of course, as I was reading the article, I noted that presenting both sides was definitely a must when a story profitable to the conservatives is printed. However, when it's good for the liberals - just trust them as they are pure and always tell the truth.

Seriously. Did these people fail Journalism 101? As I remember it, back in the dark ages prior to the coming of Clinton, we were actually taught that you should only print facts, statements from both sides (to avoid an imbalance or the hint of impropriety), and leave interpretation COMPLETELY to op_ed pieces.

Posted by: ronaprhys on June 4, 2005 01:57 PM

The problem is when "presenting both sides" is interpreted as "giving both sides equal weight, regardless of the merit of their statements".

Take, for example, a recent incident on CNN where they had a person who was against gay marriage reference a study that claimed to show that gays are more likely to be child molesters - the anchors let it pass totally without comment, despite the specific study being referenced
A) being unscientific and unfairly biased
B) not showing that at all, regardless of scientific accuracy.

Instead of showing news - statement A about X, statement B about X, facts about X - modern media is showing *just* the statements from the people involved, and not pointing out where one side or the other is lying or making unsupported allegations. "Showing both sides" is, in a lot of cases, presenting facts and opinion as having equal merit - or, worse, facts and totally unsupported fantasy as having equal merit. Effectively, you have a "fair and balanced" take between people talking about how the Earth orbits the Sun and people who believe that the Sun is actually the spaceship of the aliens from planet Zarg and that the earth is flat - and both of those views are given equal time and equal weight.

Yes, opinion should be left for op-ed pieces. This is basic journalism, where it's your job to not just report what people say, but to INVESTIGATE it and, if they're not telling the truth, call them on it. If they say "we're funding new military programs", it's ENTIRELY appropriate for the media to point out, then, that they're not actually giving new money, just cutting other programs.

For example.

And Fox doesn't do that. Hell, most of the American media doesn't do that, lately.

Posted by: John on June 4, 2005 03:03 PM

True, true - and I think basic laziness and a lack of education are to blame, along with political bias. Simply put, many reporters aren't educated enough to understand what many scientific, economic, and political commentators are talking about. Given that, they let their political bias favor commentators that might support their view. The laziness aspect figures into that as well - they just don't go look for the truth because it'd take too much work (in the aforementioned example they'd have to find the study, actually read it, find people who had a contrary position or dissenting view, evaluate their facts, and then print all of that).

I guess it's just too much to expect good reporting...

Posted by: ronaprhys on June 4, 2005 04:46 PM

In the case I mentioned, just reading the study would be enough to show you it was both bunk AND didn't support the guest's position. Even worse, the one anchor said to the other that she had something to say about that study - but didn't she say *what* she had to say about the study, and she pointedly made the comments off-camera, during the break.

>"Because, you know, if you presented both sides
>of an argument, why... that might mean the plebes
> could make up their own mind!"

... and this is exactly the kind of thing that really, really makes me want to slap most Americans most of the time. Our Host Scott is frothing over an out-of-context quote taken deliberately to give a meaning other than intended, about a situation that isn't at all how he describes it. We're not seeing the whole issue. What we're seeing are two opinions on the issue, given equal weight - or, on Fox, given two positions with one heavily favoured - and we're *not* seeing the facts. We're not being given enough information to make up our own minds. Hell, just look at the sheer number of people involved in the evolution "debate": Creationists are being given equal (or more) time and their opinions are taken equally as seriously, despite the facts not backing them up. Every time I see "Evolution is just a theory" pass without comment on the news I want to beat the reporters senseless for not explaining what "theory" means in a scientific context, and for letting the creationist lies pass without pointing out that "yes, evolution *has* been demonstrated, and can be repeated in a lab," or that "no, evolution says nothing about the presence or absence of God. You can believe God causes evolution, or that space aliens do, or that it's caused by magic - but that doesn't change that evolution *does* happen"

John
(Canadian. Politically conservative - kind of like a Libertarian, but doesn't think highways grow on trees and doesn't go out of his way to be an asshole. Media junkie. Thinks the way right-wing Americans lie and deceive about the opposition rather than support and defend their own points is disgusting, especially when it gets rebroadcast by the "objective" media without comment.)

Posted by: John on June 4, 2005 05:57 PM

The difference, of course, is that when a right-winger steps on their crank trying to "decieve", there are hundreds of reporters swirling around to swoop in for a kill. Whereas when a left-winger does the same thing, it takes legions of unpaid bloggers to force the story onto the radar screen, and even then the Washington Post spends the next four weeks explaining, with front page stories no less, how "well, yes, they made that part up, but if you look closely something almost not quite like what they reported sort of happened."

And, as far as it goes and not to put too fine a point on it, as a Canadian (from what's been reported here... you know, because it COULDN'T be reported there), you have much bigger problems than what happens to be going on with the 800-lb. gorilla to the south.

Just, you know, saying...

