Lies and the press; lies of the press
I think we can all agree that the information people receive is usually a huge factor in determining our opinions regarding public events and politics. And I think we can also agree that a lot of that information comes through the press, and/or online writing and videos, books, and to a lesser extent the people we meet in our daily lives who are also for the most part basing their opinions on what they glean from similar sources. Even when we hear a politician speak – when we see that person’s demeanor and hear for ourselves what he or she is saying – later that experience is usually filtered through the MSM or other commentary and evaluation.
So I think we can also safely say that for many if not most people, media and those who write and speak on media, and their choices about what they read and listen to, have a significant effect on their thought processes.
Long long ago – before my time – the press for the most part consisted of highly partisan writers who were open about their partisanship. So if a person wanted to get at the objective truth it was necessary to read offerings from both sides, and that person knew it. But by the time I was growing up, the MSM claimed objectivity, at least in its reporting. Were they in fact objective? No, but for the most part, they were more objective then now, and at least as importantly, they were far more willing to separate fact stories from opinion articles and to be upfront about which was which.
But now, although the MSM is utterly partisan and the line between reporting and opinion has been nearly obliterated, most of the press continues for the most part with the pretense that they are objective and that they cover the news and politicians in an objective manner, only reluctantly crossing the line into partisanship in opinion pieces where they must do so in order to combat the evil nature of the right.
This has a far more pernicious effect than either previous arrangement, because I am convinced that a great many people still think they are reading something close to objective truth when they read the Times or the WaPo or NPR or AP stories or any number of other outlets. I list pro-Democratic sources because the vast majority of media outlets are indeed on that side. And a huge number of readers believe that “misinformation” is what those outlets label as such rather than what those outlets peddle.
Or they don’t care if these sources are not objective – what matters is that they are progressive and woke. Especially among the younger crowd, they’ve been taught there is no objective truth, only differing opinions and power. The MSM has opinions, all right, and it has power, and its pundits and reporters are using that power to influence people’s perceptions of reality and the decisions people make as a result of those perceptions. That power can be exercised through what stories they cover and also what they quash.
Social media isn’t the same as the MSM, but its gatekeepers function similarly and amplify the effect. Social media started out by allowing nearly all opinions. That way, people advocating different ideas and perceptions could duke it out among themselves on social media, and readers could pick and choose which among the arguments seemed most correct and most convincing. But after a while, those who run social media sites decided to censor some viewpoints while maintaining that by doing so they were just filtering out “misinformation.” They were the judges of what was misinformation and what was not, and the reader would no longer be trusted with information that had been judged wanting. The reader was no longer allowed to decide for himself or herself. And this was done while all the time maintaining the fiction that what the social media companies were doing was objective and unbiased.
Iowahawk described the basic principle back in 2015:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.#lefties— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 10, 2015
I wouldn’t say that social media was previously “a respected institution,” but one aspect of it that was respected by most – and that initially helped it gain so much popularity – was its bipartisan aspect. And many MSM outlets such as the Times had indeed been very respected.
How many voters actually believe that the MSM and the social media giants are being objective in what they report and what they block? You might wonder how anyone can think so at this point, but from talking to people I know, I think a great many people are still under that impression – more than are reflected in polls. And if you ask people of that ilk to do something like watch Tucker Carlson for a few nights, or read some of the articles on the right if you send them links, they’ll often respond by saying that whatever is on that TV show or in those links is a lie. They know it already without watching and without reading because the MSM, the people they read on Twitter, and all their friends say so.
So far I think this system is working very well for the left.
The real joke is when the media claim with a straight face that they “speak truth to power”. Ignoring the fact that their “truth” is anything but, the fact is THEY have the power. If not for the media, it is unlikely that Biden would be President at this point. If the media were truly objective, even the Democrats all out fraud blitz would have come up short.
neo,
This is an excellent post! Very well stated. One of our biggest struggles in this area is that we are going through a hugely disruptive time due primarily to technological advancements.
Two big problems with what we call “The Press.” One is that reporters no longer start from the bottom as copy boys, etc. They learned their trade and knew the rules of “who, what , where, and finally why.” Now, they go to graduate school, which is run by the political left and get an inflated sense of their own superiority. As Ben Rhodes said of them, “They literally know nothing.” The second problem is that they have a hive mind,. They all consult each other. No independence. The Watergate Model is all in their minds.
Yeah, the press lies. My question is why people pick the side which lies. Even when presented with the truth–which you can tell they know is the truth because the go to ad him–the continue to choose lies.
