Kenton Gibbs
Kenton Gibbs
In today’s society, reactions to events are so quick and predominantly thoughtless that the lines between objective fact and subjective perception begin to blur. People run into a problem when they don’t realize how the slightest variation from a statement transitions it from fact to opinion. For example, the statement “they are married” is a fact. There’s legal documentation as well as at least one witness to the wedding. Yet, when one makes the statement “these two are happily married” the statement suddenly becomes an opinion. There is no cookie cutter definition of happiness in a marriage. Some would value things like fidelity and quality time spent together, as others would value how grand their houses are and how luxurious their vacations are.
Many political pundits commit this error when saying a former or current president had a terrible four to eight years in office, yet “terrible” is just that individual’s opinion. Different people measure a president’s success differently. Some see a good presidency as one that oversaw a large economic expansion. If that is the case then Bill Clinton had one of the greatest presidencies of all time. But what if an individual’s personal view on a good presidency is keeping a spotless moral image for America and loosening laws that disproportionately target African-Americans? Then, he was indeed an awful president. Same man, same eight years in office, but a different perspective and value system changes your outlook on him.
Then, there are the rare few people who inject their opinion and try to make it more relevant than the original fact. For example, Michelle Obama saying she wakes up in a house built by slaves is a fact. She’s the first lady, she lives in the White House and slaves were in the group of builders who constructed it. There should be no argument because it’s a fact.
However, Bill O’Reilly saying that “the slaves who worked on the White House were well-fed and had good lodgings” is not only a matter of opinion but is a very harmful one. There are so many fallacies in one sentence I have a hard time wondering where to begin. At the very basic level, to say that slaves’ food and lodging were good depends on what your standards for good are. The intentions of this addition of opinion is what is most troubling about moments like this. He is purposely trying to make it seem as if these slaves had it easy. The truth still remains that those men were slaves. There should not have been any controversy attached to the first lady’s statement because she simply stated a fact. When O’Reilly’s opinion was added, the waters of the conversation are unnecessarily muddied.
These types of forceful mashing of facts and opinions are not exclusive to any political party, gender, race or religion. The Bill O’Reilly example is just the first one that comes to mind. It happens all around us in our everyday lives. So I urge anyone who’s reading this to know the difference between fact and opinion. Realize when the two are being mixed and why. Next time you suspect that you’re hearing someone mix fact and opinion ask yourself, “Am I being lead to a pointed narrative, or is this person just stating how they feel?”