Just Give Me Some Truth

In the '60s, the media pushed the country against the Vietnam War. The Tet Offensive bled onto living room TV sets, Walter Cronkite came out against the war, citizens were outraged and convinced.

The same with Watergate: Central and somewhat trusted media outlets pushed and probed and exposed and again, citizens were outraged and convinced.

Now, the lament (in liberal circles) is that, no matter what crimes the Bush administration commits, nothing sticks. Approval ratings plummet but still: no big trials, no major special prosecutors, no impeachment hearings, no outrage, no one convinced.

The problem is that The Information Age is exactly the opposite. There's no longer anything even close to a consensus of where we gather truth. This isn't the information age, it's the blather-ation age. All we have is a trillion sources from which to choose truths we want to believe.

In the national newspaper of record, Maureen Dowd slams away at the Bush administration with what seem like irrefutable facts and irrepressibly funny venom... to no real effect. Even 20 years ago, it would have been outrageous/disrespectful -- impactful -- for a columnist for the New York Times to be so vehement. Now, conservatives slough her off and liberals read her partially for ammunition and partially for entertainment.

And if Maureen isn't entertaining enough, we turn to Bill Maher. He makes a grudging effort to have a dissenting viewpoint on his show and a gallant attempt to maintain civility. Usually he out-debates his conservative guest with a combination of his impeccable logic, his emcee bully-pulpit, his stand-up skills and his home crowd advantage. It should be somewhat satisfying and yet, and the end of every show, he looks more exasperated with the impossibility of having any tangible impact.

Preaching to the choir is a deadening experience.

Then again, preaching to the heathens isn't much better. On the right, a respected conservative columnist like David Brooks in the New York Times sounds more and more desperate in his attempts to gently get liberals to think another way. Ask a Maureen Dowd fan if he or she read David Brooks today and you get this put upon reaction of, "I started reading but by the third paragraph, I just couldn't stand it anymore."

Instead, we spend our lives preparing for an argument we'll never have with a person we'll never meet whose opinions we could never change.

Comments

[NYDamien]

Have we changed the chronological order that posts are published? Pretty dopey, no? New posts jump to the head of the line? How can you follow the discussion, from the bottom on up?

[sox05]

I 2nd your thoughts.

[tbone99]

When the local MSM chooses on a daily basis to publish headlines screaming the high school football score rather than the investigation of the Iraq murders by military contracters , I think I begin to understand where the problem lies.The daily papers have censored themselves from anything that would rise public ire and decided to stick with the local news,the car radio ( from which so many receive news) blasts rightwing partisian punditry and those of us lucky enough to have a computer that aren't looking at porn or myspace tune in to our personal version of the news.In fact news has become privatized like everything else.But all the news in the world wouldn't change the fact that our representatives themselves continue to be scared silly of standing up to this illicit
pack of bullies.

[MoNut]

They know how we better like our truth in this country:

Don't ask.

Don't tell.

Wrapped in guise of flag.

With a side of Freedom Fries.

[MoNut]

Mr. Henry Waxman holds the truth....

Mr. Leahy shows signs of knowing it as well...

Is it so bad that even they're too scared to face it?

Ms. Sibel Edmonds says it runs far, deep, and wide...

Are Leahy, Waxman, et al just setting the table?

Playing pomp and circumstance just to get by?

Or does it get better with more nesting?

Eliminating the traitor-covering 'State Secrets Privilege" would also help in protecting right rather than covering up the wrong.

[SamThornton]

It may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse got out, but couldn't we just return Texas to Mexico so we wouldn't have to endure another Lone Star State pinhead in the White House?

Other than that, Col. Jessep might have been right: we just can't handle the truth, at least at the level of our Congress critters.

[TheHandyman]

What a stupid statement. Bush is not from Texas he just pretends to be. A lot of Texans got snookered into electing him Governor just as more Americans got snookered into making him President, not just once, but twice. Don't blame the State, blame the man! If you were to really use your brain you would see that the bush'e of the world come from all over, not just one place. Would that it would be that easy to just be able to select the right people based on where they are from!

[TankerRat]

Ya! I'd have to agree Handyman. Stupidity, greed, incompetence, meglomania, etc know no state borders. Just look who's about to be crowned Queen Hillary the 1st.

She'll get blown away in the general but who cares. The D's and R's haven't been real competitors for a loooooong time.

Garbage in-Garbage Out.

[WheelofVoter]

There is big money in getting the two sides to hate each other. Nobody is persuading or convincing anybody of anything. Bush's genius coincided with the "Age of Distraction." Video games, porn, cable, comedy, they all keep us in our seats instead of rioting in the streets. Even hippies would have stayed home in the 60's with these toys. Bush and Rove flooded the market with scandal so no one could keep up. Nixon made the mistake of having only one or two scandals. Plus, rich people run the aitwaves and rich people are generally very bad people. Bush has George Orwell books open on his desk and they are his playbook. His genius is that he can read.