Posted by: scott on June 4, 2005 07:05 PM

Actually, I went back and read the entire article that the quote came from - which didn't reference any additional sources, and it does seem that these folks are arguing for something that is out of line. Basically, they're arguing for 'their' version of truth - which may or may not be the actual truth. While the arguments that you quote (creation v. evolution, right wing propaganda v. left wing propaganda) are interesting in their own right, in order to truly debate this you have to refer to the source to see a) what they were talking about and then b) whether or not Scott's argument was out of bounds.

At this point, while I certainly agree with your thoughts on the media's inability to do their job (both left and right), I can't agree with your signature that the "lie and deceive" tactic is restricted solely to the right-wingers. May I point out Rathergate and Jordangate? Both prime examples of the left lying and deceiving rather than supporting and defending.

Posted by: ronaprhys on June 4, 2005 07:19 PM

> And, as far as it goes and not to put too fine a
> point on it, as a Canadian (from what's been
> reported here... you know, because it COULDN'T be
> reported there), you have much bigger problems
> than what happens to be going on with the 800-lb.
> gorilla to the south.

I take it you're referring to the Gomery inquiry and the publication ban on material from that?

There are a few major differences. First, we get it all eventually. Guaranteed. Second, when you've got what very well could be a trial coming up, it becomes nearly impossible to find an unbiased jury - a legal requirement - if everyone's seen parts of the evidence in advance. Kind of like finding 12 people who didn't know what OJ Simpson had been arrested for.

> May I point out Rathergate and Jordangate? Both
> prime examples of the left lying and deceiving
> rather than supporting and defending.

#1: Rather's not "left". He stepped on his dick with realistic-seeming data by not checking it - but the scandal, as I recall, never actually *refuted* the information in those memos (which was being investigated *before* the memos appeared), only proved that those memos were most likely created with MS Word and thus couldn't be that old. Frankly, the spillover meant that the allegations would *never* be taken seriously, regardless of what came after - and THAT was a propaganda coup, regardless of the source of the memos.

#2: I still haven't seen a direct quote from Jordan.

> when a right-winger steps on their crank trying
> to "decieve", there are hundreds of reporters
> swirling around to swoop in for a kill.

Bullshit. When was the last time you saw somebody challenge Bush's statements about the war or social security? When was the last time you saw an article about the staged "town hall" meetings on the news? How much time was spent on *Dr* Bill Frist giving a *medical judgement* based on five minutes of heavily edited videotape that contradicted fifteen years of expert opinions from specialists who'd actually examined the patient?

Hell, it took weeks for Jeff Gannon getting daily press passes to the White House to hit the air as opposed to the internet, and I still haven't seen anyone but bloggers point out his lies about things like "Talon News" - it didn't exist until AFTER his first few conferences, for example.

Regardless, and this goes to both of you, the reason I object more to the right-wing propaganda is that they're in charge of everything. I don't care if Stephen Harper screws dogs in his spare time - he's got no authority and, until he wins an election, he'll still just be the head of the regionally-based Canadian National Socialist Party. The fact that there are Republican majorities in all three branches of your government mean that, *rightfully* they get more scrutiny - because the other side's statements mean less.

In the mean time, I sit watching both sides. factcheck.org is your friend and mine, for that. I'm simply offended when "fair and balanced" results in equal weight being given to people saying that science whouls be taught in science classes versus people saying religion should be taught in science classes, or when "balance" means two Republicans debating an issue that they largely agree on as if those are the only two possible positions - which happened, a few days ago, on stem cell research between Arlen Specter and some other guy.

> I went back and read the entire article that the
> quote came from

So did I. The site does not reference a further source, is heavily right-biased (take a look at the other articles and the editorial cartoons), and is hosted and paid for by a Republican source who hosts other Republican and corporate sites. I wouldn't trust them to reliably report the full story any more than I'd expect democraticunderground.com to do so.

Posted by: John on June 5, 2005 01:11 AM

"We hear about it eventually..." Yes, but only because of the far more liberal speech laws of your southern neighbor. Somewhat ironic, seeing as how (from your perspective) we're in the center of a malestrom of right-wing propaganda and media control, no?

I see people challenge Bush's statements all the time. Remember the "suggestion" debacle in the White House press room after the whole Newsweek thing blew up? As to the rest, the fact you're able to bring them up and just as quickly knock them down speaks volumes as to just who is swooping on whom.

As to Gannon, please. I'll see your single "fake" news reporter and raise you the head of CNN, Dan Rather and most of CBS's news staff, and the cheif editor of Newsweek. Now, call or fold.

You've never seen or heard a direct quote from Jordan because *he's* never published one. Nor have the organizers of the event at which he so firmly stuffed his foot into his mouth. One has to wonder, should Jordan have had nothing to be ashamed of, why this should *still* be, after all this time.

I have absolutely no problem giving people who *say* religion should be taught in schools a platform. This is *far* preferable to their previous strategy of quietly stacking school boards with their allies and then having to reverse their ridiculous decisions after the fact.

Further, why *not* give everyone a voice from both sides? It allows us, the people, to decide who's got a point and who's a long-winded gasbag. Or is your point that the regular person can't be trusted to make an informed decision when presented with both sides of an argument (however loony one side may be)?

