People believe what they WANT to believe. Let's stop making excuses for them. They are not "victims" of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump. They turn to these institutions because the misinformation they find there resonates with them and validates them.
2
Truth has a well known liberal bias.
(I'm sure someone beat me to it, but just in case....)
And there is an entire set of Propaganda Organs out there (Truth, I was a Soviet Specialist back in the day) dedicating to discrediting anything truthful of involving fact checking. Hilary's reputation problems are largely due to the Organs contiguously (Like, last night) repeating stories about minor issues like they were MAJOR ones. Their candidate, they just keep quiet about.
A LOT of RW media should lose their broadcast licensees for failure to serve the public good. I resent them using MY airwaves.
(I'm sure someone beat me to it, but just in case....)
And there is an entire set of Propaganda Organs out there (Truth, I was a Soviet Specialist back in the day) dedicating to discrediting anything truthful of involving fact checking. Hilary's reputation problems are largely due to the Organs contiguously (Like, last night) repeating stories about minor issues like they were MAJOR ones. Their candidate, they just keep quiet about.
A LOT of RW media should lose their broadcast licensees for failure to serve the public good. I resent them using MY airwaves.
6
And now we see that the "least liked candidates" story the media has been pushing since day one is yet another case of "FALSE EQUIVALENCE".
"The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters have been less affirmative in their support for their candidate."
fivethrityeight.com
"The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters have been less affirmative in their support for their candidate."
fivethrityeight.com
In your ongoing stream of condescending garbage...
This stand out as especially condescending - and as especially utter garbage...
Go to Venezuela - Emma...
Go as a hotonthetrailgotcha journalist...
Make Art, Andy, Dean, and your thesis advisor - in no particular order - so proud...
Go to the top of Centro Fincaniero...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Financiero_Confinanzas#/media/File:...
Bring a cameraperson...
Take a sweeping panorama of the Venezuelan cityscape - of the type Andy and Dean so like, recently, to preface magazine pieces...
Look out - but don't fall off...
All of the olfactory and visceral sensuality of a NYC subway platform...
But the trains don't run on time - or ever...
This stand out as especially condescending - and as especially utter garbage...
Go to Venezuela - Emma...
Go as a hotonthetrailgotcha journalist...
Make Art, Andy, Dean, and your thesis advisor - in no particular order - so proud...
Go to the top of Centro Fincaniero...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Financiero_Confinanzas#/media/File:...
Bring a cameraperson...
Take a sweeping panorama of the Venezuelan cityscape - of the type Andy and Dean so like, recently, to preface magazine pieces...
Look out - but don't fall off...
All of the olfactory and visceral sensuality of a NYC subway platform...
But the trains don't run on time - or ever...
And now we see that the "least liked candidates" story the media has been pushing since day one is yet another case of "FALSE EQUIVALENCE".
"The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters have been less affirmative in their support for their candidate."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters...
"The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters have been less affirmative in their support for their candidate."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters...
Oh the simple joys of not being a slave to Twitter feeds, Facebook posts, Instagram whatever-they-ares and Reddit bullcrap. No Fox News, no MSNBC, no CNN. 500+ channels on DirecTV and of all those listed, I know only the number to CBS News...12 in my reception region. I'll take Charlie Rose over Bill O'Really(?), Nora O'Donnell over Rachel Maddow, Gail King over Megyn Kelly and Scott Pelley over Rush Limbaugh any and every day of the week.
Yes, CBS has a liberal tilt. But it does not engage in wanton, ahem, dissembling. I assume NBC and ABC national newscasters follow the same anachronistic guidelines of at least trying to keep one foot in neutral territory. I prefer CBS and have access only to NBC of the other two old-school national networks while living only 60 or so miles from Dallas and Ft. Worth.
So, I'm a Luddite of sorts. You should try it some time. Frees up all sorts of time, lowers the blood pressure and, on Friday nights you can break out the Kleenex for Steve Hartman's "On the Road" views of the America we all wish existed from ocean to ocean and border to border.
Yes, CBS has a liberal tilt. But it does not engage in wanton, ahem, dissembling. I assume NBC and ABC national newscasters follow the same anachronistic guidelines of at least trying to keep one foot in neutral territory. I prefer CBS and have access only to NBC of the other two old-school national networks while living only 60 or so miles from Dallas and Ft. Worth.
