It appears that the Sacramento Bee editor defends Rick Perry “BOOM!” cartoon and, in doing so, illustrates the tactic of doubling down on a dishonest assertion and rationalizing that dishonesty by diversion. The rationalization is to assert that the objection to the cartoon is ” being disrespectful for the victims of this tragedy” and a personal assault on the governor’s “disregard for worker safety.” Those assertions personalize the issue, create a straw man, and completely ignores the actual message of the actual cartoon.
Archive for Media
“Among the most troubling questions from this episode is why the Internet’s ability to spread information at gigabit speed didn’t result in the story being killed.”
It’s FREE! It has the taint of mysterious (i.e. magic) technology! The media says it’s true! The government is going to do it – for everybody, for FREE! Feels good. Must be.
but it isn’t.
Wi-Fi “as free as air”—the totally false story that refuses to die – Journalism goes wrong and just keeps getting worse. Jon Brodkin tells the tale.
“The story is still out there. Three days after anyone who knew what they were talking about debunked the free Wi-Fi myth, three days after the Post was notified of their mistake, the false story is still published on the Post website and many other sites as if it were true all along.”
This is one of those things that doesn’t pass the smell test but there aren’t many in the surface media who have any sense of smell any more, it seems and their audience is also quite gullible for pipe dreams. That is called a positive feedback loop and the result is not pretty. What Jon notes is the problem of stimulating just a little bit of critical reading. It seems to be an impossible task.
“The assault on the privacy of these law-abiding citizens, in the name of the liberal media’s anti-gun agenda, is nothing short of tragic. But nearly as tragic is the damage this does to the cause of open government.”
Woman Being Stalked Thanks To Newspaper Disclosing Gun Owner Addresses at SayAnythingBlog
Open government means a lot of records are available online. You can use Zillow to look up any address and see public property records. Concealed carry permits are another that often fall prey to information requests. Newspaper abuse of such requests was highlighted when a New Jersey paper published a map mashup with CCW permit holder information.
Responsibilities, especially civil, ethical, and moral ones, accompany rights. When political players abuse their responsibilities, they attack the rights of all. Rights become an ideological football to play a game neither side can win.
See also: Outing the Gun Owners and the Left’s New Savagery at American Thinker
“What is different is not the degree to which the two Harvard alumni at times seemed confused in the limelight, but that the partisan media were determined to suggest that the similarly accruing lapses were incidental to Obama’s genius, but a window into Bush’s imbecility.”
Professor Hanson takes a look at BDS and its effects in the light of reality, a reality that is still denied by many who still haven’t quite cleared the froth from their mouths that resulted from their Bush Derangement issues.
John Hinderaker says The Times Embarrasses Itself on Guns–Again! and takes apart an editorial that makes many suspicious claims about gun control.
“So if the Times really cared about crime, as opposed to making a political point about guns, it wouldn’t be hard to figure out where to focus. But at the Times, the paper’s political agenda always takes priority over the facts.”
What is on the table is a collection of claims that are not quite the ‘whole truth’ but rather nice, quick, comfortable sound bites. Putting them down usually requires getting below the surface and takes a bit of work. Why is the U.S. homicide rate rather high? A proper answer has to look at the ethnic distribution of homicide. That raises ugly questions of race as well as the question of why homicide is more prevalent where gun controls are more strict.
The goal in such debates does not appear to be that of trying to learn and find solutions. Rather, it is a matter of supporting preconceived desires in any way, honest or no, possible.
“Costas’ remarks constitute exploitation of a tragedy in order to push a political point that Whitlock, Costas, and NBC no doubt already believed, and only used the moment to forward. They all should be ashamed of themselves. But our current media culture is one in which shame does not exist. Neither does the truth.
“What Costas and Whitlock and NBC offered is not “perspective.” It is a lie. It is also a broadside attack on the rights of responsible citizens to equip ourselves to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Will Bob Costas, NBC, and Jason Whitlock assume personal responsibility for every American who would be alive today if they had possessed the means to defend themselves from violent criminals? Of course not. To them, such victims do not even exist.”