[TankerRat]

Since WHEN can the Chimp read WheelofVoter. This is news to me

Just 467 days til the Chump... er.... I mean Chimp is OUTA-HERE. Hang on folks.

[rini]

The problem is the hired goons on networks like FOX news, who will say whatever the corporate honchos want.

Even TIME magazine had an article on climate change. There were blurbs and an outline with ideas such as "don't reduce CO2 emissions" "work to eliminate poverty first" and "find other sources of energy (with the emphasis on 'more research is needed, we'll get back to you later')." There was a deliberate tension set up between reducing carbon emissions and helping the poor, as if this was an either/or. Big oil couldn't have written it better.(maybe they did)

I don't mean to be elitist, but....this sort of stuff confuses the well meaning but non educated. If people were more concerned with the NEAR future than their careers, this sort of crap wouldn't happen.

[Seattle34]

Uh, it is an either/or.

If your goal is to save lives, the reducing CO2 isn't the best investment. Mosquito netting and clean water will save a lot more lives than reducing CO2.

[TheHandyman]

Sorry, you are wrong. It is not an either/or proposition. Global climate change has the potential to wipe out all life as we know it on the planet. mosquito nets sure as hell won't help that. We have reach a point with over population that clean water doesn't exist any where on the planet anymore. Clean water only exists through technology. Don't believe me, try drinking straight from your nearest river, stream, or lake and see how you feel! What we call problems are not problems, they are the results of a single problem, over population. We can address all of the differnt results but until we address the cause we aren't going to make much headway. Good luck with you mosquito nets and your bottled water.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

The world is overpopulated as it is.

[TankerRat]

"Hired Goons there rini. I've not heard that one in awhile.

Thanx for the chuckle.

[Desiderata]

Journalism wasn't a path to wealth back in Cronkite's day. Remember the controversy over Dan Rather's 6 million dollar contract.

Rarely does the national presscorps mingle with the common people. Neither do they want to. Todays journalists are orosperous and at home with the richer. They smooze the powerful else risk being shunned by them.

Remember what the elites did to Truman Capote after the publication of "Answered Prayers"?

[jbeach]

And separately, I'd like to point out that this isn't exactly the case:

"Now, the lament (in liberal circles) is that, no matter what crimes the Bush administration commits, nothing sticks. Approval ratings plummet but still: no big trials, no major special prosecutors, no impeachment hearings, no outrage, no one convinced."

- There have been and continue to be prosecutions and accountability derived from **evidence**. The Abramoff scandal, the Libby convictions, Gonzales' resignation, and more.

That Bush was able to pardon Libby, does not show that there is no consensus for "truth" and doesn't mean that no one was convinced. What it does mean, is simply that Bush was able to get Libby off, in way that's on it's face crooked. That's a separate issue than "too many truths".

So there's **plenty** of outrage, and his plummeting approval rates show people have been convinced.

[laocoon]

Consequences for high crimes minimalized. If the pres had covered Libby accurately and with focus on the real issue Bush would be jeered and laughed at whenever he tried to claim a need for secrecy. Fitz was a republican and minimalized the damage. the fact that any consequences still leak through the protective membrane is due to there being so much shit. tip of the iceberg.

[jbeach]

Here's what you're basically saying, as I see it:

1) "If only everyone would just be reasonable and see the other point of view. Darn those nasty unreasonable liberals!"

2) "There's too much information now! So we can no longer know what's true. So stop saying saying conservatives can be wrong, you nasty unreasonable liberals!"

As for # 1 - the problem with this is that David Brooks is not a good-faith arguer. And in this, he is *typical* of the punditry of the right.

Maureen Dowd, as well as Paul Krugman and other liberal writers are passionate, opinionated, and argue a case. However, they *argue* it. They bring verifiable and relevant facts, employ logic and reason, and make their points directly and clearly.

David Brooks does none of this. [Nor his metaphysical cousins, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, et al.] If he cites facts, they are not at all logically relevant to his argument - just *emotionally*. He uses his real skill as a writer, to get by with outrageously false comparisons, and with collapsing issues in the most *insane* ways. In one mind-blowing example I'll never forget, he actually compared the US invasion of Iraq to George Washington fighting at Valley Forge.

In short, he is not even a passionate advocate - he is a propagandist. Either that, or he is so mentally disabled that someone must dress him and walk him to the bank so he can cash his checks.

As for your point # 2:
The problem is not "too many truths" - the problem is people avoiding the hard work **and accountability** to sort out the truths from the nonsense using logic.

And if we're going to deal with reality, then it just doesn't work to say "Oh, let's not get into the facts. It's too much hassle. Can't we really just get along?"

As the saying goes, "We are each entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts."

So can we please **sort out** the truth, and not let people get by with just unsupported blather?