So, I'm a Luddite of sorts. You should try it some time. Frees up all sorts of time, lowers the blood pressure and, on Friday nights you can break out the Kleenex for Steve Hartman's "On the Road" views of the America we all wish existed from ocean to ocean and border to border.
The guy in the photo is taunting the press.....from what appears to be about 15 feet away. Probably thinks there ISIS in there. Don't get too close!
2
Fact checking is what we used to call reporting. The job of reporters is to go around and find things out and look things up, then test and verify them. This is what journalism IS. What the opinion pages are filled with is what we used to call, in journalism, thumbsuckers. These were written by FORMER reporters who had been more or less put out to pasture after years of the more strenous work of actually reporting something. One problem is not the under resourcing of an outlet like the Times, it's the allocation of those resources; let's imagine that all (okay, 90%) the columnists at the Times, the Washington Post, and every other credible news outlet, were instead switched over to reporting. That is, they would have to go and find things out or, in the great tradition of I. F. Stone, pour over documents to find things out. There ARE journalists who still do this--Tim Weiner, Sy Hersh, Jane Mayer come to mind--but opinion is just infotainment echo-chambering now. Imagine: no more CNN "panels" on anything, and thus no more spinning of any crap--just anchors cutting to reporters doing actual STORIES. I repeat: a reporter IS a fact checker; that's the JOB.
6
As has been said before"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts." No matter how you twist it, two plus two is ALWAYS going to be four no matter what the deplorables and Republican'ts say or do. Next, stop watching Fixed Noise propaganda coolaid. Nothing truthful there as it is run by little children and is for little children who need their diapers changed. We are supposed to be adults in this country, Democrats anyway and as far as the deplorables and Republican'ts go, those words cannot be said here, so those who continue to get their "information* from dubious "news" sources must never be taken seriously.
Tell all you see and know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Tell all you see and know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
1
He looks like one of the braindead zombies from The Walking Dead. Appropriate.
1
Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should get a dictionary and look up the word "fact".
1
Some facts are equally inconvenient for both sides. President Obama has deported more people than any president before him. That fact doesn’t sit well with the president’s supporters, who think of Democrats as the party of kindness toward immigrants,
========================
My goodness, Ms Roller, you are just as bad as anyone else with "facts" you don't like.
The Obama "deportation" numbers are an artifact of a definition change by ICE. They started reporting people stopped at the border as deportations, a change in practice. Actual deportations of people who have made it into the country are down 40% since Obama took office as the LA Times reported.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
========================
My goodness, Ms Roller, you are just as bad as anyone else with "facts" you don't like.
The Obama "deportation" numbers are an artifact of a definition change by ICE. They started reporting people stopped at the border as deportations, a change in practice. Actual deportations of people who have made it into the country are down 40% since Obama took office as the LA Times reported.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
1
To all truth-challenged hyperventilators on the right and left (a set which more or less corresponds to those not voting for Hillary Clinton—who would have thought?) I salute you with a Twitter complement David Duke recently paid to Julian Assange for his stolen Clinton-speech documents:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/us/politics/trump-bigly-big-league-lin...
“America owes you, bigly!”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/us/politics/trump-bigly-big-league-lin...
“America owes you, bigly!”
Please forgive a piece I have used a couple of places lately. An appropriate and applicable book title from 1948 is: (by Ashleigh Brilliant)....
"I Have Abandoned My Search For Truth, and Am Now Looking For A
Good Fantasy". We are in the throes of a digital dilemma, with word
scrambles being freely tossed by one who gets his jollies in being the chronic center of attention....in any possible way.....and who has been labeled with a stream of personality facets most brought down to simple
diagnosis of Psychopathic Personality, usually 100% Shrinkproof. We can hope that his actual goal is Not to be President, but to start a Media
Empire, with Trump family support.
"I Have Abandoned My Search For Truth, and Am Now Looking For A
Good Fantasy". We are in the throes of a digital dilemma, with word
scrambles being freely tossed by one who gets his jollies in being the chronic center of attention....in any possible way.....and who has been labeled with a stream of personality facets most brought down to simple
diagnosis of Psychopathic Personality, usually 100% Shrinkproof. We can hope that his actual goal is Not to be President, but to start a Media
Empire, with Trump family support.
It's "click bait" - Outrageous headlines to drive you to sites with paying ads.
Just don't click.
Just don't click.
Truthiness is a republican trait? Lets see, the Duke LaCrosse case, the Rolling Stone rape story, Michael Brown, the gentle giant gunned down while screaming hands up dont shoot. It took quite a while for much of the MSM to admit these stories were wrong and many in the media continue to support. And those who dont, continue to support the narrative. We know these things happen, we just cant find the right story.