Bryan Preston lays it out about Bob Costas, NBC Exploit Kansas City Chiefs Tragedy to Attack Americans’ Constitutional Right of Self-Defense.
“Note that this isn’t a question; it is a statement of what the interviewer believes to be a well-known fact. Yet it is an absurd perspective on Obama’s first term, pretty much the opposite of the truth. “
John Hinderaker takes a look at The Marco Rubio Interview, and the Budget Negotiations. One of the more noticed items in a GQ interview with Marco Rubio was a gotcha’ question about the age of the earth. That one is a set up to portray a Republican as an ignorant rube even if his answer was much on line with Obama’s.
John notes that the interviewer also suffered from other problems. The false paradigm and absence of intellectual integrity in much of the surface media was on parade. The example here, that the Republicans have no agenda, is one example. The recent comments by a Democratic Party leader about Republicans being only old white men is another. There is dissonance between how easy it is to show that these ideas are false and the confidence by which they are held as true. The problem the Republicans have is that following the confidence is much easier than assessing the reality.
If you ever wondered how Castro, Chavez, Stalin, and the rest of their ilk gained power, a study of the dissonance John notes should provide clues.
“If, in celebrating his victory Obama wanted to give credit where credit is due, he might want to think about calling some of America’s top journalists, since their favorable approach almost certainly made the difference between victory and defeat.”
Rich Noyes describes Five ways the mainstream media tipped the scales in favor of Obama. Illustrations for the ‘gaffe patrol,’ the fact checking that needed its own fact checking, biased debate moderators, the Benghazi Blackout, and burying the bad economy are the topics.
“In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year”
The previous administration provides a good base for comparison and contrast. Sandy vs Katrina could be added to the Noyes list, for example. Green energy and crony capitalism are others. One shouldn’t forget Dan Rather and the TANG, either, much less Kerry and his swiftboat buddies.
The problem is that media bias will only be overcome by intellectual integrity on the part of the voting public. That is, an appropriate skepticism about what one reads with due consideration for its implications and sources is needed. The challenge for anyone on the wrong side of the Pravda Corps is how to get past it and to engender a willingness in the voting public to do the work needed to see reality.
“But now that Obama is safely in the White House for another four years, the press is sure to churn out what can charitably be called “now they tell us” stories about these matters, now that any potential election impact has passed.”
The IBD suggests 5 Big Stories The Media Will ‘Discover’ After The Election. The issue is the voter’s responsibilities to see what is in front of them. The real story of the election of 2012 is the surface media, the so-called news outlets that are most available to most people.
“On issue after issue, in fact, the media didn’t cover Obama’s first term as much as they’ve covered up for him, whether it was the dismal state of the economy, the failure of his policies or the increased troubles abroad.
“The effort worked remarkably well, helping to shield Obama from responsibility, protecting his image, providing a solid floor under his approval ratings, and ultimately a second term in the White House.”
What are the “5 Big Stories?” IBD identifies the lack of any known agenda for a 2nd term, the true state of the economy, the debt and entitlement crises that loom large, the debt ceiling, the future of medical care and costs, the silliness of (and lack of integrity in) the administration’s deficit cutting plan, and foreign policy as illustrated in the Benghazi incident.
The WSJ also gets into the voter responsibility and integrity issue in getting to the core of things. “This was all a caricature even by the standards of modern politics. But it worked with brutal efficiency—the definition of winning ugly.” The editorial is Hope over Experience. The caricature was accepted, the propaganda swallowed, and the implications ignored. That sort of behavior strikes fear into the hearts of more responsible voters.
“If you let me pick the time frame, I can show almost anything said by anybody to be imprecise.
As a professional engineer with 34 years of industry experience, I found Mitt Romney’s executive-level command of the relevant facts with respect to the oil and gas industry and energy policy to be impressive.