[TheHandyman]

Well said and very to the point. And, unless I slept through it, has Bush, Cheney, Rumfield, Rice, Powell, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Gonzales, Ashcroft, and all the other people who lied us into a war either been arrested for Treason, War Crimes, or Impeached. Sure, some GOP Congressmen have gone to prison for taking bribes but the real problem with that is that they probably all do it as some of it they have made legal. What I want is for it to stick to the people who have harmed this country as a whole, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Truth is one thing but the wisdom to act on it is another. The Truth is out there. No, it really is. And it has always been this way from the dawn of history, you have to look for it.

[TankerRat]

I also agree jbeach.

[thromulese]

The truth is so pre-911

[drdolby]

Thank you for cutting to the chase and seeing (and stating) things for what they are.

You're info about the David Brooks question and response parallel my own pursuit of the truth.

Every time I even attempt to read a Dana Parino newsfeed from the Whitehouse or an actual quotation from the Spin master himself, (gwb - “This government does not torture people.”) knowing the truth and wondering when "leaders" are held to the same standards as the rest of us. I apparently never had privy to the Alberto Gonzales/Webster’s definition of torture.

I live in an extremely conservative community and for some masochistic reason continue to read the OP/ED section of the on-line version of the local paper and have witnessed 6 responses "Global Whining" to a middle schools students polite request to take action on global warming. how pathetic . . !

Even if our local/national media refuse to discuss the truth, intelligent individuals will seek (and find) the truth. The talking heads can proceed to spin their opinions as truth, but enlightened individuals will know better . . .

Our mission and goal is to refute the MSM with fact, continue to boycott the F(ake) News Channel and not concede to pathetic liars!

[vale409]

Well put Peter. I've often thought about the information age being too overwhelming at this point. Also what bothers me is that in the future when we talk about the time we're living in now, it's going to be all too easy to pick your history perspective. In other words we're going to have multiple history books to choose from.

[cheshyre]

It's a Chinese axiom that truth is found from within, not from without. Anyone who is honest with himself knows the wrongs this President is doing. Too many people either believe whatever suits them (true or not) or see a benefit in outright lying. No amount of debate or information can change that. It's each individual's choice to open his or her eyes to the truth.

[philjames]

Not surprising since you're talking about the American public, more than 50 percent of whom do not subscribe to the theory of evolution but believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago and humans co-existed with the dinosaurs. The Republicans have cashed in on this massive sub-culture and raised the cultivation and harvesting of ignorance for political gain to a high art form. Consider Rudy's recently spouting about further cutting taxes. Ignorance serves their ends so they continue to push faith-based government.

[Overd0g]

Welcome to democracy, where the most accomplished and wise have the same say as the most corrupt and vile. Welcome to guaranteed mediocrity (at best). Apathy is the Republic's most valuable asset. Otherwise the moron vote would rule absolute.

[TheHandyman]

Yes, as if what the corrupt and vile were nothing more than a legitimate opposing point of view which it is not. In humans, as with the rest of nature, the tendency is toward mediocrity. The difference should be that we should not settle for mediocrity.

[Mack20]

You are as ignorant as you are naive. Please continue to believe as you do, and we will continue winning elections and running the country. Would you be happier if Rudy campaigned on higher taxes? You would probably vote for him if he were that stupid. The last politician that ran for president with a raising taxes platform was George McGovern in 1972. In case you forgot he got his ass kicked by none other than Tricky Dick! Well, at least he was honest. Today your liberal leaders will lie through their teeth about taxes and then gleefully raise them when you least expect it. If you like higher taxes feel free to contribute extra for me on April 15.

[Sundialsvc4]

I cordially disagree with you on two points:

(1) You don't give enough consideration to the notion that the propaganda ministry is much more prepared this time. One of the elements which was infiltrated, so to speak, was the media. The media is thoroughly and persistently muzzled.

(2) You start to believe the media's message! The message... that it's hopeless, that nobody's aware, that nobody's opposed, that even if they were, it would|could do no good. That's simply not true.

I don't believe that this Tatanic is anywhere near "sunk," and even if it were, I don't believe in running to the stateroom for another drink.

I firmly believe that the -actual- sentiment in this country is far, far different from what the media spews, and I also firmly believe that the Internet is ... a VOICE, and not "the choir preaching to the choir."

We should never expect the press to acknowledge the Internet voice. Rather, we should expect it to belittle that voice. But "I hear America SPEAKING."

[Herrington]

Nicely put Sundial. It is not that people are not aware, it is that they have no voice other than the internet.

And at the same time it makes you crazy to listen to the watered down, fair and balanced drivel coming from the networks, it eats away at your conviction that there is anyone out there that shares your views. That is the reason I have put up an economics website to give voice to peoples growing disenchantment with their deteriorating prospects, prospects that are getting very little attention and no truth from the MSM.

The scales of fair and balanced need some repair and it will only come from a growing divorce between the MSM news and the public. It is happening, and you, the bloglodytes, are making it happen.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

I have stopped buying newspapers. Shocking, huh ?

I hope Rupert Murdoch goes bankrupt.