2
Do not appreciate being ridiculed and held up to public mockery. I work hard on writing educative, informative comments, and defend a point of view in good old Anglo Saxon ENGLISH. I also rely on facts.Unfair to single out ABH for public derision,and want to know why. Request a tete a tete with Mr.Benet who I read is the opinion editor to explore his reasons for discriminating against Alexander Harrison.Comments column should be open to all, and submissions judged on merit, regardless of whether words bruise the sensibiities of the columnist in question.Remember Mr. Benet, "Fair is fair!"Treat people equally.
Mourning that a NYT piece soberly uses the phrase "A recent BuzzFeed analysis"
3
So maybe we need to explain to these people their "truth", is really just their OPINIONS, and not necessarily based on facts!
Take the whole "jail" HRC mantra. Based not on the law, but innuendo and miscommunication of the facts about what she actually did, re; her emails. Miscommunication sourced from the Trump camp, and before him the Alex Jones's of the internet, talk-radio world. They would like X to be a crime, but their wishes dont make it so.
Had there been anything truly legally actionable - we can bet those witch-hunting GOP senators and the FBI, would have followed thru.
Neither HRC, or her husband, have some sort of magical Teflon cloak that they use to avoid prosecution.
And the picture leading this story...perfect. Perfect example of the average loudmouthed Trump supporter I've come to loath. I bet having a reasoned and logic based discussion with him is impossible. I bet he KNOWS everything about everything and everyone. Yet knows little about much at all.
Its high time we get someone with gravitas to step up and send the whole "my opinions are equal to facts" argument to its grave. Its long overdue.
Take the whole "jail" HRC mantra. Based not on the law, but innuendo and miscommunication of the facts about what she actually did, re; her emails. Miscommunication sourced from the Trump camp, and before him the Alex Jones's of the internet, talk-radio world. They would like X to be a crime, but their wishes dont make it so.
Had there been anything truly legally actionable - we can bet those witch-hunting GOP senators and the FBI, would have followed thru.
Neither HRC, or her husband, have some sort of magical Teflon cloak that they use to avoid prosecution.
And the picture leading this story...perfect. Perfect example of the average loudmouthed Trump supporter I've come to loath. I bet having a reasoned and logic based discussion with him is impossible. I bet he KNOWS everything about everything and everyone. Yet knows little about much at all.
Its high time we get someone with gravitas to step up and send the whole "my opinions are equal to facts" argument to its grave. Its long overdue.
2
The next time someone on the right tells me that Soros funds Snopes, well you will hear my scream of frustration around the world.
Not just voters. I met a man recently who would argue that it was nighttime at high noon. Then he would say, "we just disagree".
1
Two eyewitnesses to a fatal accident stand on opposite sides of the road. Their stories don't match, yet each eyewitness believes in their version of the truth.
Where you stand bears greatly on what you believe to be true.
Where you stand bears greatly on what you believe to be true.
1
The New York Times and other Main Stream Media sources are directly responsible for the voter revolt and questioning of our Government that is taking place in our country.
Giving Obama a free pass for his "un-truths" about Obamacare such as "if you like your doctor and your plan you can keep them" and "your rates and premiums will be reduced by $2,500 per year if we pass this plan" have been proven to be lies he knowingly told.
Now we have Hillary as possible president caught in even more lies than Obama. And the two of them together are caught red handed through the e-mail disclosures as you document today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-...
The level of corruptness of the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Obama Administration would make Richard Nixon roll over in his grave.
And to think that the New York Times is the biggest enabler of this mess makes me shake my head in shame...
Giving Obama a free pass for his "un-truths" about Obamacare such as "if you like your doctor and your plan you can keep them" and "your rates and premiums will be reduced by $2,500 per year if we pass this plan" have been proven to be lies he knowingly told.
Now we have Hillary as possible president caught in even more lies than Obama. And the two of them together are caught red handed through the e-mail disclosures as you document today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-...
The level of corruptness of the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Obama Administration would make Richard Nixon roll over in his grave.
And to think that the New York Times is the biggest enabler of this mess makes me shake my head in shame...
2
"Your facts or mine" undermines the fact (almost said "theory"!) of facts. There ARE no your facts or mine! As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously told a witness before his committee, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
This is exactly why we complain about the current "fact-free" campaign and about the death of facts. It's because professional liars like Trump just make up things and then keep saying them. If he does it for long enough, he wears people (the media) down and they start to accept the lies as just "different facts."