As to the "of course we should pay more attention, they're in charge"... such is the stuff of a slide into irrelevancy. If all we ever hear from the left is Soros, the DU, and Howard Dean, well... it'll be a damned long time indeed before they're allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Color me undisappointed.

Posted by: scott on June 5, 2005 11:39 AM

> "We hear about it eventually..." Yes, but only
> because of the far more liberal speech laws of
> your southern neighbor. Somewhat ironic, seeing
> as how (from your perspective) we're in the
> center of a malestrom of right-wing propaganda
> and media control, no?

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that it's a *government* gag order, or that it's possible to seal these transcripts permanently in Canadian law.

It's not. It's a judicial gag order to prevent potentially prejudicing a jury, and the government has absolutely nothing to say about the matter.

> I see people challenge Bush's statements all the
> time.

I don't see him ever *answer*, nor do I ever see it pointed out that he hasn't answered. Check out any White House press conference for that - or what happens to you if you want to see him live but *might* not agree with what he's saying.

> As to Gannon, please. I'll see your single
> "fake" news reporter and raise you the head of
> CNN, Dan Rather and most of CBS's news staff,
> and the cheif editor of Newsweek. Now, call or
> fold.

Let's see. Rather's worthless, since he was a dupe, the source of the memos has never been established, *and* the story resulted in a huge Republican windfall since the facts the memos alleged have *never* been investigated, despite the fact that they were in dispute before the memos existed. Newsweek, if you listen to the US Army, weren't responsible for a goddamned thing that they've been blamed for *and* their story was true. They're being hammered for finding and reporting the *truth*. Even assuming I grant you Rather and Jordan, let's start with Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and all the "Department of [whatever]" "news pieces" that got sent out. Let's move from there to the 700 Club, the PTC and their effect on the FCC (they are the source of 99.9% of FCC complaints), Sun Myung Moon and the newspapers he owns, and Fox News, who sued to get a legal precedent that *deliberately falsifying the news is not illegal* and hence they can fire their reporters freely for refusing to lie on camera without getting hit by whistleblower laws.

What about the documents that show planning for the Iraq war long in advance with an explicit declaration of intent to falsify as much evidence as need be? When was the last time you heard about those from your so-called "activist left-wing main-stream media"?

> I have absolutely no problem giving people who
> *say* religion should be taught in schools a
> platform.

Taking them seriously *as if they had a valid case* is the problem. You don't allow Last Thursdayists (those who believe that the world was created last thursday and everything before that is a clever trick) the same lattitude.

> Further, why *not* give everyone a voice from
> both sides? It allows us, the people, to decide
> who's got a point and who's a long-winded
> gasbag.

Sure - but when both sides have slick presentations and there are no long-winded gasbags, but one side is presenting objective, easily disproven lies - and the people providing the debate treat this as if it was equally as true as the other side. It's the responsibility of the media to *not* just reprint what people are saying. That's not news. What they should be doing is printing what people are saying *and* doing a little looking to find out and report if what they're saying is *true*.

> Or is your point that the regular person can't
> be trusted to make an informed decision when
> presented with both sides of an argument
> (however loony one side may be)?

I'm saying that when you can't see that a side is loony because the medium is specifically *not* reporting on how loony they are. I'm saying that for the average person, the media is where they get their information on topics they don't encounter in everyday life, and the media adds credibility to a story by presenting it without comment.

When CNN covers a story on "What are stars?" and interviews an astrophysicist on one side, and then a guy who thinks stars are fireflies who hit the ceiling and got stuck, and treats them both as having equally valid and equally supported points of view, they lend massive credibility to the loony.

To clinch my point (and the original, maligned speaker's point), opinion polls still show something like 50% of people think evolution has no evidence for it, Iraq had WMDs, the US was founded on being a Christian country (and the accompanying lie that the founders were Christian and wanted a religious government), and that gay marriage is somehow going to cause "the disintegration of the family" more than Dobson and Terry and Limbaugh's multiple divorces, or Britney Spears' 24 hour nupituals. Why? Because these things are presented as being equally valid as the truth, and the media doesn't call the government on lies, the Democrats rarely call the government on lies, and the government calls *everything* that disagrees with them lies, whether it's true or not.

> it'll be a damned long time indeed before
> they're allowed anywhere near the levers of
> power. Color me undisappointed.

Whereas I'm disappointed that so many supposed conservatives support Bush. Four years of relative fiscal conservatives who aren't interested in misguided wars of agreession in the name of Jesus, who like the American constitution the way it is and think that maybe, just maybe, people who aren't rich and white are people too - that all can't be so *totally* repugnant just because there's a misguided and innaccurate "left-wing" label on it, can it? Since when did "All men are created equal", "freedom and justice for all", "endowed with certain inalienable rights", and the concept of government having no place in private life and vice versa become a "liberal" value, and why are those bad?

Posted by: John on June 6, 2005 04:11 PM

It's a judicial gag order to prevent potentially prejudicing a jury, and the government has absolutely nothing to say about the matter.

The judiciary is in fact part of the government, yours and mine. Worse, the judiciary is (at least over here) unelected and unaccountable to the people. In other words, it was CANADIAN CITIZENS who had no say in the matter. The government, the unelected part of it, was in control at all times.

