Truth in liberal journalism…
…all-too-frequently seems an oxymoron, as Mollie Hemingway documents in this Federalist article.
Most readers of blogs on the right know this, and have known it for many years. Not only that, but bloggers and other pundits on the right have been saying and proving it, over and over, for many years. Why has this fact not penetrated more into public consciousness?
For liberals, there is really no motivation to doubt the veracity of media sources the person has relied on for most of his/her life. In fact, it can be very threatening and disturbing to look into claims that the The NY Times, The Boston Globe, etc., are riding on years of misplaced trust.
When I try to discuss this topic with friends, I’m met with one or more of the following:
(1) Lack of interest: the person is not paying much attention to news, and usually just reads a headline and the first paragraph or so of a story.
(2) Lack of critical thinking: the ability to follow a logical argument and see the flaws in a story is not a universal trait, even in intelligent people. It is actually quite rare, but the ability to see through propaganda depends on it. That is why propaganda works so very well.
(3) A cynical kneejerk equivalence: “Oh, both sides do it equally.” When I try to explain that one of the reasons for my political change was that I discovered—not because anyone told me to think it, but through close reading of newspaper articles and comparison with original sources—that the liberal press was far more inaccurate than the conservative press, and often purposely/obviously so, people typically tune me out and say that I’m only seeing what I’m looking for. When I say that I made the observation back when I was a liberal, and therefore it was information I was not looking for but which thrust itself upon me until I could not deny it, they have no answer but manage somehow to go onto another topic.
For leftists rather than liberals, there’s a fourth reaction (if they’re being honest, which they sometimes are):
(4)Truth doesn’t matter in furtherance of the proper narrative, and the ends justify the means if the ends benefit the left.
You can see all of these reasons in the reaction to the unraveling of the Rolling Stone UVA story.
when you get a number 4, ask them would they agree if the furtherance included their having to be exterminated
ie. if they were a jew in germany
ie. if they were old and under obamacare
Obamacare architect: 75 years is enough for anybody
especially for you useless people, in fact, it may be too much for a lot of you
http://www.redstate.com/2014/09/24/obamacare-architect-75-years-enough-anybody/
if they agree, ask them if they need a leg up to crawl into the oven…
In 1971 I wrote a Freshman Comp research paper on liberal bias in the broadcast news media. It wasn’t easy to find sufficient documentation at the time but I did it and received a decent grade for my efforts.
The bias at that time was much more subtle but a discerning ear could certainly perceive that it was there.
“… they have no answer but manage somehow to go onto another topic. … “
To paraphrase Churchill:
Men occasionally stumble over truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
And Schiller:
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.
Stupid people make up a significant portion of the human population. Working in a (very) large engineering firm, I am constantly reminded that even a college degree in a STEM subject is not proof that a person isn’t a member of the stupid group. I have my doubts to it even being strong evidence.
In the ‘truth doesn’t matter’ category I was shocked during the Duke Lacrosse witch hunt at Durham when one of the accused students was able to produce a time-stamped bank surveillance image of him at an ATM machine when he was allegedly raping a stripper and it did not matter to the prosecutor or the morally corrupt Group of 88 professors in Duke University. Some went so far as to say he should still be prosecuted because of historical crimes against black women. Until that time I had assumed that actual truth mattered to everyone. Apparently it doesn’t.
Oddly, none of the white members of the Group of 88 volunteered to be prosecuted for historical crimes they had not committed.
I heartily concur with (3)– it was something I had noticed when I was still a Scoop Jackson Democrat. I remember reading my Time magazine somewhere in the 80s and thinking– they’re not just telling me the news, they’re telling me what to think about it. And as far gone as the media is today, the Rolling Stone thing still shocks me. To think that people who imbibe that stuff sit on juries. Speaking of which, Erdely wrote the Rolling Stone hit piece on clerical abuse in Philly back in 2011. A priest, Monsignor Lynn, was sentenced and went to jail for “covering up” what amounted to little more than inappropriate behavior. Fortunately, he has been released; but his career is ruined, of course. Better that, we’re told, than disbelieving an accuser.