Education. truth and wisdom will go entirely to Hell if we allow this trend to continue. Please stop!
This is exactly why we complain about the current "fact-free" campaign and about the death of facts. It's because professional liars like Trump just make up things and then keep saying them. If he does it for long enough, he wears people (the media) down and they start to accept the lies as just "different facts."
Education. truth and wisdom will go entirely to Hell if we allow this trend to continue. Please stop!
1
One of the problems with separating fact from claims in journalism is that these days so many journalists are unable to do so and do so little research. I remember one a story that actually described the Underground Railroad before the Civil War as a way of cleverly disguising the tracks to run underground. Just recently, a Washington Post columnist "discovered" that Richard Nixon had been hospitalized right before his first debate with John F. Kennedy--which was no discovery to anyone who had been reading the papers at the time or who had read any biography of Nixon or any account of the 1960 campaign.
I feel that a much greater emphasis on teaching schoolkids how to evaluate a source is in order. And not just as it pertains to writing research papers, but in consuming media both old and new.
2
The biggest problem I see is that for the highly partisan there is no real downside to doubling down on false beliefs. Whoever might deign to better inform them joins the conspiracy they subscribe to. It is like many are brain dead and if they don't take it too far in a mainstream workplace they can just add to their bitterness. Fact checking has been my hope and I rely on the NY Times, Politifact, other major newspapers and legitimate experts in the fields in question.
1
Democrats tend to think collectively and often hitch their wagon to the wrong horse, as in Ferguson and Charlotte (when there is no shortage of police brutality examples.) They are committing themselves now to Hillary Clinton, who is probably more crooked than Nixon.
What the esteemed Mr. Obama and Mr. Krugman have been telling us were Facts ?
They said the economy is doing great. We now find out that half the unemployed men are unemployable or on medication.
They were emphatic that Obamacare is a success. We now discover that it is a disaster, to put that mildly.
We were even told that Mr. Obama was not aware of Hillary's email situation. We learn today in NYT that everyone was scrambling around to clean up that mess.
Whose "facts" are we talking about now ? Or should we begin with, what "fact is" is ?
They said the economy is doing great. We now find out that half the unemployed men are unemployable or on medication.
They were emphatic that Obamacare is a success. We now discover that it is a disaster, to put that mildly.
We were even told that Mr. Obama was not aware of Hillary's email situation. We learn today in NYT that everyone was scrambling around to clean up that mess.
Whose "facts" are we talking about now ? Or should we begin with, what "fact is" is ?
1
Are the recent Wikileaks factual? The stuff on Hillary was bone chilling. Let's at least be educated consumers of information, and read her and her team's words from their own communication trail.
1
Nothing new about this truthiness. It is just the political version of the urban legend. As a boomer I remember the stories of girls with ratted and over hair sprayed doos who died because black widow spiders built nests in said girls hair.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" - John 20:29. There you have the whole problem. Blind faith is considered by the fundamentalists as a superior manifestation of good character than scientific inquiry.
Fundamentalist religions are at the core of the problem of willful ignorance. Their religions require the rejection of facts since their superstitions cannot stand up under the harsh glare of objective analysis.
This psychology is not restricted to the local church - it is carried into the voting booth as well.
Fundamentalist religions are at the core of the problem of willful ignorance. Their religions require the rejection of facts since their superstitions cannot stand up under the harsh glare of objective analysis.
This psychology is not restricted to the local church - it is carried into the voting booth as well.
3
The expression on the man's face in the photo almost says more than this article ever could with words. I'm from a modest Midwestern white middle class upbringing. And yet driving through rural America makes me uneasy. I cannot even imagine how I would feel if I didn't ethnically blend in with these people. Donald Trump's gift to us is revealing just how many of our countrymen there are to fear.
2
I have a friend who tends toward political conspiracy. When I pointed to Snopes article contradicting one of his conspiracies, he said that while Snopes was good for normal urban legends, it was almost always wrong when it came to anything political. Sigh, it is hopeless.
1
The progressive media fact-check has indeed become a useless exercise wherein progressive #1 simply restates or backs up progressive #2's rant or obediently destroys the opposition statement. The most useless fact-checks are often here at what remains of the NY Times.
The most entertaining aspect of the 2016 race is still the panicked OMGs from the 5% most-liberal fringe Leftists responding to dog-whistle articles here saying nothing new at all but simply harvesting clicks.
