion on the subject matter can be rather dry, dull and pointless. But, on the flip side of the coin, if you go after a subject with to much bias, it can make you blind to lines of questioning that your audience would like to here. Its not a ase of Bias or Unbias, but rather a fine balance of bias and facts.

You cannot report the facts or the truth without getting up someones nose. There is no real impartiality in the end, you either report the news, or put up a notice saying "Everything is fine, noting happening in the world." even if the nukes are droping. If you report the news, any news, you have a right to tell people what is happening. You would not be human if your own views, opinions and feelings did not shape that report in some way or another.

And after all, if people do not like it, they can always go elsewhere. The fact they are still reading means you are doing something right.

[Joseph Dawson]

I think your right and I think people do want more opinion and more bias coverage in jourlisam today. I am just not sure that it a good thing. The idea that the type of independent unbiased journalism that Walter Cronkite did (in his early years with CBS) would likely not be successful today as it was then is not good.

It appears to me that people today want to follow journalist that provide opinions as compatible with there own as possible. The fact that the opinion provided may be based on incorrect or inaccurate information has become unfortunately less important then the fact the opinion provided matches the individuals beliefs.

Truly unbiased journalism that shows the positive and the negative will often paint a picture that is some shade of gray. This shade of gray is neither sexy or simplistic enough for the average public today.

It appears to me that the general public wants to be led to a conclusion that requires little thinking and supports there pre-existing beliefs. The idea of challenging ones beliefs and requiring people to completely rethink an opinion on a topic today is far to much work and stress for the average consumer of journalism.

This brings us to a future where we have a TV channel for every flavour of person. One cannel for Mac Fans, Microsoft Fans, Democrats and Republicans. Each one following there own version of the truth all loosely based on the facts that support there belief system.

In this future the journalist who succeed maybe the ones that have opinions are the most compatible with the largest group of the population. Creating a system where the successful journalist is little more then a politician trying to create the largest following to win the next election. The truth then reported by this future journalist is merely a reflection of what the public opinion thinks the truth should be and wouldn't be hindered by facts or supporting evidence.

In the 1800's Alexis de Tocqueville was quoted to say that "In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve." Maybe we are moving to a future where this is also true of journalism.

All the best,

Joe

[Sean Genovese]

I think the one thing you're missing in your post here is the idea that journalism, partially as a result of technology, has morphed into two concentrations: newscasters and commentators. I absolutely believe that newscasters should be unbiased, delivering just the facts. They can have personal beliefs, and they can share them if they want, but keep them out of the newscast. If you view yourself as this type of journalist, then you absolutely should suffer backlash when your political and personal views intermingle with your reporting.

Personally, I think you are much better suited to be a commentator. I don't watch to you to get the facts, I watch you to get your opinion of the facts. The same goes for your CNET colleagues as well. You all have proven to me over time that I can trust your opinion because it is based on facts and rational thinking, not a hidden agenda. I believe the ability to earn trust is more important than whether or not I agree with your opinion. For the most part, the mainstream media doesn't get that and as a result they've lost their audience's trust--and their ratings.

[Charlie Martin]

Natalie, I'm on the side of doing two things: first, as you say, everyone has a position, so you might as well be open about it. The problem with the mainstream media's sort of common bien pensant position isn't that they have it, but that they maintain the façade of objectivity while distorting the actual reporting, either overtly by their choice of words, or covertly by what is and isn't considered "news."

Then, second, attempt to provide objectivity anyway by looking for opposing opinions, by testing your conclusions critically, by consciously reversing an argument and seeing if it would still work. (Cf. Pelosi's recent high dudgeon about Nazi imagery being associated with the health care debate — if it's out of bounds, as I agree it should be, wasn't it out of bounds when it was being used against Bush?)

[Bill from Canada]

Pardon the wishy-washy answer, but I think it depends on the direction you want to go. In an age where social media has really been invented (or at least popularized), it seems that most media now wants to be social. How the world got by when it's media was unidirectional is mind boggling (mild sarcasm).

