Exposure

Hugh Hewitt (05ma04)

Yesterday I had some fun with Washington Post columnist’s Terry Neal’s pilfering of Democratic talking points for his silly column on the disfigured filibuster.  Ace of Spades picked up the theme.  Then Patterico, Pejmanesque, and Bainbridge demolished filibuster apologist and Rutgers professor David Greenberg, who had risen to defend the Dems’ unprecedented obstructionism in the pages of the Los Angeles Times.  And ConfirmThem’s Andrew Hyman fisked an AP story that advanced the Dem talking points in the guise of a “story.”

Those are just three examples of the blogosphere acting as a sort of National Hissile Defense system.  The left, whether on op-ed pages, regular columns, or “news” reports throws up Democratic talking points dressed up as objective analysis, and the netted fact-checkers of the center-right blogosphere undress them all.  This cycle of propaganda published/propaganda exposed has a huge though slow-moving effect on public opinion –the discrediting of the left because of the left’s refusal to deal in hard facts.  the big bet of Ralph Neas et al is that if they repeat “60 filibusters” often enough, that the public will buy it, or that if enough nuts step up with anti-Bolton screeds, one of them will stick.

This is the glass house. It is becoming more difficult for any organization to control what is seen and what is exposed. What you said in the past is readily available for contrast to what you say now. What you say can be easily compared to what someone else says. Your allegations, assumptions, and assertions can be contrasted to what has actually occurred.

Transparency is a means of accountability. In the realm of political debate it allows the public to effectively assess the arguments and form more informed and reasoned opinions less likely to be tilted by misperception and deceit.

Comments are closed.