Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: Informational Anarchy

...“it’s all lies, all lies.”

2006-08-08T16:40:00.000-05:00

I believe someone mentioned the fairness doctrine ...

2006-08-08T16:03:00.000-05:00

I believe someone mentioned the fairness doctrine a few posts ago. This was abolished as a boon to the religious right by Ronald Reagan's administration, paving the way for all the hate-speech talking heads of talk radio fame: Rush, Hannity, etc. Rush Limbaugh's talk radio career, oddly enough, coincided precisely with the Reagan administration's revocation of the fairness doctrine. Coupled with media deregulation [anti-trust wise, anyway], Reagan and his hardline supporters effectively created the beast we have before us today: something like 90% of all television stations, billboards, and terrestrial radio stations [not counting the low-watt college radio types] are controlled/owned by FIVE companies. These 5 also own somewhere between 50 - 75% of all print media as well. In 1980, there were literally HUNDREDS of companies in this market segment. But thanks to special interest politics, we now have 5. I read somewhere [but can't track it down right now] that political contributions from these five companies to Republicans was five times greater than their contributions to Democrats over the last four years.

In this era of corporate mergers and unchecked profit-taking, the content of our "news" and talk shows, papers, etc is increasingly controlled from the top down. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk at the other companies have stuck their dirty political views down their employees' throats--they're dictating what should and should not be seen or heard. It's pathetic. And now they're swiping at the internet - purchasing MySpace, Lycos, all sorts of blog sites, etc. Sooner or later we're bound to hear about another mega-merger that will further reduce the pool of control - maybe it'll be Viacom and News Corp, or maybe Clear Channel and CBS.

Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise....
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion...
The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.

Henry A. Wallace, VP of the United States 1941-1945

Unbelievable.

Reporters response to Anonymous statements above:1...

2006-08-08T12:51:00.000-05:00

Reporters response to Anonymous statements above:

1. Can you cite any government accounting statistics that show lowering taxes increases revenue?

2. What article of the Geneva Conventions prevents having detention facilities?

3. What specific writings of the founders do you base this Christian Nation theory on?

4. Was the US defense buildup the sole cause of the collaspe of the Soviet Union?

5. Please list twenty nations in the coalition of the willing.

See it isn't that difficult. If a politician avoids or refuses to answer the reporter can report that.

The problem -- or at least one of the problems -- ...

2006-08-08T10:20:00.000-05:00

The problem -- or at least one of the problems -- with this approach, is line drawing: deciding what is a complex issue. Many would think that all five statements I listed are verifiably true or false, and would cry bias if the MSM reporters tasked with truth-spotting didn't agree.

I agree. But there are always lines to be drawn, and my point is that the current line is nowhere near the right place. The goal of reporting is supposed to be informing the public. If the public comes away from an article or piece disinformed, the media is doing a disservice to people. Journalists need to do a better job helping people see through intentional disinformation. If they sit back and merely relay such information, without comment, they're not doing their jobs.

The problem -- or at least one of the problems -- ...

2006-08-08T10:10:00.000-05:00

Anonymous, When something isn't obviously a lie, I...

2006-08-08T09:07:00.000-05:00

Anonymous,

When something isn't obviously a lie, I of course don't expext journalists to label it as such.

What would be helpful regarding more complex issues like the ones you mention is if journalists would do less quoting of politicians and political operatives and more quoting of more neutral sources of information (economists, etc.). That way readers at least have more than the he said/she said setup.

I thought that as liberals we would -- following ...

2006-08-08T08:38:00.000-05:00

I thought that as liberals we would -- following the motto of this blog -- be ready to abandon facts/opinions when confronted by new, better, evidence and thus be skeptical even regarding what could be considered a "blatant lie." For instance, AL, how should a reporter respond to a politician's following statements:

(1) Lowering the marginal tax rate, generally results in greater tax revenue.

(2) By maintaining the Gitmo facility, the Bush administration has violated the Geneva convention.

(3) Our founders designed our government and nation as a christian nation.

(4) The rapid and escalating US defense build up in the 1980s bankrupted the soviet union, leading first to perestroika/glasnost, and then to the collapse of the soviet empire.

(5) Dozens of nations comprised the coalition of the willing to invade IRaq and overthow its regime in 2003.

How should MSM reporters treat these statements, AL?

The best suggestion I have heard to date about get...

2006-08-08T02:24:00.000-05:00

The best suggestion I have heard to date about getting the information media back on track is to use the power of the FCC to create a very specific set of standards that a broadcast must follow if it wants to brand itself as "news". The free market of infotainment can call themselves anything else that they want but the public should know that when something calls itself "news" it is providing information in a specifically defined context.

Speaking of elections, today, you have a chance to...

2006-08-07T18:36:00.000-05:00

Speaking of elections, today, you have a chance to make it possible for every citizen
to have their vote counted throughout the United States of America !

How can you do that? By supporting Clint Curtis in his bid for Congress against Tom Feeney.

How does that affect you?

Clint Curtis is a computer geek who knows how easy it is to manipulate your vote because he was asked by Congressman Tom Feeney to create such a prototype in October 2000. And the rest is history.