You have to consider the relationship you want with your viewer/reader/listener/consumer-of-information. Do you want to have a social experience with them? Do you want the dissemination of your knowledge to be a two-way experience? In that case, you eschew the traditional definition of journalist - you have become something new and different. The term journalist was popularized in the 20th century as a person who disseminated information to a consumer - one way only, primarily due to the limitation of technology and the relatively tiny number of sources available. In that regard, it became critical that a journalist only passed on the information ("Just the facts, ma'am") because it was impractical for any feedback to "correct" biased information back to the median truth of a particular matter. People had to trust their journalists to be 100% factual so that they could then create their own informed opinions on a matter, because options for data sources were limited and, often, the ability to question that information was not practical.

This is obviously a fairly foreign concept now, as there are dozens if not hundreds of reports available to anyone at any time on a particular topic. It's now practical to take a large number of biased reports, and tease that data back to a median truth. In a sense, journalists have been let off the hook a bit because they don't have near the social responsibility to their consumers-of-information due to the fact that the "crowd" of journalists will correct any bias that you inadvertently or deliberately include in your report.

So to come all the way back to the original point - what do you want to be? If you want to take the "traditional" road of a 100% impartial reporter that hangs their hat on earning the trust of their viewers while keeping your own spin on that data to yourself, then I think you are choosing a much more difficult (even moreso now than 50 years ago due to the fact that it's near impossible to hide your mistakes), but possibly more noble path.

The other option is to engage your viewers by presenting information unabashedly tinted to your own personal view (as per Fox News) and accepting that your own tint on the information may result in omissions on an issue, or less than 100% core truth on the issue. This allows for far more two way conversation, the fulfillment of presenting views that are true to yourself and the enlightenment that comes with a corrective or educational response from your audience. The relationship with your audience may not have the 100% trust that you would have as an unbiased reporter, but your relationship is more complex and diverse as well. More like being friends than a reporter/consumer relationship.

As a result, I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" or "should" in this matter. It's all what you want to get from the process.

[Alex]

I may be rewriting some things that have been said by others already (people have got a lot to say and I don't have time to read it all), so excuse me. I have always thought that you tend to be one of the few reporters that actively tries to stay unbiased and neutral with the majority of your reporting/commenting (Verizon FIOS aside :P). While that's all good sometimes, I've come to see that it also seems to bind you more times than not.

Ironically, I have been pondering this whole topic in my head for the last couple of days and I think that the problem with most modern American reporters is that they adhere more to a belief of showing a balance between different sides of an issue than they are to informing the public on the facts of the issues themselves. I read a recent blog post from Paul Krugman talking about how he was invited onto a show recently to discuss some issue but the producers called him back a little while later when they couldn't find someone to take the opposing viewpoint. When I read it, I couldn't say I was too surprised.

Over and over nowadays we are seeing news reporters simply stating each side of the issue without informing the public on what the parts of the issue are or what they may even mean (e.g., the current healthcare reform debate). I think that once reporters start to learn how to inform their consumers again, then maybe we can be a better society for it. I have no problem with a reporter injecting their viewpoint into a report since it's bound to happen anyway. We are human after all. My only desire is for the reporter to still inform the public with the unassailable facts of a given issue before they begin to make their feelings known on the topic. Facts should be the most important item in a reporter's mindset and everything else second.

Although, it has been said that "facts have a liberal bias," so who knows in the end?

[Joseph Dawson]

Natali it is clear based on the number of long and thoughtful comments people have made on this blog post, you have a great community intelligent readers on your blog. This combined with the diversity of responses really makes me question the basis of my original comment on this post.

The basis of my original comment was to say that today people follow journalists because they generally agree with the opinions of the people they follow. And I was saying that I did not think that true independent unbiased journalism was something the general public wanted anymore.

Based on the fact that a great number of people think that they want you to be unbiased in your reporting and another group says you should be bias and give your opinion. Some people like I think that what for cnet is as much journalism as any CBS news report while others don't appear to consider cnet reporting to be journalism at all.

This wide variety of comments makes me feel that the community that follow you is much wider and more deserve then I would have first guessed. This is a great thing and in a small way shows that the future of journalism may be less pessimistic then I was first thinking.

