Reply
Wed 8 Jun, 2005 08:53 am
Here is an article in Newsweek this week that terrifies me. I know this is an 'American' thing - but I wonder if we are even looking for the truth anymore.
I wonder if we even care if there is truth out there to be discovered.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
June 13 issue - From a distance, Watergate seems like a partisan affair. But that's because we tend to look at it nowadays through red- and blue-tinted glasses. In truth, President Nixon was forced to resign in 1974 by Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, who realized from the so-called smoking-gun tape that he was a crook. This was after the Supreme Court?-led by a Nixon appointee?-unanimously ruled against him in the tapes case.
But imagine if Nixon were president in this era. After he completed his successful second term, I'd have to write a retrospective column like this:
President Nixon left office in 2005 having proved me and the other "nattering nabobs of negativism" wrong. We thought that his administration was sleazy but we were never able to nail him. Those of us who hoped it would end differently knew we were in trouble when former Nixon media adviser Roger Ailes banned the word "Watergate" from Fox News's coverage and went with the logo "Assault on the Presidency" instead. By that time, the American people figured both sides were just spinning, and a tie always goes to the incumbent.
The big reason Nixon didn't have to resign: the rise of Conservative Media, which features Fox, talk radio and a bunch of noisy partisans on the Internet and best-sellers list who almost never admit their side does anything wrong. (Liberals, by contrast, are always eating their own.) This solidarity came in handy when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post began snooping around after the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Once they scored a few scoops with the help of anonymous sources, Sean Hannity et al. went on a rampage. When the young reporters printed an article about grand jury testimony that turned out to be wrong, Drudge and the bloggers had a field day, even though none of them had lifted a finger to try to advance the story. After that, the Silent Majority wouldn't shut up.
Some argue the Watergate story died right there, but Nixon's attorney general wasn't taking any chances. Just as in the Valerie Plame case, the Justice Department subpoenaed Woodward and Bernstein to testify before the grand jury about their sources. When they declined, they were jailed for 18 months on contempt charges. Talkingpointsmemo.com and a few other liberal bloggers complained that it was hypocritical?-top White House aides were suspected of shredding documents, suborning perjury and paying hush money to burglars?-but to no avail. Public support for the media had hit rock bottom.
Whistle-blowers didn't fare much better. With Woodward and Bernstein out of business, the No. 2 man at the FBI, W. Mark Felt, held a press conference to air complaints that the White House and his own boss were impeding the FBI probe. Of course it was only a one-day story, with Ann Coulter predictably screaming that Felt was a "traitor." Rush Limbaugh dubbed Felt "Special Agent Sour Grapes" because he'd been passed over for the top FBI job. Within hours, the media had moved on to the tale of a runaway bride. And because both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP, there were no "Watergate" hearings to keep the probe going. John Dean and other disgruntled former aides had no place to go.
For a while, I hoped that the Nixon tapes might bring some justice. But soon the tapes just became more fodder for those legal shows on cable. The Supreme Court split 5-4, along largely partisan lines, as it did in Bush vs. Gore. That allowed Nixon to keep control of the tapes. When he burned them, the bipartisan outcry you would have heard in the old days over destruction of evidence was muffled by a ferocious counterattack from the GOP's legion of spinners. A group calling itself "Watergate Burglars for Truth" set up a 527 to argue that Bill Clinton and other Democratic presidents had ordered more black-bag jobs than Nixon. There was nothing to prove them wrong. Reports of a tape showing that Nixon directly ordered the cover-up were just rumors, not anything that could be posted on smokinggun.com.
Nixon gave a TV interview to the British journalist David Frost in which he said, "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." This explained why he felt comfortable approving the break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Ken Duberstein and a few other principled Republicans weighed in that Nixon was bad news, but they were drowned out by former aides like Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy, who wanted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. When "Firebombing Brookings: Good Idea or Not?" became the "Question of the Day" on MSNBC, Liddy's radio show got a nice ratings boost. After Ralph Reed disclosed that Nixon and Henry Kissinger had been on their knees praying in the Oval Office, Nixon went up 15 points in the Gallup, double among "people of faith." Our long national nightmare was just beginning.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
Nowadays, going to the media for "truth" is like going to a hooker just to have an intelligent conversation. You might get it, but it is not the business that they are in. Just like hookers, the news outlets are salesmen/entertainers. Lets not pretend that they have ever been anything else.
During the Watergate scandal, there were few sources for news and entertainment- three channels, and a few newspapers. The news outlets had to present what it thought the vast majority would accept to stay competitive. So truth was more prevalent than the entertainment portion of the equation. Now we have more choices for our information than we care for and the various outlets must compete aggressicvely with each other not for the vast majorty, but for smaller niche markets. The only way to effectively do that is to up the entertainment factor, which makes the media far easier to manipulate by any political system.
Watergate wasn't the first or the last time that either party has ever done shady stuff to gain leverage over the other. But less than ten percent of the shady stuff ever becomes news. Is it so secret that the news outlets can't expose it? No. It is just not as ratings-worthy as a fight. This concept isn't new. Even Ancient Rome knew that the people would rather see a fight than a scandal. Perhaps you are correct to be scared. America is very much heading down the same path as Rome was before it fell.