It is all about YOUR VOTE actually getting counted.

This is your chance to make a difference in America. Stand up with Clint for Democracy.

Stand up and be counted. Go to www.clintcurtis.com to be a part of this historic race.

Anonymous that is where I have to disagree with yo...

2006-08-07T17:14:00.000-05:00

Anonymous that is where I have to disagree with you. I have some problems with the morality of the market.

This is from Wikipedia which can say it better than me.

"This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources.

The marketplace is also criticized for its assumption that truth will necessarily triumph over falsehood. It is visible throughout history that people may be swayed by emotion rather than reason, and even if truth ultimately prevails, enormous harm can occur in the interim. However, even if these weaknesses of the marketplace of ideas are acknowledged, supporters argue that the alternative of government determination of truth and censorship of falsehoods is worse.

Alan Haworth in his book Free Speech (1998), has suggested that the metaphor of a marketplace of ideas is misleading. He argues that Mill's classic defence of free speech, in On Liberty, does not develop the idea of a market (as later suggested by Holmes) but essentially argues for the freedom to develop and discuss ideas in the search for truth or understanding. In developing this argument, Haworth says, Mill pictured society, not as a marketplace of ideas, but as something more like a large-scale academic seminar. This implies the need for tacit standards of conduct and interaction, including some degree of mutual respect. That may well limit the kinds of speech that are justifiably protected."

The whole thing can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I just don't think that the MSM is any better qual...

2006-08-07T17:05:00.000-05:00

I just don't think that the MSM is any better qualified to sort truth from non-truth than the public, bloggers, or anyone else. For example, as an attorney, don't you generally find that MSM litigation reportage is absolute crap?

I do find legal reporting to be crappy, but I'm more forgiving when issues are genuinely complex. But I've seen more instances than I can count where a journalist will quote a politician or official saying something that the journalist has to know is a blatant lie. Yet they don't point it out. That's what I'm talking about when I say the media needs to call the obvious fouls. MSM reporters are more than qualified to do this. And should they be wrong, well, they definitely hear about it. So this isn't about having truth overlords. It's about trying to keep the level of political mendacity to a more reasonable level.

Christopher: The morality of the CEOs and sharehol...

2006-08-07T16:51:00.000-05:00

Christopher: The morality of the CEOs and shareholders is the morality of the market -- just like Mill's marketplace of ideas. And that I have no problem with.

AL: I just don't think that the MSM is any better qualified to sort truth from non-truth than the public, bloggers, or anyone else. For example, as an attorney, don't you generally find that MSM litigation reportage is absolute crap? Reading an AP or reuters report on a court decision, I find is often a maddening experience, because the reporter has no freaking idea about what's going on. I can spot those clear errors, becasue I too am an attorney -- but this makes me all the more skeptical of what the MSM says about anything. So even if people did need some elite truth-sifting for them, I sure don't think the MSM are the ones equipped to do it.

Anonymous can I deduce from your amateurish sarcas...

2006-08-07T16:23:00.000-05:00

Anonymous can I deduce from your amateurish sarcasm that you prefer to rely on the moral values of the select few owners, major stockholders and CEO’s of major media companies to provide you with accurate and truthful unbiased information?

Do you think a representative democracy is a flawed and evil form of government that should have no say in matters of commerce that affect the economy and the lives of all citizens?

we DO Need MSM truth overlords. And fast. Without ...

2006-08-07T16:21:00.000-05:00

we DO Need MSM truth overlords. And fast. Without referees, how will we know who is right, who is winning? Its just too much white noise for us. The American people CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Help us!

This bit of snark is somewhat incoherent. The point isn't that Americans can't handle the truth. It's that they can't spot the truth because it's buried in a sea of disinformation. The media don't have to be truth overlords. When they're wrong, other media outlets (blogs, radio, etc.) can point it out. But the media serves its readers better when it at least makes some effort to point out when one side or the other is engaged in deliberate disinformation. Simply passing along disinformation without comment doesn't help anyone.

No, Christopher of course not. Those corporations...

2006-08-07T15:35:00.000-05:00

No, Christopher of course not. Those corporations have a heavy burden and important responsibility to serve the good of the nation as defined by government regulators -- namely, but not only, the FCC. Particularly since we do not have media truth-ovelords, our media must be directed by the government, so someone can act as a truth-filter. Hence the utility of the fairness doctrine. Both sides -- as defined by the government -- must be regulated. Better yet, let's take back those public airwaves from the thieving corporations and put them back in the hands of the state. All we really need is one media source -- state run media. They can tell us what the truth is, and what isn't, and everything will be much less confusing from now on. I for one hate having to sort through these blogs and other sources, and try to figure out what's right and what's wrong. I want the government to do it for me, and thus the public good will be served.

So anonymous do you feel or believe that corporati...

2006-08-07T15:19:00.000-05:00

So anonymous do you feel or believe that corporations, particularly American corporations have no responsibility or obligations as legal persons and thus citizens to serve the public good of the nation from which they benefit?