I don't see him ever *answer*, nor do I ever see it pointed out that he hasn't answered. Check out any White House press conference for that - or what happens to you if you want to see him live but *might* not agree with what he's saying.

Excuse me? You're saying the press corps never points out when the administration dodges a question? Hello? If you can read this and still hold this stance, well, I'm sorry but it's just about impossible not to engage in ad hominem with someone who only listens to what they want to hear.

They're being hammered for finding and reporting the *truth*.

Newsweek? The ones who admitted their story was wrong? The ones who retracted it?

Taking them seriously *as if they had a valid case* is the problem. You don't allow Last Thursdayists ... the same lattitude.

Of course you do. Of course you do. "A little sunlight is the best disinfectant" applies to everything. "Hoist them on their own petard" and "give them enough rope to hang themselves with" are just a few other aphorisms that apply here. How can a libertarian not agree with these principles?

I'm saying that when you can't see that a side is loony because the medium is specifically *not* reporting on how loony they are.

And here we come to the crux of the matter, the center of our fundamental disagreement if you will. You seem to believe "Joe and Jane Q Public" will believe whatever they happen to see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in the papers, verbatim and without any sort of critical assessment. Further, you seem to me to be implying Mr. and Ms. Public actually need protection from "incorrect" or "impure" ideas or opinions. Which always begs the question, "who decides?"

You call yourself a libertarian, yet at every point in this discussion I have seen this utterly classic socialist stance. "Who decides? Why, someone else certainly! Don't you understand what these people believe? Can't you see their ignorance?" Which is a damned short and scary stop on the way to "such beliefs are dangerous! They must be re-educated! Protected from impure thoughts! Provided with proper beliefs!" And who will provide them? Here we splat into the mud at the end of the slide, for the answer is as simple as it is horrifying, "The state! Only the state can provide! Only the state can protect! Only the state can educate!" Repeat it, and quickly now, the state is watching! einze zwei drie vier!! einze zwei drie vier!!

Your screeds against "aggression in the name of Jesus", "Christian country", "700 club", and the rest read as if they were lifted verbatum from the latest Democratic Underground posts.

The last paragraph is quite difficult for me to understand. You seem to be saying people who believe in fiscal conservatism, comparative isolationism, strict constitutional interpretations, and (this is where I get particularly confused) liberal citizenship laws should not support Bush? Notwithstanding the tenuous relationship of these points to each other, how does this stance have any relevance to our discussion of a media machine that is quite patently biased and quoted as having no interest in presenting both sides of a story with anything approaching fairness?

You may say people believe stupid things, and in actual fact I'll agree with you, for the most part. My ripost is that smart is not the same thing as wise, and the only person you can really trust with your liberty is yourself. People who say differently are the ones who want to take it from you. They may in fact have the best of intentions, but such is what makes up the paving stones of that well known road to that very bad place. Trust the people, no matter how tacky, ignorant, reactionary, or frustrating they may be. Trust as many as possible as frequently as you're able. This is quite simply the only proven path to lasting liberty.

We have for all our history wished only to be taken care of by those wiser than ourselves. It's in our very genes, this need for alpha, and, for all its seductive soothing and short successes, it has time and again lead to nothing but misery and ruin. It's taken almost all of that history for just a few people to come to terms with the fact that we're it. There are none wiser.

They set up a country that founded both of ours, and ever since nearly every "smart" person born in the world has gasped in horror at their innovation and tried to destroy it, cover it up, twist it back to alpha. Which, when combined with the efficiencies of modernity, created death and destruction on a scale literally unimaginable.

And yet we still ache for alpha, the leader who is smarter than we, who is wiser than we, who will bring peace and fairness and justice to all he surveys. The media, as all elites do, have decided they are the gaurdians of this cherished vision, and anyone who thinks differently is at best misguided and at worst dangerous.

This is what I fight against. This is where they, you, and anyone else who cherishes "left-wing" values goes wrong. There is no alpha. There will be no gaurdian. There are only people, us. We're it. Yes, it's a fine balance between a polity and a mob, but worse still is trading the mob for A Leader. After all, the worst thing mobs can do is burn down a city, kill innocents in perhaps the dozens.

Tell me friend, what do you think the worst a single man can do, when he's trusted with the power of an entire state?

"Why don't you ask ol' GW?"

Why don't you ask Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? The fact that the left continually conflates the former one with the latter three only cements the perception that the left is not only wrong but dangerously out of touch with reality. Again, color me undisappointed if people who can really believe these things are never allowed near the levers of power again.

Posted by: scott on June 7, 2005 02:42 PM

Wow. Scott I think he hooked you in just like you try to do with others. He got to you and got you to react out of character for you.

Posted by: Joshua on June 7, 2005 03:35 PM

Heh... nope, not really. I *enjoy* this sort of thing. It's been awhile since I've gotten to dance.

Posted by: scott on June 7, 2005 03:37 PM

hell - it's amusing to watch, if nothing else. I was in the fray, but Scott's doing a better job of it than I would.

ahhh - time to sit back with a nice red, some cheese, and Wendy's and wait for the latest installment.