CNN, not so much. Their fact-checkers seem so intent on “exposing” Romney that they bypassed the part about understanding the issues before they cry foul.”
After the first debate of candidates for POTUS, there was an effort on one side to cry ‘foul’ on the other. The usual means was to assert that the other side lied through his teeth on just about every point. Steve Maley takes on one of these efforts by Fact Checking CNN’s Fact Checkers. He provides a good case study illustrating the techniques used in trying to play gotcha’ with ‘fact checking’ rather than trying to understand points made in a debate.
Checking facts seems like such a good idea. There are many cases regarding current issues where it is more a laboratory for illustrating bias and logical fallacy.
Who was it? Ann Richards, governor of Texas, who said something about “he can’t help it”? In this case it is the media. See the previous post for the psychologists view about why.
“The first new tactic is cited in an unprecedented and badly needed letter that MRC head Brent Bozell and over 20 other conservative leaders, commentators, and media personalities sent to ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC — the four Obama-worshipping alphabet networks — on September 25. The signers accurately accused the recipients of “rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome.”
Those who dismiss the letter signers’ complaints could not be more wrong.”
Tom Blumer describes the Fraudulent ‘Fact Checks’ and Preemptive Narratives and suggests that “Today’s press would make the Soviet-era Pravda and Izvestia proud.”
The letter describes many well known propaganda tactics but number eight in the list is new. “The abuse of “fact checks” has become so rampant that it’s reasonable to believe that their creations are coordinated with Democrats in key campaigns to, well, rig the game.” Examples are provided and some of them are obstinate denials of reality.
Limbaugh this morning notes that many depend only upon the surface media for their information about events. That is why this issue is gaining pushback well beyond the nominal market forces. It scares people who do dig deeper than the surface.
“This is all bad news and very disturbing, but there is a crumb of comfort to be had. Because these failures happened on President Obama’s watch, the mainstream press isn’t particularly interested in relentless, non-stop scrutiny of the unpleasant news.”
W.M. Mead says Thank God W Isn’t President Anymore because we aren’t getting an onslaught of America bashing, administration lambasting, and victim sympathizing we’d see otherwise.
“As it is, however, we just get the bare bones of what’s happening in Afghanistan, with no long, rolling wallows in the failure, no painstaking, step by step analysis of just how a credulous and inexperienced president ordered the military to execute a strategy which it didn’t recommend and couldn’t make work. There will be no analysis of how someone like Vice President Biden has been wrong at every twist and turn of the wars of the last ten years — though if he were Vice President Cheney every single error he had ever made would be hurled in our faces night after night.”
Nonetheless, Mead falls into the pit himself in judgements and rose colored glasses regarding 9/11 and Iraq as well hoping that maybe the journalists will change their stripes.
In many respects it is a matter of accountability. The surface media journalists are seeing the results of their bias in a shrinking market share. The politicians in the difficulty of getting votes to win office. As with the debate about welfare and medical care and other social issues, sometimes it takes a hard encounter with reality to shake one out of a comfort zone and into a realization about what one must do.
“These people simply don’t belong to the Western civilization with its traditions of freedom, democracy, and enlightenment. They belong to a medieval civilization controlled by ultimate cults that can never be questioned, divine entities and beliefs that have the right to create a whole hierarchy of power here on Earth. The similarity to the Islamic fundamentalists is particularly hard to overlook in these days when we see how both of these groups are terrified that someone is even allowed to talk about something.”
Luboš provides his take on the Insane reaction to the PBS interview with Anthony Watts. It seems that PBS made the mistake of allowing one of ‘those people’ to speak. It seems that many in the PBS audience considered that to be an outrage. Their position is not to ‘debate’ or investigate but rather to shut down and censor any idea that threatens their fantasies.
“Above all, though: What in the world is a journalist doing offering such rancid advice? In general terms, the same thing all those “fact checkers” are doing. Also the same thing journalists did when they slandered the Tea Party as racist, and when they wrote puff pieces about ObamaCare and insisted the public would learn to love it, and when they falsely blamed conservatives for the Tucson massacre.