Excellent points. However, I think #2 actually IS one of the definitions of intelligence. In fact how smart can you really be without it?
I agree, KL Smith, and I think one of the most ominous symptoms of the cultural decay we’re undergoing is that there’s been a general decline in critical thinking.
With regards to #4,
Liberalism is a Moral Disease.
Probably mentioned it before, but my change happened (or was accelerated) when I started listening to C-SPAN radio during my commute and at lunch while running errands. I was shocked at which single statement or sentence was lifted from a hearing or speech in the evening news . Not unusually, it contradicted or had very little to do with the overall message/discussion.
In the article you link to, regarding the young men sitting around a hotel room drinking and smoking pot, and using the Gideon Bible to resolve an argument, and that Bible being open to the book of Exodus, I have a question: Is not the Gideon Bible limited to the New Testament? and isn’t Exodus the second book of the Old Testament? How could any reasonably educated editor have let THAT slide by? Or am I wrong about the Gideon Bible?
Terry A. Hoover asks, 6:16 pm — “Is not the Gideon Bible limited to the New Testament? . . . How could any reasonably educated editor have let THAT slide by? Or am I wrong about the Gideon Bible?”
——
The following is from wikipedia, which is usually but not absolutely always reliable. (In non-controversial areas, wikipedia normally is reasonably reliable.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International
A typical Bible or New Testament from The Gideons International contains . . . the Bible text itself, without notes, references, or any other reference matter other than chapter and verse headings – this can either be the full Bible (typical of the copies placed in hotel rooms), or just the New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs (typical of the copies handed out as gifts to individuals) . . . .
It is a categorical error to presume that everyone analytically approaches facts/ narratives/ information, generally.
The DNA distribution within humanity covers a lot of bases.
Myers-Briggs ‘typing’ is a first order ‘handle’ on this diversity of intellect. With study, one comes to know why and how our society is structured around the various personality types.
On the whole, neo neocon appeals to NT and SJ dominant personalities.
The NT personality is wildly overrepresented in the scientific community. It’s centered around an iNtuitive (general laws) view of the outer world — with a preference towards Thinking things through… as against Feeling things through. (1/8 th)
Modern Judaism, philosophically, is an NT world view. This goes far to explaining why Jews are so overrepresented in the hard sciences. ‘NT’ thinking is inculcated even before adult maturity. If you look for it, you’ll see NT thinking as far back as “Genesis”, the book.
The SJ personality is overrepresented in business, institutions, all formal society. Derived, crudely, from “sensate-judging” — this personality type is best thought of as oriented towards “doneness” — (J) and taking things as they are (discretely) (S) without concern as to any larger structure, trend, law, pattern. (3/8 th)
The armed forces — especially the officer corps — are larded with SJ personalities.
These two personality types represent, crudely, 4/8 ths of the voting population. They skew Republican. The continuum crosses party lines, of course.
&&&
These two are balanced by NF and SP personality types.
‘NF’ personalities wildly dominate the entertainment arts, the media; art generally. They have the iNtuitive streak of NT — but it’s their FEELINGS that dominate their ‘decision engine’ — I hesitate to call it a ‘logical engine.’ (1/8 th)
You’ll find them dominating stand-up comedy — as verbal wit turns hugely on ones feelings — especially social awkwardness. As you roll back through the top TV sit-coms, note how often the entire show is a succession of socially awkward situations.
Seinfeld
Fraiser
Cheers
All in the Family
I Love Lucy
They are all over the MSM.
At a FUNDAMENTAL level, they do not process information the same way as NT or SJ personalities.
To reach them, one must touch their emotions. Barry Soetoro (aka ‘the Mule’) is able to do this unconsciously. His mulatto plumage disguises his social attacks, very much in the manner of the chameleon. This tick is super evident by his vocal mimicry. He can, and does, adopt the speech patterns of his target (victim) audiences, Baptist preacher one hour — Harvard grad the next.