The most entertaining aspect of the 2016 race is still the panicked OMGs from the 5% most-liberal fringe Leftists responding to dog-whistle articles here saying nothing new at all but simply harvesting clicks.
1
The problem is that one needs an educated public who understands the importance of facts and how to find them. Education in this country is not able to provide such knowledge.
1
I have been an academic for 30 years, a profession that finds me in an industry dominated by liberals. I have found them no more interested in facts that run contrary to their cherished beliefs than those on the right. Few academics, like much of our society, are interested in understanding why their point of view on the world does not mesh with another's.
Based on the Project Veritas tapes, how can we be sure the picture of the alleged angry trump supporter is not a plant. From the Veritas tapes it appears mentally ill and homeless people may have been hired to cause conflict at Trump rallies.
1
"truthiness" is a non-word for the concept of plausibility.
One of the exercises I gave my introductory classes in physics(!) was to think about the claim (popular in the 1980's) that 50,000 American children disappear every year, it was feared into unmarked graves behind the homes of molesters or into child-brothels. That's more than 1 out of 100 children born each year. I asked my students: Do you know anyone who disappeared? Do you know anyone who knew anyone who disappeared? Then we estimate the size of these circles of acquaintance, and conclude that 50,000 must be an overestimate by a factor of 100 or more (the FBI figures for stranger kidnappings are in the low double digits).
The message is that if someone makes an astounding or frightening claim, think critically before accepting it.
One of the exercises I gave my introductory classes in physics(!) was to think about the claim (popular in the 1980's) that 50,000 American children disappear every year, it was feared into unmarked graves behind the homes of molesters or into child-brothels. That's more than 1 out of 100 children born each year. I asked my students: Do you know anyone who disappeared? Do you know anyone who knew anyone who disappeared? Then we estimate the size of these circles of acquaintance, and conclude that 50,000 must be an overestimate by a factor of 100 or more (the FBI figures for stranger kidnappings are in the low double digits).
The message is that if someone makes an astounding or frightening claim, think critically before accepting it.
Trump's supporters have been lobotomized. They excuse or ignore every ridiculous claim, every insult, They are beyond hope. Fortunately they are not the majority. And a large number surprisingly won't even vote. The non-voters are not civic minded, but they wear those red caps, and they will be the loudest screamers about "fixed elections" when their reprobate candidate loses.
1
My born-again nutsy sister has "home schooled" her kids, in an effort to ensure that they don't bump up against pesky facts like the age of the planet and the evolution of life on it. They are now absolutely ignorant almost-adults, with no math, no science, no foreign language exposure (never mind fluency), and the writing of the now-19-year-old looks and reads like his cousin's -- who is 8. They have been taught that people rode dinosaurs, a la the Flintstones, and that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood.
These two kids are the fodder that the Republican party will need, going forward: steeped in ignorance and religion, with no understanding of the world around them. They have been deliberately crippled and I fear for them in their later lives, trying to make a living in a fact-based world. They will become the angry left-behind white men.
I suppose they could become right-wing radio hosts, or itinerant preachers...there's not much else they are qualified for.
These two kids are the fodder that the Republican party will need, going forward: steeped in ignorance and religion, with no understanding of the world around them. They have been deliberately crippled and I fear for them in their later lives, trying to make a living in a fact-based world. They will become the angry left-behind white men.
I suppose they could become right-wing radio hosts, or itinerant preachers...there's not much else they are qualified for.
2
This opinion piece by Emma Roller seems to have inspired some reasonably good comments about a problem that has been addressed by many media studies scholars who have views which are not widely read. Foremost among our honest public intellectuals might be Noam Chomsky who recognizes the cintunally ugly revolving door of wealth and power that stirs the American pot of soup everyday. Keep posted: take the time and the energy to make an honest historical analysis of all the good and bad history that has been written throughout the age of printing, up to the digital age.
1
Yes, our horribly amped up partisanship is a reason truth is viewed as malleable, if not irrelevant.
But its not the only one. Truth has become, to more and more people, impossible to keep up with.
Not one person in 50 can tell you how their smartphone works. Half of America needs technical support to adjust their TV. There are now trillion dollar investment funds that 75% of Americans cannot describe. Middle East tensions seem to be the cause of much of the world's ills, yet most people can't identify the players, let alone a solution. And our education system dumbs down from there.
It is an irony that in an "Information Age", people aren't upset about "facts" being wrong, because they have become used to not knowing.
