And speaking of truth and the press…
…which I was just doing…I’ve got a question: why does the right believe what the MSM says when it publishes supposed quotes from Republican leaders that are designed to turn the right against the GOP?
This is a phenomenon I’ve noticed for over a decade, and it seems particularly strong lately. It goes like this: a paper like the Times or the WaPo reports something a prominent Republican government figure has said or is said to be planning, something the MSM knows will rile up the right against that figure. I’m not talking about direct quotes; I’m talking about something somebody unnamed supposedly told somebody about someone else.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there aren’t plenty of reasons to be angry at a lot of members of the GOP. But I prefer to get angry at the things they actually say and in particular what they actually do.
I assume that the MSM is well aware of the rifts on the right and would dearly love to deepen and widen them. If a person doesn’t believe the MSM tells the truth about most things, why believe them when they’re reporting rumors about figures on the right, particularly if those rumors indicate things that would gall the rank and file on the right? And yet I continually see this happening, even though so many of these reports are either unverifiable or fail to pan out over time.
Far too many members of the Republican establishment are clueless and self-satisfied beyond the reach of parody. Just a few days ago, the egregious Karl Rove published a typically myopic op-ed in the WSJ, demonstrating that the GOP, at its highest levels, is invested not in continuing those policies of Trumpism which made DJT so popular with working-class and middle-class Americans, but in returning the party to the follies of the Bush years, and to the sensibly-repudiated policies of McCain and Romney, which are appealing to corporate America, the donor class, and various lawyers and lobbyists in the DC swamp, but which have been decisively rejected by those Americans who embraced the MAGA agenda.
j e:
Of course. But that doesn’t address the point I was getting at in this post.
A couple of example would be helpful. If only because I’m not aware of the “unnamed sources” gambit, playing out, recently.
TJ:
I haven’t bothered to keep notes on them over time, and to go back and develop a list would take me many hours. I often see them, though, especially in discussions on blogs. They usually take the form of “a source says” that a certain GOP senator or member the House has been saying this or that privately or is about to do this or that. Alternatively, they take the form of someone on the left saying that this person on the right told them such and such.
One example from the past that does stick in my mind were the many reports that George W. Bush would come out as backing Biden. They were so numerous that an official spokesperson for Bush publicly denied them. Now, that’s not to say that Bush didn’t secretly support Biden. But he certainly never endorsed or campaigned for him, which is what the rumors indicated would be happening.
That one was a bit atypical, because it involved a former politician rather than a present one. Usually the rumors involve McConnell, Graham, Rubio, etc..
Well most are the equivalent of something like this.
“When did you stop beating your wife?”
It implies something that never happened but you still have to defend it and no matter what you’ll get some that will believe it.
I don’t know the answer to the question.
I do not believe anything they say. That includes the time of day. I peek at my watch.
With one exception. Possibly two.
Unless Neo counts as a media person, the only media person I believe–and unfortunately he seldom speaks now–is Brit Hume.
I believe Mark Levin’s philosophy is genuine, and want to believe his factual assertions. Skepticism intrudes even here.
Author Sarah Hoyt recently published a piece that is worth reading, “How To Read The News in Totalitarianism”
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2021/01/14/how-to-read-the-news-in-totalitarianism/
Sarah grew up in Portugal under a government that thoroughly controlled the press. I found the sections on “why is this being published…” and “the all too perfect choir” especially helpful, and, unfortunately, all too familiar. More in the next comment…
I likely won’t be the first to mention Michael Chrichton and the “Gell-Mann Amnesia Affect.” I imagine all here are familiar with it.
I’ve been personally familiar with at least 3 major news stories (at least they were major in Chicago). In each of them there were errors in news reports I read. There were, minor errors; location, individuals involved, names… But more disconcerting were the errors in perspective. One news story in particular had completely reversed the roles of protagonist and antagonist. From what little I knew of the reporters involved, and the events, I don’t think any of this was intentional. But the lack of motive didn’t make the inaccurate accounts any less wrong.
Look at the entire myth of “Watergate” with Woodward and Bernstein as courageous, patriotic white knights. Turns out “Deep Throat” was a disgruntled government employee completely on Nixon’s side until tricky Dick passed him over for a promotion. It was simply a story of a disgruntled, deep state operative getting revenge. Felt wasn’t a hero trying to root out government corruption and Woodward and Bernstein have used that one source who fell into their laps to milk every drop of fame possible. But that’s not the popular narrative.
As John Ford wrote in Liberty Valance, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
There are good, honest reporters out there. “City Journal” for example, seems to have a sincere focus on pursuing the truth wherever it may lead. But, reporters are human beings and there are just as many selfish, corrupt, scared, vindictive… folks in our newsrooms are there are in any other profession.
How about, because there is nothing the worthless GOPe scum can be accused of saying that isn’t 100% believable ?