SP personalities take things as they come, and like to keep their options open. They also live in the moment — and dominate front-line warriors — athletics — the trades. (3/8 th)
They are overrepresented in the LIV class — not out of shear stupidity — but out of pure disinterest. To a remarkable degree, this personality type is politically cynical, and prone to not vote… for… what’s the purpose? (Low Involvement Voter)
They are overrepresented in the swing vote — not up or down — but in or out. Don’t expect a lot of party cross-overs.
Such personalities are scarcely to be found posting on blogs — least of all political blogs.
NF personalities will be posting — furiously — over at HuffPo, and its kin. Bringing facts into those comment streams constitutes trolling.
&&&&&
All four personality types have a difficult time switching allegiances.
Which is another factor: TEAM identity is a big part of analytical bias. It’s what’s holding up B.S. His polled popularity would collapse if Blacks could bear to stare into the economic results of Barry’s policy mix. Amnesty ought to be a deal breaker. It won’t be.
Well, my penny.
I’m a changer too. I was a leftish back then. Right now I’m not in the conservative side, but closer to the ideological position of people like Sam Harris or Hirsi Ali, which is not easy to label.
I have used to post for years in a very important leftish forum (not an american or english one). This is my experience:
1. People are not stupid, but they’re afraid of facts because that means to be aware that they have been fooled for years.
2. Truth permeates and you notice the change sometimes, but it’s a very very very slow process.
3. In the meanwhile, you’re gonna be attacked, insulted and missquoted (straw man is usual stuff). I remember a thread where half of the comments were personal insults against me.
4. You have to stay calm, dismiss the attacks, state “I haven’t said that. Please, don’t assign to me words I didn’t say” in every straw man, and make your points with a very clear logic.
Your facts are opinion. Their opinion is fact.
blert, thanks for the short summary on the personality types. I’ve got the book, haven’t gotten to it yet. Soon, though.
This kind of mirrors Pinker’s work as set forth in his book, “The Blank Slate.” He shows evidence that people’s major personality types are genetically based. He posits five genetic tendencies:
1. From open to closed minded.
2. From conscientious to careless.
3. From extroverted to shy.
4. From aggressive to passive.
5. From neurotic to psychically stable.
People can be moved somewhat along where they fall on the five continuums by education and training, but not much.
It’s fascinating stuff to me. I have two brothers. Same parents, same schools, same teachers, same neighborhood, and yet three totally different humans. We have had to struggle to maintain any kind of amicable relationship. This will give me some answers, I hope.
Blert,
Kudos for the moniker “The Mule” (a la Asimov’s “Foundation Trilogy”) as an appellation for Soetoro.
A startlingly, chillingly apt insight into his personality and character. (At least, what there is of it…!)
Talking about moral equivalence, I a few years ago I mentioned a politician who lied repeatedly and was so brazen he didn’t even try to hide the lies.
My Hispanic friend replied that all politicians lie so he didn’t care.
My response was that he had just normalized lying among politicians. I went on to ponder whether that moral equivalence is common among Hispanics and if that is why government corruption is rampant in many Hispanic countries.
He really didn’t have any response to that.
Unfortunately as Neo pointed out that excuse for bad behavior among the political class has now permeated Anglo society as well.
Dan Rather and CBS “fake, but accurate” Bush 43 ANG scandal keeps coming to mind with all of this going on. As long as it fits the narrative, to hell with the truth.
“For liberals, there is really no motivation to doubt the veracity of media sources the person has relied on for most of his/her life.”
_______________________________________
For Liberals, there is really no appreciable motivation to seek out Truth. For Leftists, there is no desire to speak to Truth. Or to tell it.
It’s all about emotion. It’s all about, “feelings”.
FACT.
Finally, some semblance of Truth
USA Today reports in todays paper that sexual assaults on college campuses, as released by the Department of Justice, is defined by .03 in 5 women are victims of such a crime.
This in stark contrast to the (incorrect) narrative of the Left as being, 1 in 5 or 20%.
Department of Justice numbers.