We could hypothetically do away with the press and the folks would make up their own lies.
And that “lived truth” or “lived experience” are considered valid in the face of objective reality is absolutely freaking nuts. They don’t have to prove they’ve lived whatever it is. They simply pronounce it and objective reality disappears from the conversation.
The press may be malefactors here, certainly are, but they’re responding to a voracious market.
“…due primarily to technological advancements…”
…combined with a moral depravity, ethical breakdown and defense of emotional and physical violence that is touted by the perpetrators as the absolute epitome of morality and human rights.
Which makes for quite a heady mix….
As Yeats so precisely described in “The Second Coming”…
Richard Aubrey;
The reasons:
(1) What Iowahawk wrote – their previous reputations for objectivity and truth-telling.
(2) Habit.
(3) Most people they know say those are the trustworthy sources. Same for a lot of intellectuals and supposed experts. If all the smart people say so, it must be so.
(4) A mind is a difficult thing to change.
Case in point for today: 60 minutes and DeSantis,
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/04/05/60-minutes-desantis-n2587390
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/reaganmccarthy/2021/04/05/dem-mayor-eviscerates-60-mins-n2587425
And tomorrow it will be some other. Out of the two corrupt institutions of academia and the press, I think the one that has caused the most damage for us to reach this terrible point in the country’s history is the press. It reaches more people and the spread of its propaganda is more pernicious in terms of the general public. There was a recent video just last week in which the interviewer asked people who Hunter Biden was; only about 20% had even heard of him or knew who he was. That’s the power of the corrupt press.
So, recently, you have been attempting to share new information with people who, in the main, aready know you and move in your social circles.
Now usually, at least among my family members and friends, being accepted as a peer or friend at least entitles one to a respectful hearing, and a good faith consideration of the data.
If not, you have to ask yourself who these people really are, and what their agenda vis-a-vis their relationship with you is.
I mean, who the Hell treats a valued or trusted associate in such a dismissive, and disrespecrful, and devaluing manner? I will not say it here, but if I were speaking unrestrainedly, I’d rhetorically ask’ “What the Go&&@×#÷& good they are for anything?” And, “What reliance upon or trust can you place in such people?”
As you have brought up C.S. Lewis, I think a reference to the kind of manipulative social relationships “enjoyed” among the junior devils in his Screwtape fantasy, or among the niche seeking bureaucrats in some of his space fantasy novelas might be relevant, if slightly overdrawn.
What has shocked me in the past, and continues to unsettle me, is how some here report that this impenetrable and self-serving narrative buttressing has been deployed by family members against even parents and beloved siblings.
What kind of people are these, who sneer at their own family members and dearest most longstanding friends, should some fact be mooted by one of them which might for a moment challenge – even indirectly and to the mildest degree – their sense of superiority and self-regard?
God have pity on people who have such vain, unreliable, and mercenary friends and family.
wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
and what is the symbol of the fabians socialist/communists?
a wolf in sheeps clothing…
They’re members of the New Religion. It’s got almost all the trappings of religion: dogma, original sin, heresies, apostasy, witnessing, and so on, but without all that pesky virtue. And they’ve got all the zealotry and power of the most ardent follower of any religion past or present. A lot more people seem to be noticing these similarities now.
My own daughter-in-law made some social media post generalizing Trump supporters as White Supremacists and racists, apparently without any thought that a great deal of the members of the family into which she married voted that way. When I politely asked her a couple of times to reconsider her opinion based on the fact that she was making rather vile insinuations about her family members, she tripled down. At that point, I became less polite and much more firm and direct.
This resulted in not only her claiming victimhood (my responses merely highlighted the inherent stupidity of her position, without calling her such), but ostracizing my wife, who had no part in the interaction, and thus removing our granddaughter from our lives, albeit temporarily (now). I could understand her reaction to me, but to my wife??
It took me mentioning this to the other, younger son – the one who wasn’t exactly known for his maturity or his intellectual prowess growing up (he’s still only just turned 21) – who then called his older, more worldly brother and his wife to promptly knock them out of their little bubble of victimhood and fake trauma. The following day, the family connection was restored, though not yet with me.
I’m fine with it, for now, as long as my wife can dote on our grandchild again. At very minimum, though, I accomplished one thing I set out to do – ensure that guilt by loose voting correlation and demands to play political Simon Says among family are intolerable. The wound is healing.