Does the media own the public airwaves as private property to do with as the wish free of any limitations or conditions?

That's right Christopher! Please, let's revive th...

2006-08-07T14:22:00.000-05:00

That's right Christopher! Please, let's revive the fairness doctrine! Who better than the government to mandate how media presents its product? Who doesn't want censorhip and government mandated political content? Our media is way to free -- its chaos. Bring back government control!!!

The vast majorities of Americans have neither the ...

2006-08-07T14:11:00.000-05:00

The vast majorities of Americans have neither the time, the interest and in many cases the intellect to decipher the truth from the information and disinformation that they are briefly exposed to as they struggle to keep the consumption life style from collapsing in a heap around them.

The vast majorities of Americans do not spend their days commenting on blogs and forums.

Even this semi-dim wit that reads and watches from many sources is willing to admit that I can respond to information on an emotional level and believe what I am already predisposed to believe.

In addition to the GOP assault against the core institutions that hold civil society together, higher education, science, media, the judiciary and government when Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine the media began a slow decline into a profit first direction and service to the public good as lip service.

We are living in the results of all this. The proof is in the polled, studied and manufactured words that come from the mouths of our marketed and branded politicians that are left unchallenged by the profit first media.

Wow! I was wrong. The Harris poll and observatio...

2006-08-07T13:09:00.000-05:00

Wow! I was wrong. The Harris poll and observations regarding the News Hour convinced me, we DO Need MSM truth overlords. And fast. Without referees, how will we know who is right, who is winning? Its just too much white noise for us. The American people CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Help us!

Well, what more evidence does one need that this i...

2006-08-07T12:52:00.000-05:00

Well, what more evidence does one need that this is a potent issue than the Harris poll? That alone spotlights this. It was bad enough that 36% of Americans thought there were WMDs LAST YEAR, but now that number has risen 14%. What do you think caused this? If you say anything other than what A.L. writes, you are guilty of acceding to your own instincts. This is exactly what Colbert refers to as 'truthiness.' It is such 'gut-feelings as truth' that are ruining intelligent, reasoned, and informed discourse in this country.

If you really need another example, how about the evolution vs. intelligent design 'argument'? Or that global warming is indisputedly due to human activity based on peer-reviewed research (the gold standard), instead of there being 'a debate'(the 'truthiness' standard)?

There are too many instances wherein 'reporters' do nothing more than referee (defined by 'present one side/present the other side'); Lehrer came out not too long ago with this answer when asked why he would not immediately spotlight a falsehood spouted by a guest on his 'Newshour' show. Lehrer said that he is a 'referee' and is not in the business of identifying lies, when asked as to why he did not pounce on a stated falsehood. Well, Mr. Lehrer, you used to do that, and I do not watch you anymore due to your stance. That's what journalism is supposed to do, and you and a great many other 'reporters' are not doing it. What determines a 'foul' is facts, nothing more. And 'facts' founded on 'truthiness' are not facts at all. It is not that complicated, no matter how much you try to make it so.

I will never understand this media as referee argu...

2006-08-07T12:34:00.000-05:00

I will never understand this media as referee argument and a longing for a return to the days when we got our news from three tv stations, and not much else.

I don't long for those days, and if I had the time I'd explain in detail why I do not. My point was only that a byproduct of that system was the fact that it resulted in most Americans holding similar beliefs regarding the basic facts of most issues. The proliferation of media outlets is a fantastic development in many ways. But we have to try to find a way for people to make sense of the chaos.

I'm all for the market place of ideas. But the mere existance of such a market isn't sufficient. People are decent at evualating relative strength of two arguments that utilize the same set of factual premises, but when the premises them selves are different, how is anyone supposed to know who to believe?

People need some guidance on basic factual issues, and that's where the mainstream media can be the most helpful. It can help us reach an understanding regarding the basic premises of the debate.

AL, I will never understand this media as referee ...

2006-08-07T11:39:00.000-05:00

AL, I will never understand this media as referee argument and a longing for a return to the days when we got our news from three tv stations, and not much else. Your first troubling presumption is that the American people can't handle more than those three tv stations. Too much media and people get confused. You have to do a bit more to demonstrate support for such an anti-democratic argument than the Santorum-WMD thing. Before I conclude that the average american voter can't handle more than three tv stations, I'm going to need a bit more evidence. The second troubling presumption is that the MSM is capable of acting as a "referee" rather than a play-by-play announcer. This assumes that we all agree on what a "foul" is, and clearly we all do not -- see, e.g. the spirited debates in the comments section of this blog. Moreover, why do we want the MSM to be our referees. I know I sure as hell do not. Generally, I trust CNN, the NYTimes, or the other major media souces not one bit when it comes to deciding "the truth." I mean, why should we appoint them Lords-of-the-truth, or even think that anyone can have such omniscent powers. This isn't simply a matter of fact checking. I prefer JS Mill's market place of ideas. Let the various ideologies, facts, and truths battle it out in the public forums -- which with the internet, are now much more capable of hosting such battles, and let the winning ideas emerge there. I will take that over MSM truth-gods any day.