Your definitely doing something right when you have made such a wide ranging group of people spend time tonight to read and comment on your blog. When you consider likely only one in one hundred who read your post would likely leave a comment this positing impact is impressive.

Keep up the good work... Your definitely doing some good reporting and this positing was just a sample of that.

[dktoney]

"But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is “unbiased” a fallacy?"

I believe there is room for journalists to deliver both unbiased information and open opinion. It depends on the situation and delivery medium. The public relies on journalists to gather information and deliver both sides of the story so that we can make an informed decision about issues. There is also room for journalists to share their informed opinion after they have researched an issue - as long as the audience knows they are hearing the perspective of the journalist. The danger is when the audience believes they are hearing a balanced story when they are only hearing a biased view.

[John]

I prefer the facts and let me determine the conclusion or whatever. If it's biased, emotional, etc, let it be labeled an editorial, blog or whatever.

[Greg]

I thought about this topic recently and I want things out in the open. Sure, not everyone will agree with whatever your personal views are and may be turned off by it, but there will also be people who like you more for that opinion and/or respect you for even having the guts to say what you really feel. It is wrong to expect a tech reporter to never publicly state their views on anything other tech issues. Finding out a persons views make you feel like more of a human to me and not just a person I see on tv or hear on a podcast.

[seniormint]

The journalists that make the most impact have distinctive/original voices. Conveying news is often like hauling freight in the new media age. News rains down upon us from RSS readers, Google News Alerts, and machine curated new aggregation services. Actually breaking news stories offers some distinction for a working journalist but the shelf life of a breaking news story is now measured in minutes. Break enough news and your fellow journalists might laud you and an audience might seek you out, but cultivate a unique and compelling point of view and whether you break the news or not, your audience will want to hear from you again and again.

When Google Wave was announced I know that I wanted to hear how the guests at my virtual thought leaders dinner party (Gina Trapani, John C. Dvrorak, Cory Doctorow, and many more) would react. I've unconsciously picked a mix of folks with strong and divergent perspectives. My internal BS detector might go off more for some than for others, but each voice makes me think enough to earn a seat at the table.

In addition to a strong point of view, a strong but real personality matters too. The personality is the wrapper of the strong idea and a distinctive personality can increase my consideration of an individual's perspective. The genuine warmth of Leo Laporte or the wry and perpetually bemused Christopher Buckley are completely different examples of the same idea. They each focus on things that matter to them, convey their unique perspective, and do so with their distinctive personalities intact.

[Arny]

I agree, how are you supposed to report without some sort of bias given the amount of information coming at you these days? I think that this is an acceptable situation, as long as the bias is open and obvious (e.g. Fox). In fact, I find it quite interesting listening to reporters like yourself giving their opinions on the facts - I may not always agree with the points made, but it's exactly the type of discussion that I would have with my peers on certain topics.

I, for one, support Open Journalism!

[Tim Daloisio]

I think the balance here is keeping clean lines when reporting on fact vs opinion. Since tone and tenor can easily bias fact based reporting, the facts need to stay in the clear of this bias. At the same time, as an expert on a topic, you're opinion of those facts is inherently more valuable to me as a consumer of that information (just as long as I know your biases upfront).

[techpops]

I don't really see the problem here. BOL and pretty much every other podcast I watch/listen to is heavily biased. The reason seems simple. These are not true news shows, but shows that comment on the news. The emphasis is really on comment, commentary, opinion and of course, bias.

Natali has proven herself a worthy commentor and I more often than not agree with her. The same goes for all of the buzz staff. There is a level of professionalism there that every other tech podcast should be aiming to compete with.

So for me there is nothing here to debate, what's going on is working great, in fact so great that I can't think of a better tech related show.

Perhaps where this bias starts to become a problem is when you have hosts who either don't know enough about the subject or are simply trying to sell you something. I filter out those kinds of shows over time and so unless you're very naive about the subject of tech, you should do just fine absorbing all these hosts opinions on the news.