But its not the only one. Truth has become, to more and more people, impossible to keep up with.
Not one person in 50 can tell you how their smartphone works. Half of America needs technical support to adjust their TV. There are now trillion dollar investment funds that 75% of Americans cannot describe. Middle East tensions seem to be the cause of much of the world's ills, yet most people can't identify the players, let alone a solution. And our education system dumbs down from there.
It is an irony that in an "Information Age", people aren't upset about "facts" being wrong, because they have become used to not knowing.
1
Maybe the reason the greatest generation is that great was their ability to teach us from their mistakes.
Maybe their sacrifice and bravery in confronting nationalist movements, was not as important, as their ability to teach a few generations to aim for inclusion and elevation of human race.
Maybe the luckiest generations are the ones raised by people who faced and surmounted terrible problems. It's not the today's kids who are forgetting. It's just that American/European people haven't faced the worst results of nationalism in "living memory"
Maybe their sacrifice and bravery in confronting nationalist movements, was not as important, as their ability to teach a few generations to aim for inclusion and elevation of human race.
Maybe the luckiest generations are the ones raised by people who faced and surmounted terrible problems. It's not the today's kids who are forgetting. It's just that American/European people haven't faced the worst results of nationalism in "living memory"
That is the exact problem with our society- each political party manipulates the story to fit their agenda.
Democrats always cry that republicans are racist, and yet democratic strongholds have the highest rate of black murders, black abortions, and racial income inequity.
I could list more (including republican examples), but the readers here are so biased that they will attack me for daring to point out democratic hypocrisy on race.
Democrats always cry that republicans are racist, and yet democratic strongholds have the highest rate of black murders, black abortions, and racial income inequity.
I could list more (including republican examples), but the readers here are so biased that they will attack me for daring to point out democratic hypocrisy on race.
The problem is that a large portion of the US is getting dumber and dumber.
They have few if any marketable skills. They do not read. They fall gullibly for low requirement home loans and then are shocked when they learn they do actually need to make their monthly mortgage payment. The lower middle class in the US which includes many of the Trump and Bernie crowd just do not possess the adult attributes to survive in the world.
And hence if someone has the walking around sense of a 4th grader, they will believe absolutely anything.
They have few if any marketable skills. They do not read. They fall gullibly for low requirement home loans and then are shocked when they learn they do actually need to make their monthly mortgage payment. The lower middle class in the US which includes many of the Trump and Bernie crowd just do not possess the adult attributes to survive in the world.
And hence if someone has the walking around sense of a 4th grader, they will believe absolutely anything.
1
President Obama has deported more people than any president before him.
Whether the president has deported more people depends on who is being counted. Previous administrations did not count people who had been caught illegally crossing the border or ones who had just illegally entered our country. President Obama does count these people.
Whether the president has deported more people depends on who is being counted. Previous administrations did not count people who had been caught illegally crossing the border or ones who had just illegally entered our country. President Obama does count these people.
As someone who has always worded hard to try and understand what is really happening, and what caused it, the "all facts are negotiable" position is very distressing.
Fact-free thinking is certainly not a right-wing or Republican exclusive. For years liberal colleges have taught "deconstruction" as a means to "understand" or "mock" what a writer was really trying to do.
However, when the core beliefs of a party are often just wrong, there is no good way out.
1. Does austerity (Republican economics) work to provide a better economy? All evidence says no.
2. Does reducing taxes on the wealthiest reduce the deficit or generate lots of jobs? All evidence says no.
3. Is crony capitalism the best way to manage an economy? Again: no.
4. Is climate change a major threat to our economy, way of life, and habitability of lots of our territory? Republicans must say no. All evidence shows that it is a major threat, the threat can be reduced at very modest cost if we want to, and without addressing it, city abandonment will most likely begin within the lifetimes of our youngest voters.
If many of the core beliefs and policies of a major party are nonsense, what hope do we have that they can alter course? How can any debate within that party appeal to fact or reason?
Fact-free thinking is certainly not a right-wing or Republican exclusive. For years liberal colleges have taught "deconstruction" as a means to "understand" or "mock" what a writer was really trying to do.
However, when the core beliefs of a party are often just wrong, there is no good way out.