Posted by: ronaprhys on June 7, 2005 06:49 PM

Next installment, right on schedule. It's interesting me, too.

> The judiciary is in fact part of the government,
> yours and mine.

True in the USA, not true in Canada.

> Worse, the judiciary is (at least over here)
> unelected and unaccountable to the people.

Deliberately made so by your founders, for the specific purpose of ensuring that those whose job it is to interpret the law are *not* influenced by public opinion, and instead rule solely on law, precedent, and Consitution.

This is *not* a bad thing, unless the manifestly unqualified become judges *and* those unqualified judges make decisions while not considering the facts and the law impartially.

> In other words, it was CANADIAN CITIZENS who had
> no say in the matter. The government, the
> unelected part of it, was in control at all
> times.

Again, judges aren't government. The inquiry results will be released and there's not a damn thing the government can do about it.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand Canada.

> Excuse me? You're saying the press corps never
> points out when the administration dodges a
> question?

I'm saying it never gets major press that I've seen, yes.

> Hello? If you can read this and still hold this
> stance,

#1: That's McClellan, not Bush.
#2: Yeah, show me an actual news article saying "the Press Secretary dodged questions, refused to give straight answers, and was generally a weasel, again"

>> They're being hammered for finding and
>> reporting the *truth*.

> Newsweek? The ones who admitted their story was
> wrong? The ones who retracted it?

The ones who said under government threat that their story was not verifiable and apologised for printing it, while the military said "It had nothing do with those riots, you idiots" and the inspectors are saying "But we've seen and heard about abuse of religious texts in the prisons from many sources"?

That Newsweek?

>> You don't allow Last Thursdayists ... the same
>> lattitude.

> Of course you do. Of course you do.

No, you don't - when was the last time you say an education "debate" between anything but a Christian creationist and somebody espousing evolution? Why aren't those "We're not creationists, we just think you should teach alternatives" people offering their shouting box to anyone else?

On this issue, creationists are the only people taken seriously in that way.

> "A little sunlight is the best disinfectant"
> applies to everything. "Hoist them on their own
> petard" and "give them enough rope to hang
> themselves with" are just a few other aphorisms
> that apply here.

Absolutely. So, how is it *not* the job of the media to provide the facts of the situation when they're reporting a story? When did reporting what's ACTUALLY GOING ON become something media didn't do?

> How can a libertarian not agree with these
> principles?

#1: I said "kind of like a Libertarian, but not a clueless asshole".

#2: A media who only reports what people on opposite sides of an issue *say*, without actually reporting on what they are talking *about*, is useless. By all means, let people say what they want. Then investigate what they're talking about and give it all the air time it deserves, and tell people *why*.

Hypothetical situation. It's the 1950s in rural Alabama, and you have a New York City reporter in town. A poor black child comes up and says "My father was lynched by the white Sheriff because he didn't bow his head fast enough, and nobody will do anything because the only cop is white." Reporter says "Wow, that's a great story waiting to happen" and interviews the Sheriff who says "That didn't happen. Why, nothing like that has EVER happened, ever, anywhere! We're the equality center of the universe!"

... and the reporter reports both of those statements, nothing else, does no other digging, and in the interest of being "fair and balanced", gives each side equal time and treats them equally as if both statements are equally credible.

And that's his whole story. He files it, feels good about a job well done, and moves on with his life.

That's what the complaint is about. For people who know nothing of rural Alabama in the 1950s, that's all they're *ever* going to see about those people and that place.

Do you see how that's an impediment to anyone actually ever finding out the truth of what's going on?

> And here we come to the crux of the matter, the
> center of our fundamental disagreement if you
> will. You seem to believe "Joe and Jane Q
> Public" will believe whatever they happen to see
> on TV, hear on the radio, or read in the
> papers, verbatim and without any sort of
> critical assessment.

#1: I can't speak absolutely to "verbatim and without critical assessment", but as for belief, they do. See above, where I talked about polls and the number of people who still believe in Iraqi WMDs, Saddam/Al Qaeda connections, proof of evolution, or, hell, the Swift Boat Veterans.

#2: Critical assessment requires context, which is denied if all you ever see is "balanced" opinion without context, and preconceptions from a seemingly credible source colour that context if it *is* found.

If I told you today, right now, that I had written proof that everything the Swift Boat Vets said was true, would you believe it?

Assume that I've got the real thing. Assume, as well, that despite *my* documents being real, people leap to discredit them and me - and while I can bring forth the writer of the document and experts to say they're real, the opposition brings forth paid commentators, professional psychics, and Star Trek geeks to say they're not real. Now assume that you're watching this on TV and in the newspaper, and there are some who report it heavily in my favour and some who report it heavily in against me, both of whom are decried in equal numbers by the opposite side as partisan wingnuts, and then there's the "fair and balanced" types who just report it straight with me and my experts, no mention of their credibility, against them and their experts, no mention of credibility, with *no independant investigation of my claims*.

And, imagine further, that at this point anyone investigating the actual facts and reporting anything *other* than a verbatim statement is "obviously partisan".

