The basis of the practice derives from assumptions about statistical distributions of scores (bell curve). If you assume that scores should fit a normal curve, then it makes sense to “normalize” them so they fit under a normal curve. Normalization also requires that overly high scores be adjusted downward for conformity. Either way, data are distorted and some information is lost.
No one agrees on the curve anymore. I mean, that’s the central problem.The notion of a curve in, say, math, like in fourth-grade math, if this test is a greater than curve, there’s an objective number that you’re grading it. There’s absolutely nothing objective about the agreed upon, you know, whatever, I mean, agreed upon argument in our culture, that’s there’s one arbiter, whether it’s Walter Cronkite or Tim Russert or whoever, that can decide.
I do think that it is incumbent upon reporters to, when a blatant falsehood is spoken, to actually either parenthetically or just state it explicitly that this is just not true. But I also think that when you say, when [you] get into on one hand and on the other hand thing, and then make a judgment where you say, this is racist, this is white supremacy, you’re basically trying to overturn a judgment that’s been rendered by one of our two major parties, which is that person is acceptable to be their nominee of a party.