[andreslucero]

I think it depends on the story and what type of news you're reporting on at the time. Tech journalists can get away with more personal commentary because the audience is usually looking for an expert opinion on a given subject. As long as the other side of the story is presented fairly, you won't lose too many viewers/listeners/readers for saying something negative about a product or service—just the hardcore fans on the fringes who can't bear to hear a differing opinion.

For other types of news, it's harder to walk that line. You either have to remove all opinion completely and just present the facts, or you need to establish the show as commentary from the very beginning. Regardless of what you choose to do professionally, I don't think you should censor yourself on personal sites like Twitter, Facebook, or this blog.

[sunsnapper]

As with most things, there is not a clear black and white division. Instead, there is a continuum of gray. I think there is a distinction between columnists creating opinion pieces and news reporters attempting to stay objective as they report facts.

Somewhere in between is today's personality-driven media, where the host is also their own brand, channel, and value-added differentiator. Inserting personality, point-of-view, or voice is one thing... inserting bias or unfairness is another.

If you choose to do opinion-based, columnist coverage, I would only suggest that you not abandon fairness.

For example, to criticize McCain for lack of tech savvy during the campaign is factual and fair game, even though an opinion is expressed. To do 10 of 10 stories where Republicans are technology illiterates while Democrats are all tech gurus who read slashdot and program their own RSS feeds would be distorted and unfair.

There are so many areas in technology where one can avoid the left/right political divisions, and focus on the authoritarian vs. libertarian axis. For example, the DMCA is arguably bad legislation, with members of both parties voting for it. (Passed unanimously by Republicans and Democrats in Congress and signed by Democratic President). Having opinions opposed to the DMCA would not favor Republicans or Democrats.

Onerous cell phone or credit card contracts... less a left/right issue and more of individual power vs. entrenched or consolidated power.

Privacy issues, identity theft, etc. present another area where one can voice strong opinions without being branded a Republican or Democrat.

Finally, consider the possibility that openness does not simply mean to state your opinion. Perhaps "open journalism" means being up front about one's bias along with the opinion. This presents an open view of the host's opinion and the bias that led them there.

[Adam]

Who says robots don't have feelings?

[jose_ndc]

I congratulate you for your courage as long as you have something you can fall back on.

But you're absolutely right. Openness and the truth is what everyone wants. Of course, some of us may not want to hear the truth, but knowing the truth and making decisions based on one can lead to better results.

[Jake Stapleton]

Natali,

I think openness is a matter of context and your venue. I remember several times that you got underneath my skin while you were doing Textra. You dropped several political comments right in the middle of your tech podcast. The point to me is I do not mind different viewpoints but that is not what I tune into a technology podcast to hear. With that being said I think the recent BOL with the federal CTO was handled extremely well. It was released in the regular stream as a standalone episode so that I had the choice to listen to it or not (regardless of my political disagreements with the administration and your guest’s assertions).

In my opinion the media has never been unbiased in anyway. Bias is in the eye of the beholder you mention that fox news has an “agenda”; I think it is one of the fairest news sources around. Which one of use is right and which one of us is biased? We both have our own believes that shape us and our world views; I would only ask that you be mindful of your audience and venue when you try your openness.

Example

On Loaded you reported on the broadband stimulus funds. That news definitely belongs in your tech podcast.

What would cross a line for me would be after reporting on the funds you then went on to say how wonderful it is for this change and how enamored you are with our new president. (If this is the case)

I hope this makes sense I know that many of the technology personalities that I listen to every single day probably do not share my political or societal beliefs. But as long as we are talking tech and I am tuning into a tech podcast that should never be a problem.

[Jomichael]

I think you should feel comfortable voicing your opinions even though you are a reporter. Just be sure to indicate that when you do so, you are acting as a columnist. I think you can wear both hats. When you are reporting the news, I hope you can still present it in an unbiased manner. Feel free to analyze and comment after the facts have been objectively disseminated. Please don't take away a straight distribution medium for the facts. We are finding it harder and harder to sift through the slanted coverage that dominates the "news cycle." We need reporting that doesn't favor one side, at least until the facts are there for us to digest.