That's what you've got.

> Further, you seem to me to be implying Mr. and
> Ms. Public actually need protection from
> "incorrect" or "impure" ideas or opinions. Which
> always begs the question, "who decides?"

Nice strawman, but you've missed my point. I want *more* information. I want objective *reporting*, not a parrot. I want them to give context and details, and I want to be able to hear about what the FACTS are, and what the evidence is to support them.

And you're not getting that, and you're NEVER going to get that with the attitude that all sides of an issue should be rebroadcast verbatim and *not* investigated.

> You call yourself a libertarian, yet at every
> point in this discussion I have seen this
> utterly classic socialist stance.

"Like a Libertarian, but not a clueless asshole".

================

Thirty-second summary:
Individual freedom is a fine a noble goal, and worth pursuing for its own sake. At the same time, highways don't grow on trees. There are necessary things for the benefit of all people that cannot be produced or used effectively on a voluntarily cooperative local basis, and those are what government is for. The purpose of Government, then, necessarily follows to be to provide services that improve everyone's lot and to prevent unecessary infringements on individual freedoms. Government is necessary and can be good, but the best government is the smallest one necessary to accomplish these goals.

There are absolute necessities for a free and democratic society to function. The purpose of government is to act collectively to provide and protect these necessities, because individuals and collaborations will either be too small, or encompass everyone and be government in a de facto sense.

================

Back to this:

[snip]
> "The state! Only the state can provide! Only the
> state can protect! Only the state can educate!"
> Repeat it, and quickly now, the state is
> watching! einze zwei drie vier!! einze zwei drie
> vier!!

Again, you're attacking a strawman. I'm the one who wants more information about the actual evidence, as opposed to just what the state or church or mob with pitchforks and torches are saying.

And I'm saying that it's the media's job to either PROVIDE that context and information, or to stop PRETENDING to provide it. I've also said nothing about government or state intervention in the media to enforce this, I've said that I want the people to do it. Of course, with the education system the way it is, you've got entire generations of people who may or may not believe what they see on TV and head on the radio and read in the paper, but they've got no idea where to get more, no idea how to sift out bullshit, and no idea how to START asking questions.

Don't believe me? Try teaching a high school class.

> Your screeds against "aggression in the name of
> Jesus", "Christian country", "700 club", and the
> rest read as if they were lifted verbatum from
> the latest Democratic Underground posts.

I notice how you folded on the issue of the supposed left-wing bias in your media.

Those came to mind because they're among the more offensive of the recent cases where there objective facts available, and your precious "liberal media" allows statements contradictory to those to pass without comment, AND then presents them as having equal weight as the facts.

For the record, I don't think your media is right-biased, either - I think they're profit-biased, in a bad way, and they've discovered that offending the right is a good way to lose business. It just so happens that the most easily offended and loudest people on the right are the ones who are doing all the misleading, misrepresentation, and misdirection. Sensationalism has replaced the truth as the goal, because you have entire generations who've been brought up to value entertainment more than thinking. Personally, I think a media outlet that put serious efforts towards providing *objective context* would get a lot of fans, but that is NOT common corporate thinking these days.

> The last paragraph is quite difficult for me to
> understand. You seem to be saying people who
> believe in fiscal conservatism, [...] should not
> support Bush?

Of course they shouldn't. Bush is not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word. Your deficit is soaring, your infrastructure is tanking, your trade balance is far our of whack, and he's pouring more and more money into projects and policies that harm the economy and the average American.

> people who believe in comparative isolationism,
> [...] should not support Bush?

Yes and no. "Isolationist" is what Bush is - he's just got it into his head that there are things America wants that America will get, and screw everyone who doesn't support him. More, it's what a lot of his loonier supporters are. "Strict isolationist", he's not. I was more referring to the people who think that going to war frivolously is a bad idea.

> people who believe in strict constitutional
> interpretations, [...] should not support Bush?

Of course they shouldn't. Have you seen the damage he's done to your Bill of Rights? The amount of work he's put into making sure equal rights for all citizens is a thing of the past?

> people who believe in [...] liberal citizenship
> laws should not support Bush?

Uh, yeah. The job of government is to stay the fuck out of my home, bedroom, church, and, in fact entirely out of my life as much as possible while protecting my ability to live that life in the manner I see fit. Until my life causes an impediment in someone else's, you damn well should have *no* right to object to anything I say or do. Government *especially* should not be making laws with religious motivations or requirements, and they for damn sure shouldn't be legislating the beliefs of *any* religion into law until and unless they can show that those laws serve a valuable secular purpose. That's the whole point of the Establishment Clause - you get to practice any religion you want, but your religion will *never* be enforced on anyone else.

And that's not what Bush is doing. Don't like religious arguments? Take a look at good old-fashioned civil liberties, or laws to keep the government accountable to the people.

I don't share the traditional ingrained American paranoia about government information, but I find your new national ID cards to be deeply scary, especially when they voted *out* the amendment that would require that the database *not* be used to track religion, gun ownership, group membership, voting records, or use of your freedom of expression.