1. Does austerity (Republican economics) work to provide a better economy? All evidence says no.
2. Does reducing taxes on the wealthiest reduce the deficit or generate lots of jobs? All evidence says no.
3. Is crony capitalism the best way to manage an economy? Again: no.
4. Is climate change a major threat to our economy, way of life, and habitability of lots of our territory? Republicans must say no. All evidence shows that it is a major threat, the threat can be reduced at very modest cost if we want to, and without addressing it, city abandonment will most likely begin within the lifetimes of our youngest voters.
If many of the core beliefs and policies of a major party are nonsense, what hope do we have that they can alter course? How can any debate within that party appeal to fact or reason?
1
"Confirmation bias" is very different from "institutional bias" - liberal or conservative. Confirmational bias pertains to the tendency of news consumers to selectively gather and remember information that supports their existing views (in order to reduce cognitive dissonance). Institutional bias in politics and the media is the nonobjective representation of information that is presented to citizens and consumers, either intentional or unintentional.
The conflation of these two types of biases may, in fact, be an ironic example of the political bias of this paper trying to support Hillary Clinton.
The conflation of these two types of biases may, in fact, be an ironic example of the political bias of this paper trying to support Hillary Clinton.
My 40 years of experience in politics support your thesis. So the problem for a candidate is formulating a message that will "tell people what they want to hear". The most effective messages contain words and phrases and images that penetrate the primitive brain/subconscious. This is not an easy assignment, an assignment, that "just the facts" would be a problematical success. Money and promises of a potential job also seems to help.
Today, I listened to the Trump rally in Florida with questions and statements from the audience that was filled with Trump hotel employees. He told big ones and so did individuals in the audience. So it goes in politics protecting your job sometimes appears to be a big motivation for support of a candidate.
Today, I listened to the Trump rally in Florida with questions and statements from the audience that was filled with Trump hotel employees. He told big ones and so did individuals in the audience. So it goes in politics protecting your job sometimes appears to be a big motivation for support of a candidate.
1
You know, half of all immigrants — undocumented immigrants — in our country actually pay federal income tax.
When Hillary made this claim during the last debate, I wondered how she could think that half of the undocumented filed federal income taxes. Then I read that she might have meant that payroll deductions such as social security and medicare. I highly doubt that half of the undocumented are filing income tax forms.
They could file income tax forms, if they wanted to. The I.R.S. assigns a special number to any undocumented person who is willing to file tax forms. I suspect most of the undocumented, who file, are doing so to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is welfare money that supplements the low income. The undocumented are allowed to count any of their children who are living in their home countries, as well as any children who are living here, to get a higher amount of money. Thus, the undocumented are receiving welfare, and those with more children (regardless of their citizenship) are receiving more.
Perhaps the media could report on the percentage of undocumented who file federal income tax forms, and on the percentage who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit.
When Hillary made this claim during the last debate, I wondered how she could think that half of the undocumented filed federal income taxes. Then I read that she might have meant that payroll deductions such as social security and medicare. I highly doubt that half of the undocumented are filing income tax forms.
They could file income tax forms, if they wanted to. The I.R.S. assigns a special number to any undocumented person who is willing to file tax forms. I suspect most of the undocumented, who file, are doing so to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is welfare money that supplements the low income. The undocumented are allowed to count any of their children who are living in their home countries, as well as any children who are living here, to get a higher amount of money. Thus, the undocumented are receiving welfare, and those with more children (regardless of their citizenship) are receiving more.
Perhaps the media could report on the percentage of undocumented who file federal income tax forms, and on the percentage who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit.
1
Facts matter, but so does what one does with them or how one responds to them. This response will vary depending on the person's background. Until we all acknowledge this we will continue to slide toward monolog, ignoring what is ever before us--dialog. Until we have an interest in dialog, in understanding why a human being holds the views she or he does, monolog will continue to gain ground. And monolog does not presuppose the existence of others or even their points of view. When monolog prevails, human development will cease to be possible.
"A lie is half way around the world while the truth is still putting on it's walking shoes." Confirmation bias proves people search out information confirming their preconceived beliefs rather than let new information change those beliefs.
Confirmation bias effects everyone. We believe what we want to believe and don't wait around for conflicting information that might challenge those beliefs.
Confirmation bias effects everyone. We believe what we want to believe and don't wait around for conflicting information that might challenge those beliefs.
It is ironic, although not at all surprising that in the "information age" that we live in, the value of information has been greatly diluted by the corrupting influence of misinformation. In a world where with the click of a mouse or keypad one can find the answers to more questions than we could even imagine, the trustworthiness of the answers obtained has never been more called into question.
1
Fact: The Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, when it "lost" 22 million emails on a private server owned by the Republican National Committee.