George W Bush support for Biden included. Jim Clyburn claimed on inauguration day that he did. That the useless idiot denied it is far less believable than his support for Biden.
To give credence to anything the MSM ‘reports’ is to be played for a fool.
That said, GOP politician’s actions speak far louder than do the MSM’s words and assertions.
The MSM’s lies are inconsequential when a republican politician’s actions demonstrate otherwise.
But when a politician’s actions are consistent with his purported words, then the MSM’s reportage is confirmed “in spirit” with that politician’s actions.
Mitch McConnell is the current foremost example of this dynamic.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw is another good example. Until Jan. 6th, I had a very favorable opinion of him. His reaction to the events on Jan. 6th disabused me of that favorable opinion.
The same with Sen. Rubio’s earlier support for amnesty for illegal aliens.
In a matter of judgement in weighing various factors on an issue and a reasoned explanation by a politician for changing their position on an issue is offered, it’s acceptable, whether I agree with them or not.
When a politician betrays a fundamental and foundational principle, it demonstrates a lack of character. It indicates duplicity and that is unacceptable.
“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem”… Abraham Lincoln
Some bright lights (I don’t always agree with their opinions*, but the following, incomplete list are reporters who appear to be honest, courageous and sincerely interested in learning the truth.)
Heather MacDonald
Alex Berenson
Sharyl Attkisson
Glenn Greenwald
Tim Pool
Megyn Kelly
Ayaan Hirsi Ali**
Niall Ferguson**
Brett Weinstein**
Jordan Peterson**
Eric Weinstein**
*Of course not. No two humans are in perfect agreement. (I don’t even agree with some opinions I held myself last year, last week, yesterday…)
**Not journalists, but fearless in speaking their minds and worth paying attention to.
I hear and read some journalists, especially older journalists, expressing extreme displeasure on the recent trend of once respectable new outlets doing far too much reporting using anonymous sources.
If a report is based on anonymous sources there is no point in giving it any credence or attention unless the reporter spends some time explicitly detailing why his or her source matters, or should be believed.
If there was a pending heavyweight boxing match between Joe Dokes and John Doe and a news item stated, “anonymous sources say John Doe hasn’t been training and intends to keep his guard down during the fight.” If you were Joe Dokes would you stop training, assuming you have it in the bag? Or, maybe, John Doe’s trainer is the anonymous source and he’s trying to get Joe Dokes to show up unprepared?
Why would politicians, lobbyists, journalists.. be any different? Competition is competition.
I would add Turley, Dershowitz, and Taibbi on the Left.
Lee Smith, John Solomon on the Right, as reporters
Victor Hanson, William Jacobson on the Right, as pundits.
There are probably more.
I immediately disbelieve any anonymous reports unless sources surface.
“The MSM’s lies are inconsequential when a republican politician’s actions demonstrate otherwise.
But when a politician’s actions are consistent with his purported words, then the MSM’s reportage is confirmed “in spirit” with that politician’s actions.” – Geoffrey
Inconsequential in effecting a change in opinion among folks who read the samizdat press and pay attention; very consequential among the LIVs (R & D) that are the target of the rumors.
Consistency of allegation and past actions leading to confirmation – totally agree. “It sounds like something he would say.”
That is the reason hear-say is inadmissible in courts.
OK, I’ll play. 1: I despise, detest, and totally distrust the media, the NYT, the WaPoo, and the TV “news”. 2: I don’t know if the media is/are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem Party, or it’s the other way round, but it’s OBVIOUS that they are in CAHOOTS.
AesopFan,
Great additions, all. I also just thought of Mollie Hemingway and Salena Zito. Zito understands the 2016 election of Trump better than any “expert” I’ve read or heard, yet she hardly gets any attention.
Interesting how many on my list are female.
@Neo 15:17: I think you indirectly referred to something that’s a good strategy to follow, when re-coding one’s mind to process the products of the modern media.
In much the same way as free Social Media provides content to lure you in further (as the unstated-but-intended product), modern media lures people in with provocative content in order to provoke an outward response, thus perpetuating the news cycle. I’ve re-programmed myself; when I see the ‘anonymous source’ motif making an appearance, I immediately disregard the material as salient information, and instead interpret it as a device for pointing the story in a certain direction. Often, the direction is toward ‘Outrage’, or some other idea engineered to influence the attendant expected response. One has to take the ‘Mentat’ approach sometimes when trying to understand the purpose of so much reporting. It’s a good start to assume it is not about the story itself.
Aggie,
I think you’ll appreciate the post written by Sarah Hoyt that I referenced above. She makes your point, along with a few other variants. Here’s the link again, https://accordingtohoyt.com/2021/01/14/how-to-read-the-news-in-totalitarianism/
“I also just thought of Mollie Hemingway and Salena Zito. ” – Rufus
Excellent, of course.
I should have thought of them myself.
Their work is always worth perusing.