> Notwithstanding the tenuous relationship of
> these points to each other, how does this stance
> have any relevance to our discussion of a media
> machine that is quite patently biased and

You brought up that you were happy without the Democrats anywhere near power. I was pointing out that you'd pretty much have to be totally insane to want Bush.

> quoted as having no interest in presenting both
> sides of a story with anything approaching
> fairness?

Once again, "presenting both sides equally and considering both sides to be equally valid" is *NOT* the same as "presenting all sides fairly."

Once again, the job of the media is to provide facts and a FAIR assessment of all sides.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fair
"Being in accordance with relative merit or significance"

It's the job of the news to present the whole story, or as much of it as they can get, in the interests of sharing enough information to the public so they can make those educated decisions you want so much. They're not getting it. Again, because it's a *perfect* example, how often do you hear "evolution is just a theory" or "evolution has not been proven" or "there is debate about evolution's validity" or "intelligent design *is* scientific" pass without comment?

Just because I believe that aliens delivered John Kerry's hair from a bizarre Martian toupee factory doesn't mean that it's "fair" to take my views and weight them equally in your presentation with Kerry saying "No, this is my real hair" and not present the viewers with the evidence (I have a receipt and he has proof that that's really a part of his scalp).

> You may say people believe stupid things, and in
> actual fact I'll agree with you, for the most
> part.

They do, but the point is not whether what they believe is stupid or not. The point is that belief is too often masqueraded as fact, and facts are totally neglected. In the absence of fact, with have two seemingly rational opinions, each given equal time, equal weight, and thus imparted with equal credibility. If you *had* the facts, you'd know that one of them is bullshit and the other is not, but what I'm saying, and what the original comment that got you so angry is saying, is that the media is NOT GIVING YOU THE FACTS.

> My ripost is that smart is not the same thing as
> wise, and the only person you can really trust
> with your liberty is yourself. People who say
> differently are the ones who want to take it
> from you.

In a word: Bullshit. To create a civilisation, you *have* to trust your neighbour to some extent. - and, without a civilisation, you're at the mercy of your neighbour should he prove to be stronger than you. You have to believe that he wants what you want, or, at least, that you're playing by the same mutually acceptable rules. That's the entire point of democratic government - to provide a situation where everyone has that liberty, and to trust that the system will protect your liberty as much as everyone else's *and* have that trust rewarded.

> Trust the people, no matter how tacky, ignorant,
> reactionary, or frustrating they may be. Trust
> as many as possible as frequently as you're
> able. This is quite simply the only proven path
> to lasting liberty.

... and you go from "trust only yourself" to "trust all the people". I presume you're using this in the "We The People" sense - a platonic collective as opposed to a group of individuals.

My point is that I want to do that and I damn well want The People to have the tools they need to make a decision. The People didn't believe in bacteria, but when provided with evidence that washing your hands kept you from getting sick, they accepted that and started washing their hands. Now, imagine that all You The People have is "Wash your hands or you will get sick" versus "Getting sick is inevitable. Washing is irrelevant" and both are given equal weight, and no evidence is shown, and not washing is how you've always been - what's the smart decision, People?

(assume, for a moment, that you can't wash your hands and find out for yourself. It's not the greatest example.)

Again, same issue. The statement you're quoting Linda Foley on is out of context and you're taking meaning from it that isn't there. A more cynical sort would say that *this* is an exaple of exactly what I'm talking about.

Present the facts. The facts. The whole facts. When somebody is lying, CALL THEM ON IT. When they have no support for their position, point it out. When they have huge support for their position and the facts suggest they're telling the truth, POINT IT OUT. That's what the whole point of media is, to get the truth out to all the people who aren't there on the spot!

> This is what I fight against. This is where
> they, you, and anyone else who cherishes
> "left-wing" values goes wrong. There is no
> alpha. There will be no gaurdian. There are only
> people, us. We're it.

Uh, yeah. That's not an exclusively right-wing position, nor is the desire for an abdication of responsibility a left-wing thing.

Stop, go back, read that last sentence again. Please.

Loonies on both sides want the single cosmic omnibenevolent leader to tell them what to do.

Your average ACLU member wants, more than anything else, all people to be treated equally and fairly. You shit on them because... they think you shouldn't be able to arrest people without trial? They think that racially motivated practices are repugnant?

The purpose of police is so the able can protect the weak and allow them their freedom. That's another American cultural thing I've never understood - the cops are YOU. That's not a vast outside guardian, that's the people. Same thing with courts, and IMPARTIAL AND UNACCOUNTABLE judges, and rights of the accused, and all of that. It's all there to make sure, collectively, that you get all those wonderful freedoms and maintain as much right to direct the country as *everyone* else. Not just people who agree with you, not just people who share a skin colour or a religion with you, everyone. That's the entire point of democracy, and why the extremes on both sides are scary - on one side, you have punishment for success and reward for failure, and on the other, you have irrevocable punishment for failure and cripplingly low odds of success.

And I think there's a spot in the middle. I'm a fiscal conservative who thinks that the minimum taxation and spending to do the job is the right one, but who also believes that there *is* a job to be done.