I do think you should be prepared for the backlash that will come from this openness. You have on multiple occasions expressed anger at the reactions your positions evoke from the public. You don't have to be a journalist or internet celebrity to receive venomous retribution from the trolls out there. Just look athe comment section of any Digg story, and you will know that you are not singled out for unfair treatment. So you as a journalist can have opinions, but those will be subject to the freely expressed responses of your followers, readers, viewers, and downloaders, many of whom haven't any manners when a keyboard sits in front of them. You may even have to be prepared to lose a large number of them, particularly if you choose not to suffer any questioning of your stance, as you did on BOL when you first demanded online voting by the next election, then forbade anyone to comment, challenge, criticize or question your (at the time) unsupported and unexplained position.

At any rate, I ask again to please keep the objective news coming. The unbiased presentation of accurate information shouldn't be marginalized as "vanilla." It needs to be upheld as the strongest weapon the masses have to defend themselves against those who would wield power, money, and influence irresponsibly, and the means by which the voting public can properly understand the issues they will have to consider at election time. I do respect the media when it acts honorably, and you have a responsibility as the Fourth Estate to insure that some part of it does.

Thanks for the topic. Keep up the good work.

[Greg]

I agree with DChamp. News presented in an openly biased setting is nothing more than propaganda. A journalist's job is to inform, not to sway. There is a time for engagement, and a time for straight information flow.

[mikerichards]

Natalie,

You make many good points and arguments. I think that when people speak about openness it more means that you are open to discuss a topic. For example, you may not like Verizon FiOS and so you could choose to ignore them, any discussion involving them, and only speak about Comcast. This would not be what I consider open. However you could voice your opinion about them, be open to discussions, and agree to disagree about them and their service. That is what "I" view openness to be in a reporter. A reporter who will report the news, as it is, is just that a reporter. However a reporter that can report on the news at it is, and then offers their opinions in a well thought out manner is more than a reporter to me; they are a valuable person in media. Not to confuse this with reporters who report on the news, but are untruthful; you still need to be truthful in your reports.
Hope my thoughts help move the discussion along.

[batkol]

There is no such thing as being unbiased. That is a journalistic fiction that is scarcely a century old. God knows, reporters prior to the 20th Century did not think it was there job to be unbiased. The point is not to be unbiased but to be open to other points of view and to report as accurately as you can what you hear and see. That is what it means to be a reporter. What separates journalists from the non-journalistic community is that you are trained in how to acquire information and transfer same to a lay audience in a way that renders such information intelligible (or as nearly so as that is possible) to the lay public. In an age of rapidly growing amateur journalism, what makes professional reporters so important is the function they can serve in setting standards for what constitutes sound investigation and even handedness. In other words, the serve a modeling function.

[Fernando Feria]

Following any media in general, I have noticed that after certain reports there are times when one is left aching for an opinion one way or another in order to reinforce or even counter whatever emotion has been summoned by whatever newly acquired information. There are other times when one simply does not want to hear the reporter's opinions. In the past all this was easily explained by ones own bias. Personally, I think that explanation is a bit lazy if not disabling.
The obvious answer might be equally disabling.
Non bias is still important to maintain, but I do think we need to revisit what that means rather than doing away with it. Much too often people assume it is a stance one should maintain even after research has been completed and understood. To remain unbiased would be a symptom of not having yet completed a process. Unbiased is how one should approach research. To be unbiased is a position taken at the beginning of every encounter and surly one that needs to evolve during the encounter up until the resolution.

To hide opinion of a resolution is slightly inhuman since even when one states a series of simple facts there is always an accompanying demeanor (assuming the statements are understood and previously thought about and not simply being read out loud).

Irritation occurs when the reporter is suspected to have approached the topic from the get go with an established prejudice or a severe inclination. More common, is when the listener, is so afflicted and never really understands the topic at hand yet still endeavors to acutely identify someone with whom they generally disagree.

I will always agree with the notion that one should report the news rather than to dictate the interpretation of it.
Reporting the news and sharing ones impressions is not the same thing. Enabling our understanding of this nuance would be a helpful approach to settling this debate.