Author (and former journalist) Andrew Klavan believes that one of the problems with the press is that the press corps is now mainly made up of people with journalism degrees, whereas, prior to the ’80s, most journalists were more like blue collar types who learned on the job. They covered anything and everything, including a lot of small, boring public meetings/hearings. More senior staff and editors corrected their work and trained them on the fundaments of the profession. And, just as so many policemen and women change their political views after a few years on the force; working among and writing about petty criminals and crime, and interacting with ward bosses and minor political figures familiarizes one with the underbelly of society.
It’s all fake news. If you are paying attention to them and giving them their energy, you have already lost. No amount of firewalls can stop that trojan or virus if you keep clicking on the files.
Great thread. I am in agreement with the bulk of the comments. I tell people when I want to know what goes on in the United States I read the British papers (not BBC). I would add EPOCH TIMES and Breibart to the list.
Gateway Pundit though daft and sensationalist does have a network of local reporters that get behind the scenes and gets us into details of a story. It is so sad when it’s reporting is better than the NYT and Washington Post, CNN/ABC/NBS and MSNBC (who watches these anyway?).
I reserve my judgement on CBS until I see what Catherine Herridge is able to do.
Zero Hedge deserves mention. They are returning to form after the 2012 Obama purge of contributors. Let’s see if they can keep it up through Biden.
These are reporters of news and not commentators of news which I put this blog and Meaning of History in.
You have to look at people’s area of expertise. Anything that Sundance says on Congressional going’s on I trust. It comes to pass. ShipWreckedCrew on the processes and procedures of the Department of Justice. I don’t hold any credence on his discussions of the motives of the actors as witnessed by his apologetic writings concerning the Barr and Durham whitewash. There are two systems of Justice.
Epoch Times is surprisingly good.
My parents got a subscription and I browsed through a couple of issues.
What a huge contrast with their local paper, the LA Times. Most print media is so biased, it’s propaganda. I used to be a daily newspaper reader, and stopped due to the biases.
Now as mentioned above, I pick and choose. Don Surber and Ace of Spades is how I begin my day, and usually have done good links.
I was reading the Washington Examiner, but their anti Trump bias became too blatant.
A litmus test I’m doing is if an author / publication says there was no or insignificant voter fraud, I usually end reading. They just took a huge negative hit to their credibility.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Fifteen and a half years ago I wrote this post on that subject. It was already becoming rampant, and a big problem.
Neo – I read your old post (which you published before I found your blog), and noted four commenters whose anecdotes directly related to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, although none of them mention it by name. Presented in decreasing order of awareness, starting with one that serves as introduction and definition.
* * *
Paul on August 12, 2005 at 11:47 am said:
This is new? What about the Spanish American War, Hearst and Pulitzer? Ever see the old movie with Cary Grant, The Frontpage? The newspapers have been full of bunkum forever. And once you’ve noticed the inaccuracy in reports about subjects you know, why did you assume that other reports were accurate? Should have been a tip-off.
* * *
meander on August 12, 2005 at 11:47 am said:
Many years ago I had a family member involved in a very dramatic occurrance. It was front page fodder for the big Philadelphia papers for a couple of weeks. Reporters called our house to get background info and facts on the family member from my mother. It fascinated us to read the subsequent stories and see how much incorrect info they contained that related directly to what my mom was interviewed about. The “reporting” was well written and gripping…just not totally accurate. For some reason, I never applied that personal experience to national and world news reporting until the age of the internet and information laden blogs.
* * *
Promethea on August 12, 2005 at 11:47 am said:
I can think of four subjects that I have or had special expertise in, and in all four cases the inaccuracies in relevant newspaper reports were huge, even untruthful.
Why do I read the newspaper? I skim it to find the general issues of the day (as defined by the MSM) and once in a while learn something interesting about … trivia stuff.
… It’s up to the blogosphere to “deconstruct” the omissions and lies–
* * *
john moulder on August 12, 2005 at 11:47 am said:
I worked at a state agency for over 25 years, an institution that occasionally landed in the news. I never read a newspaper article of any length concerning us that didn’t contain inaccuracies. I am not exaggerating. We used to laugh & wonder at the misinformation they published about us. I’m sure other ex-bureaucrats could relate similar anecdotes. I suspect that much of the time it was ineptitude but sometimes it was seemed that the article was hostile or that our agency was simply being used to make a point — or both.
* * *
I would think that being attuned to the GMAE is something like being red-pilled.
Sam L. on January 22, 2021 at 6:09 pm said:
OK, I’ll play. 1: I despise, detest, and totally distrust the media, the NYT, the WaPoo, and the TV “news”. 2: I don’t know if the media is/are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem Party, or it’s the other way round, but it’s OBVIOUS that they are in CAHOOTS.
Why do so many people believe Blue Kama was inaugurated? Inaugurated by the fake news to what?