Tunnel Vision

Tunnel Vision in Non-Fiction Writing

A common mistake that I often find myself making is trusting non-fiction writing. I tell myself that because it’s non fiction it is both true and unbiased. As defined by Goodreads, “Nonfiction is an account or representation of a subject which is presented as fact. This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question.” Non-fiction writing often falls under the trap of being influenced by its writers opinions.

Take for example the media. Many of us might consider the news as a place where we learn new and true information, but honestly, the media is extremely biased, and often just representations of the journalists opinions. Many liberals, such as myself, often consider Fox News to be a projector of “fake news”, while republicans hate the New York Times for the same reason. We are both wrong. The fact of the matter remains that the NYT knows that the majority of its audience are liberals, they cater their news stories into something their audience wants to hear. For example, I often read stories about all the horrible things Trump has done, but rarely read any opinions that state the opposite. Several months ago, I was following news stories concerning confederate monuments around the nation. While skimming the New York Times, I came across an article that was pro-removal of the monuments in question:

What the events of this past weekend have made clear is that for several generations, the Lee monument and others like it have assisted the cause of white supremacy and the deadly violence that has accompanied it. This is why communities across the region have a moral obligation to take up the cause of removing them (NYT, “Why Confederate Monuments Must Fall”).

Being someone who agrees with every word the article said, I closed the tab and went on with my day. It wasn't until a few weeks later, when I got into a debate with a person who identifies as a conservative that I realized that I had never researched or even thought about their side of the argument before. That night, for the first time, I went to Fox News, and read up on opinions by historians concerning the confederate statues. “[The monuments] should be preserved, just like any other historical document, whether in a museum or some other appropriate venue,” (Fox News, Oldest historians group on Confederate monuments: Preservation and 'historical context' needed). To me this provided a stark realization that I could possibly be wrong if I only listened to one source of information. How could I have tunnel-vision when I pride myself on being open minded?