As for caring about truth, I think that is on the decline. People feel increasingly entitled to have a philosophy that will tell them that they can have their cake and eat it too. That the truth can't be known so why bother? That they can have freedom and security at the same time. That they can do whatever they want and not face the consequences. The solution: Stop enabling people to have these philosphies. Thrust the truth upon them. Tell people that they suck sorry sacks when they do. And slap them. And then back up your statement with facts. Slap them again. And then leave them alone. God I hate people.
So where do we look for 'truth'? Can we even look for it in the news?
It just makes me think of doublespeak:
His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
1984
TTF
I'm not saying that the news is not a reference for finding facts. It's just that the news is very selective in the facts it presents and objectivity does not sell pharmaceuticals or soft drinks. One must possess and exercise a critical and somewhat skeptical mind toward the news, always asking why they choose to emphasize some facts and omit others and to mentally separate the entertainment from the information.
It is a frustrating problem. That is why you should slap people that evade truth and especially those enable people to evade truth. Maybe after the average man gets slapped enough, he will demand a better source of news and then the pharmaceuticals or soft drinks company will supply one. But until the mentally and morally lazy get fed up with being slapped and are no longer satisfied with being spoon-fed their opinions from either the right or left, you will have to study extra hard and find the truth between the lines as well as in them.
The passage you quoted made it seem like doublethink creeped within him without his consent. The problem we have today is that people are begging for doublethink as an escape from harsh feelings. An example of this is the concept of diversity enforcement that has taken over campuses and workplaces across the country. People want to take away freedom of speech so that they may be free from being offended. Never mind that the free exchange of ideas (offensive or not) is the true benefit of diversity.
I think it does creep up on most without thier consent. Or rather, they are so used to giving up thier cosent to others opinions that the very mental tools they use to discern truth has been given up to others conceptions of how they should think.
This allows George Bush to say that he does not want to spend the tax payers money on destroying life (about stem cell research) and keep a straight face.
TF
ttf
In 1974 the world was divided by strong and aggressive ideologies. Sovietic comunism, chinese cultural revolution, Cuba, the third world raising the voice against US and Soviet Union, Guevara and the "guerrilla", women liberation fight, black mouvements ...
The newspapers new that the public was interested in politics, and the media themselves were part of the debate.
Now, in 2005, look at the world. Bush, Puttin, Schröeder, have no ideology. Not even a bad one.
To look for the truth? But first we must define what is truth and the criteria in order to reach it. For that you must have philosophical and political choices. And who, in this world wants that?
Sports, Jackson's trial, Sports, casualties in Irak, Sports. Ah, and religion. When reason sleeps, superstition awakes.
To use a christian metaphor: this is purgatory. No more Hell, no more Paradise. They are too strong and demanding.
I am waiting for the next Alaric.
News is entertainment.
Commercial news outlets provide stories that you want to see, not what you (perhaps) should see....
and yes, I'm looking at YOU Lois Common-Denominator.
Why would YOU care how many people died in Sudan today if Michael Jackson feints in court?
(PS. I know this because it is partly my doing, every day as part of my work)
thethinkfactory wrote:I think it does creep up on most without thier consent. Or rather, they are so used to giving up thier cosent to others opinions that the very mental tools they use to discern truth has been given up to others conceptions of how they should think.
This allows George Bush to say that he does not want to spend the tax payers money on destroying life (about stem cell research) and keep a straight face.
TF
How can a bad philosophy creep up on one without one's consent? Acceptance of any idea requires volition. It is a choice, even if the choice is to accept things by default without any critical analysis. Allowing oneself to be spoonfed ideas, regardless of their substance or the internal contradictions they create is moral laziness. People seem to be in the habit of excusing other's bad philosophies just because they accepted them passively. Thats like excusing the losing team for their loss because they could have won if they really wanted to. No. This is the evil that tears down great empires. The cancer that eats us from within. People need to be reminded continually that every undiscovered solution to any problem, every dream or goal, even their very survival depends on a ruthless pursuit of knowledge and truth of the world they live in. The fact that our leaders can get away with stupidity is just further evidence that we are a nation of enablers and excusers. People need to get over this non-judgementalism and start judging the crap out of stuff. Judge not lest ye be judged? That just tells me to live better so I can judge more, not judge less so I can go on living in stupidity.
I think we look for information that fits our idea of the "truth." It always amazes me how on just about any topic you can have "evidence" for both sides of an idea. Each side contradicts the other but both make sense to a certain degree. Which one is the truth? The one you believe to be the truth.
pinchehoto wrote:
How can a bad philosophy creep up on one without one's consent? Acceptance of any idea requires volition. It is a choice, even if the choice is to accept things by default without any critical analysis.
I think the lack of volition is a volition. These people lack the will not to accept information as fact. Thus accept it tacitly.
TTF