.03 in 5
Not 1 in 5
Big difference
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/11/campus-rape-sex-assault-findings/20257095/
Clarityseeker:
I was a liberal who wanted to seek out the truth.
There are many such people. Many of them end up going to the right.
Until recently, it was much harder to seek out the truth, because it was more difficult to find alternate sources of news. Now it’s easier, but a person has to have not only the motivation but the time.
You thought you were a Liberal.
@Clarityseeker, thank you for explaining neo to herself !
(please God, help us )
Clarityseeker, MollyNH:
I didn’t just think I was a liberal, I was a liberal in every sense that mattered.
Of course I’m well aware that I had many conservative principles. But back when I was coming up in the world, liberals and the Democratic Party appealed to a lot of people with some conservative principles. That wing of the party is gone, but it was quite active at one time, and the time was not all that long ago.
I say I was a liberal in every sense that matters. That means I considered myself one and voted for the Democrat every single time, and could not even imagine voting for a Republican. Probably 90% of the people I was friendly with were liberals, maybe even more, and I fit right in quite nicely although I sometimes disagreed with them on certain points.
I was a liberal by any practical definition of the word. Of course, I was never a liberal in the sense of doctrinaire or leftist, and I always knew that, as well. But I make a distinction between liberal and leftist. The first is the useful idiot of the second, but they are not the same.
NEO, I was defending you, guess i should have added (snark) I thought calling on God would do the trick.
Of course you WERE a liberal, so was I before I grew up & learned somethings in life.
I guess I find it amazing that Clarityseeker would impugn your definition of *yourself*!
MollyNH:
Oh, I understand now. Thanks.
But Clarityseeker was making one important point (one I’ve made before, too, although it bears repeating): some liberals just vote liberal and don’t realize that their principles are more in line with the conservative party.
Please. I said it tongue-in-cheek.
What is more important is my conviction about Progressives, Leftists, MOST Liberals.
They are NOT adherents to Truth.
If it fits their narrative, they’ll use it as such.
Truth is malleable for them.
And you can take this one to the bank.
Truth, if even a consideration to a Liberal, is well below any other value.
Years ago Dennis Prager spoke regularly on a test he would give to Liberals to determine their core values. His point was that most people who THINK their Liberal actually hold to positions that are more conservative.
I just looked on his site. I do not see it prominently displayed as it once was. He is as steadfast in this argument as he was when I first heard it over 20 years ago.
I happen to agree with him on this. In most cases. Which means either that Liberals are lying to themselves or have a pretty feckless ability to self reflect.
There is also a GROSS misinterpretation of Liberal.
Liberal, large ‘L’, is by no means one in the same with liberal, small ‘l’.
That liberalism existing in the 19th century is not embraced by the Liberal today.
I apologize, if you, CS were joking too !
@CS somebody has pointed out that Conservatives today are more for individual liberty then the current
Democrats, the only *choices* they want you to have
are BC options, abortions, & any number of hook ups that you may desire ! But of course, they ll control
what you eat, drink, what school your kids should go to,
what medical procedures you are permitted etc. etc
” That wing of the party is gone, but it was quite active at one time, and the time was not all that long ago.”
That was me at one time too. But like you I noticed that a lot of things liberals said were simply not true, and the part of the party I agreed with vanished. So….
Molly, No worries. Have a great day.
Gail Finke, neo-neocon write:
“That wing of the party is gone, but it was quite active at one time, and the time was not all that long ago.”
_______________________________________
Indeed, “gone”. I watched it go through significant changes in the 1980’s.
Funny thing, the Communist Party, here in the United States, disbanded in the early 1980’s. FACT.
I’ll give you 3 guesses where their party members (and energies) gravitated to?
A thought to consider; they were not a quiet bunch. Nor were they willing to simply fade away into the sunset.
One is hard pressed to find mainstream media coverage on this—-not there. It is very accessible.
I’m constantly tickled by the preferred term of Liberals these days: PROGRESSIVE. The Communists in the CPUSA and fellow travelers called themselves exactly that.