During the Obama era, so-called mainstream journalism has increasingly been characterized by a blurring of the distinction between not only fact and opinion but opinion and propaganda. One can only hope the audience sees matters more clearly.”
James Taranto describes The Pinocchio Press: The bizarre rise of “fact checking” propagandists.
There is something going on here and it does not bode well …
“It has now become an accepted fact by the mainstream press that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are engaged in a campaign of, to put it charitably, untruths.”
“But most of the allegations of lying don’t hold up well to closer examination. Worse, some of the media complaints about the campaign’s veracity are themselves based on factual mistakes.”
Fact checking is, in itself, becoming a story and an issue. John Merline asks Are the Media Telling the Truth About Romney’s “Lies”? and gets into the background.
There is a convenience in just labeling the opposition a ‘lying machine’ but that really doesn’t do much for anything except personal comfort. It is a denial based on a logical fallacy. That is not a healthy approach for anything.
From the response, it appears that Paul Ryan hit a few nerves in his convention speech. The surface media is full of headlines about fact checking finding falsehoods. Ed explains the problem: Fact-checking the factcheckers on Ryan’s speech
“Clearly, the job of “fact checker” in the mainstream media must not involve research skills. Nor does it take much in comprehension, because these supposed fact checks started with a misrepresentation of what Ryan actually said. “
Ann Coulter provides another example in asserting that Yes, Romney’s Welfare Ad Is Accurate. “It is striking that everyone who actually knows something about the 1996 welfare reform law says that Romney’s ad is accurate.” Yet there are ‘fact checkers’ who insist otherwise.
The key item to note, to compare and contrast, in both Ed’s and Ann’s columns compared to the allegations of those such as Reich and the so called fact checkers is that they get down to sources. What was actually said and upon what is it based? When they take on the ‘fact checkers’ they show you who said what so you can see for yourself what the reality really is. That is a contrast to the use of logical fallacies, misquoting, or other distortion often found in trying to dismiss someone as untruthful.
Commentator Juan Williams appears to have stepped in it when he dismissed Ann Romney’s RNC speech as that of a corporate wife. John Hayward describes the situation as Juan Williams versus “corporate wives”
“Liberals have already said some very stupid things about Ann Romney, and they’ll say plenty more in the days to come. They’ll have a hard time getting over the nitwit bar set by Fox News commentator Juan Williams on Tuesday night.”
“There’s a whole lot of foolishness packed into Williams’ strange critique… beginning with his apparent inability to offer a single word of analysis about the speech he was paid to study and review. In one concentrated blast, he emitted some of the most persistent liberal myths:
1. Only rich corporate executives can afford to let their wives stay at home and raise the kids. (That’s what he meant by “corporate wife,” for those still trying to figure out what the hell he was thinking.)
2. Success and wealth are products of “luck” and “blessing,” not personal risk, sacrifice, and hard work. …
3. No one who is not currently suffering in some way can “speak for” people who are struggling to make ends meet….
4. Different Democrat constituencies require special sympathy and policies that are different from, and take priority over, general American prosperity….
This is line with Robert Reich using the Christian Science Monitor as a platform for his Romney lying machine thesis. As with Williams, he gets into very interesting distortions trying to rationalize his view. This latest is only supported by the ‘everybody thinks so’ logical fallacy. What he doesn’t do is to take a look at the particular administrative action that Romney cites much less listen to what anyone outside of his circle says. The fact checkers that Reich holds up as honest arbitrators are not doing their reputation very good when they take an approach as silly as Juan Williams on Ann Romney.
Another on this is Professor Williams on the ‘tax the rich’ meme. The rich don’t pay enough?. This is often proclaimed as an assertion that the rich must pair their fair share. It is the sort of idea that is behind the Reid allegations about Romney’s taxes and Williams on Romney being too rich to have any commonality with middle class wifery.
“According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.”