I pay more in taxes than you do, but I will *never* go broke paying a medical bill, and I pay half as much into socialised medicine as you do on medical insurance, on average - and 80% of American personal bankruptcies are still because the medical insurance wasn't enough. Worse, you have millions of people who *can't* go to a doctor when they're sick, and so they get worse and provide a bigger burden on the system when it's *required* to give them expensive cure instead of cheap prevention, AND they're broke from the bills.

Take welfare and social insurance: homeless and starving people are a burden, and support when they need it provides them with a way to stop being a burden, in most cases. It's abused, but the abuses are
A) largely controllable,
B) relatively small in scope
C) better than the alternative, since there are people who actually *need* them and use them properly.

There are limits, and they're reached pretty quickly in my opinion, but these are cases of We The People putting our collective resources to the good of all and having the whole society be better off for it.

And social... I'm not really sure. "Liberal" implies all kinds of handouts and self-help programs. "Conservative" implies a great desire to make sure nobody else acts any differently than I do. Call me a social minimalist, then - everyone should pretty well be free to live any way they want without reward or punishment until their life negatively impacts somebody else's.

> Yes, it's a fine balance between a polity and a
> mob, but worse still is trading the mob for A
> Leader.

And yet you support Bush.

> "Why don't you ask ol' GW?"
> Why don't you ask Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? The
> fact that the left continually conflates the
> former one with the latter three only cements
> the perception that the left is not only wrong
> but dangerously out of touch with reality.

Not "conflates", but if you don't see parallels between Bush's administration and Germany in the 1930s, you're either fooling yourself or you're not looking because you've got a knee-jerk reaction to the associations.

Step back for a moment and try to look at it without emotion.

Bush is not a dictator, nor is he Hitler. Comparisons on those levels weaken the very real point that he is, however, very much mirroring the tactics Hitler used to rise to become Chancellor of Germany, and he is strongly working to remove checks and balances to his authority in the pursuit of his goals.

He's probably even pursuing those goals with the best of intentions, thinking he really is doing God's work and making a better world. I can't see inside his head, so I can't tell you for sure, but I see no reason to believe otherwise. That doesn't change that his stated goals are disturbing and his tactics, and those of his supporters, are downright frightening and not at all in keeping with the idea of a free society. Some of his strongest supporters, in fact, are actively working to destroy the chunks of the Constitution that they don't like and to enforce their own views on everyone, and a plurality of Americans seems to be accepting this blithely, and THAT scares the crap out of most of the world.

> Again, color me undisappointed if people who
> can really believe these things are never
> allowed near the levers of power again.

Would it help any if I told you that, honestly, anyone who claims Bush is Hitler gets laughed at *everywhere* I go? And that I can't think of anyone worth taking seriously who's ever suggested that the comparison extends beyond the use of patriotism and propaganda to advance an agenda and energised a base of support.

The problem is that Hitler is an iconic figure in history, especially on the internet, and it's nearly impossible to make reference to Hitler the Politician without getting Hitler the Genocidal Dictator mixed up in there.

Running out of time to edit, gotta go. If I've said anything especially inconsistent or incoherent, it's probably a typo and I'll get it next time. Your serve.

Posted by: John on June 7, 2005 09:53 PM

Both you guys need a good editor. I have a sharp pencil ready. Where is Jeff in all of this. I would have expected his opinion by now. John, by the way as the other people who have made comments know, I am Scott's Mom who disagrees with him on most political things, especially George the Younger. lol

Posted by: Pat on June 7, 2005 11:38 PM

Wow - I guess that massive amounts of typing equate to a valid arguement and that bringing in all sorts of topics aside from the one at hand might help.

Okay, maybe that's an unfair jab, but it does seem to be a bit excessive to the topic at hand and I'm not sure we're getting to the fundamentals here.

It does seem that John's argument has an assumption that it's the media's job to deliver the 'facts' and, furthermore, to report what folks are saying and then give some sort of a validity 'grade' to it - unless I'm missing something. The problem I see with this is that bias will inevitably work its way into the facts. Secondarily, whose to say that any presentation of the facts will be complete? MSM doesn't have a good vehicle for feedback and the like. At best you'll get a correction mentioned at the bottom of some random page in the paper unless it's a story on the level of Rathergate and the other MSM sources dive in like sharks on the kill. Really, the only source of a check and balance that I've seen is the blogosphere - which only works for a small percentage of the world at this point.

Scott's argument works on responsibility. In other words, it's the responsibility of the media to let each side present their 'facts' and my responsibility as a citizen to review, verify, understand and then form an opinion. This also has a flaw in that cranks can get equal airtime. However, there's less room for bias, but more work for the individual citizen - but anyone who told you that being a citizen involved no real work other than paying taxes lied to you.

All in all, I'll take the responsibility side.

And, by the way, before you go attacking our healthcare system, realize that the vast majority of research that makes your healthsystem works comes because we, in the United States, pay for it. So, you might not go broke due to a medical bill - and your welcome, glad I could help you on that.

Posted by: ronaprhys on June 9, 2005 09:31 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?