This wasn’t a case of manners, but of religious fervor.
neo. What you describe seems to me to be a more or less passive process. Stuff comes in, they accept it.
In my experience, while the former is true, they actively seek out more lies in order to buttress their position(s).
Confirmation bias works that way, so to speak. Something happens which confirms what they already believe and they’re prepared to believe it, true or not. Once that happens, there is one more buttress to their position which makes it even stronger.
But, as I say, there is a lot of not waiting for something useful to come along.
“(4) A mind is a difficult thing to change.” neo
Reportedly, the majority in the UK Parliament continued to support Chamberlain’s pacifistic approach to Hitler until the Nazi’s invaded Poland. To whom Britain had a firm self-defense treaty. So as soon as Germany crossed Poland’s border, England was effectively at war. Surely, some members of Parliament had taken Churchill’s warnings of Hitler’s intent seriously but it wasn’t until reality made the denial of wishful thinking untenable that minds changed. So too with today’s liberals… count on it, reality will arrive in all its brutality.
“Case in point for today: 60 minutes and DeSantis,” – physicsguy
https://babylonbee.com/news/60-minutes-renamed-6-minutes-due-to-deceptive-editing-practices
Part of the New Religion seems to focus on the idea that Western Civilization is uniquely evil. Sometimes, inserting ,at appropriate times, some comment about historical persons and events just to pick some curiosity, such as the Mongol Empire and the destruction of Ancient China, Charles ‘ The Hammer’ Martel and “The Battle of Tours” outside of modern Paris literally hundreds of years before the first crusade, The Killing fields of Khmer Rouge Cambodia, the Armenian Genocide, the Caste System of India, The burning of widows in India in time past, Human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire, Hutu vs Tutsi etc, etc… of course, that would make you “ racist”….
For AesopFan readers who may have missed this latest Big Lie of the Left, here is the corrected story, with transcript and video to counter the malicious and malignant media exposure.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-deceptively-edits-reporters-interaction-with-fl-governor-ron-desantis-heres-what-he-really-said
Gallup polled media trust at year’s end, as it has for decades, finding that complete distrust was at the highest levels ever, reaching 31%, if I recall correctly. https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/american-distrust-media-continues-plummet-according-annual-gallup-poll
I’m in that one-third camp. That’s a lot of anyone’s friends and family.
We need our People’s Guillotine Revolution against this Ruling manque of mossbacks and their useful idiots. Only when the Rulers fear the ruled can the People breath free.
Goodnight David.
Goodnight Chet.
And goodbye to objective journalism. It was nice while it lasted.
but without all that pesky virtue
Oh, the New Religion has its cardinal virtues. They don’t look very virtuous to me, but they are certainly the way practitioners gain status: being born a certain color or a certain ethnicity, living in cities by birth or by choice, feeling uncomfortable in your own skin, especially in childhood or adolescence, strict adherence to dogma regardless of whom it hurts, stridency and deployment of emotion in argument…
And let’s not forget “empathy.” But only empathy for people you don’t believe are as capable, intelligent, or good as yourself. And not ever sympathy – feeling for someone – but empathy – feeling like someone. Which means that the greatest cardinal virtue is narcissism.
One note about the sympathy vs empathy thing: try looking up the difference in a search engine. The top Google responses favor empathy over sympathy, because it’s “deeper” and requires (or, I would argue, simply represents) more personal commitment of your own mental energy. But Merriam-Webster had this:
In general, ‘sympathy’ is when you share the feelings of another; ’empathy’ is when you understand the feelings of another but do not necessarily share them.
This definition is distinctly different from the others. The others all assume or require that you absolutely share another’s feelings – it seems to me because your capacity to do so reveals the depth of your soul, a la Sense and Sensibility, a modern reading of which might determine that Marianne, not Elinor, is the character to be admired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFIjExINu_g
Jamie, “… the greatest cardinal virtue is narcissism.”
Amen.
In my life I developed early on an attitude of skepticism toward anything presented to the public by the ‘media’. Whatever drove me to think that what was written or broadcast was not true? My actual personal experience with events, and later with the way the events were reported.
My brother was hit by a car and almost killed. The local paper reported the story, and got the facts wrong.
Later on, whenever my railroad had a newsworthy event, the reporters got the facts wrong. Writing letters to the reporters was just an exercise in talking to a wall. The reporters were obviously either too lazy or too stupid to handle the facts.
So, nothing new here. Haven’t trusted the media for over fifty years now.