The data begs the question about just what these folks consider ‘fair?’
As one commentator noted, the RNC speeches could be themed as state governors who were children of immigrants that took turned their states around from a path to bankruptcy to economic health. They did build that success. In states such as Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, South Carolina and more there is a story of success and achievement that seems to be cloaked by the surface media. The RNC seems to hope it can get that story out from under that cloak. Reich, Williams, and their ilk seem to be getting desparate trying to keep the cover in place.
The Guardian has two examples this morning to illustrate a pattern in detachment from reality. How do newspapers deal with politicians who go on repeating lies? and How the Swift boat veterans stack up against 2012’s special ops group.
Of course, for this news outlet, the lies are from Romney. In this case is is about the administration’s relaxing of work for welfare rules. The Washington Post fact check is cited as support for the idea that Romney’s assertions are lies. The problem is, though, that one of the architects of the welfare reform act, Dick Morris, supports Romney’s view.
“Worse. Despite the fact-checking process that is supposed to inform its journalism, America’s press is not confronting Romney about his falsehood. He is being allowed to get away with it.”
The end up with another famous reality distortion:
“But lies still beat us. After all, we made war on Iraq because too many newspapers happily accepted the political lie that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was able to launch them within 45 minutes.”
The explanation is the lies repeated often enough seem to take on a mantle of truth. The problem is that they are dealing in projection on this. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth still rankles as the left side of the political edge still decries ‘swiftboating’ as a dishonest smear tactic. The latest edition of this idea that military veterans standing witness to their own observations is a ‘dishonest smear’ is a 22 minute video put out by former special forces and security personnel on the administration’s use of leaks for personal gain.
“The emergence of a group of former special operations soldiers dedicated to running adverts critical of President Barack Obama’s national security policy has raised the prospect of a 2012 version of the infamous Swift boat campaign.”
“At first glance both Opsec and the Swift boaters appear to have many similarities drawn from the shadowy underworld of political dirty tricks. But there are important differences too.”
Of course, one of those “political dirty tricks” are about the straw man of partisanship. A great deal of effort is made in the article to tie these despicable groups to the evil Republican conspiracy.
What is encouraging is that these sorts of delusions in the media are becoming a topic of discussion in themselves. For instance, the lack of coverage of an attack on the Family Research Center by a gunman who professes that his motive was that he didn’t like the anti-gay politics of the group is noted as a comparison to just how quick and extensive the coverage has been on attacks that were mistakenly credited to right wing political assaults.
What is also important now is that one can fact check the fact checkers simply by comparing what was actually said and done to what is claimed. Whether it is the “didn’t build that”, or the “ya’ll in chains”, or the work requirements EO, or the swiftboating, or the Mediscare efforts the original is laid on the table for all to see. Only those in a severe stage of psychological denial can set aside that evidence.
“There are many other examples of excoriating the Romney’s comments, but also failing to provide a contextual video or an actual quote. Fundamental to the ‘polishing’ process is the misrepresentation. Contrast that style with the discussions about the Obama comments regarding who built that business. Those journalistic discussions are nearly always accompanied by video evidence and context.”
Bruce Johnson calls it The Liberal Media’s Shiny Object Factory. It does provide a rich source of comparison and contrast for the ‘both sides do it’ meme.
The headlines are indicative: The Guardian says “Romney campaign tries to pick up the pieces from gaffe-strewn London visit” and US News asks “Are Romney’s Olympic Gaffes Distracting From His Foreign Policy Tour?”
What’s up? Piers Morgan explains the reality on YouTube. What you have is the media proclaiming “gaffe-strewn” a mild comment by a politician summarizing complaints that were in public discussion for weeks.
You can see the same thing regarding the gun control issue trying to parlay the latest massacre into political gain. It is what candidates on the right are up against, especially when their opponents are weak.
Then are the reports that Romney donors and those people appearing in his ads are being subject to harassment. That and the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha provide examples about the suppression of free speech that doesn’t fit with left oriented ideologies.