Fact: Secretary Clinton used a private server and failed to store her emails as required by law.
The Democrats cite fact #1 and the rabid Republicans want Mrs. Clinton jailed for fact #2. The smart voter knows each political party will try and make the most out of their respective fact completely ignoring the other fact. It is the voters' responsibility to stay well informed and know all the facts - not just one side. Knowing both fact #1 and #2 weakens the Republican position that Mrs. Clinton should be put in jail because if they hold to that logic then the Bush Administration Chief (Karl Rove) deserves the same punishment. The next conclusion that can be drawn is that the Republicans are supporting a double standard.
Fact #3: Both parties cited above failed to do what was required by law but neither will be prosecuted.
Fact: Secretary Clinton used a private server and failed to store her emails as required by law.
The Democrats cite fact #1 and the rabid Republicans want Mrs. Clinton jailed for fact #2. The smart voter knows each political party will try and make the most out of their respective fact completely ignoring the other fact. It is the voters' responsibility to stay well informed and know all the facts - not just one side. Knowing both fact #1 and #2 weakens the Republican position that Mrs. Clinton should be put in jail because if they hold to that logic then the Bush Administration Chief (Karl Rove) deserves the same punishment. The next conclusion that can be drawn is that the Republicans are supporting a double standard.
Fact #3: Both parties cited above failed to do what was required by law but neither will be prosecuted.
2
Our common vernacular language can add to the problem. To most scientists, the word "theory" implies fact; to the general public, theory often suggests hunch or unverified proposal. Biblical metaphors are considered literal truth to many religious people. To those in the armed forces, a Military order to a subordinate is legally binding only if it is (1) received and understood, (2) clear and unequivocal, (3) pertains to good order or morale, and is (4) not against the law. Citizens, we have our work cut out for us. This is a big and important problem. problem
The people that have grown tired of the lies perpetuated by both the left and right media and candidates are suffering from the underlying assumption humans are rational. This group believes that if popular media outlets staunchly oppose lies by employing strict fact-checking, they would be able to cure their audiences of ignorant beliefs and lay the foundation for a more logical debate.
Even today's most distorted media and didn't, one day, simply decide to completely forgo objective journalism and propagate lies to their audiences. As tensions in America's political system grew, and a wider range of news sources arose, Americans began to subscribe to groups and media outlets that mirror their beliefs. Basic economics can tell you that as demand for media that supports a certain belief rises, their supply will also rise.
This is partially driven by the sad truth that holding onto your own beliefs and never having them challenged is more comfortable than having them opposed by numbers and facts. The reason that lies are allowed to go unchallenged in today's political sphere is because a large portion of the American populace has chosen to limit themselves to media outlets and political candidates that reciprocate their own beliefs (regardless if based in truth or not). Even if the media began fact checking every statement said or every policy proposed by politicians, little would change because Americans would just shun facts that don't coincide to their beliefs.
Even today's most distorted media and didn't, one day, simply decide to completely forgo objective journalism and propagate lies to their audiences. As tensions in America's political system grew, and a wider range of news sources arose, Americans began to subscribe to groups and media outlets that mirror their beliefs. Basic economics can tell you that as demand for media that supports a certain belief rises, their supply will also rise.
This is partially driven by the sad truth that holding onto your own beliefs and never having them challenged is more comfortable than having them opposed by numbers and facts. The reason that lies are allowed to go unchallenged in today's political sphere is because a large portion of the American populace has chosen to limit themselves to media outlets and political candidates that reciprocate their own beliefs (regardless if based in truth or not). Even if the media began fact checking every statement said or every policy proposed by politicians, little would change because Americans would just shun facts that don't coincide to their beliefs.
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts." Danial Patrick Monyihan
1
The press is involved in abetting Islamophobic extremist. Let me tell you why. If some weirdo wants to “label” Obama a Muslim, the Press should not try to fact-check the assertion. The assertion should either be ignored or the press should simply ask as to what a person’s faith has to do with him/her holding the office of the President. It is pure, undiluted hypocrisy, cant, sanctimony, for the American Public to CLAIM that the worth of citizen is not determined by his faith, and yet keep on singling out people who might not practice some denomination of the Christian faith, as unfit to hold the Presidency.
Why does the press have to repudiate the false assertion? Instead, it is the duty of the press to point out the non-relevance of the assertion to the discussion.
The repudiation of this FALSE assertion is actually an abuse to American citizens who are MUSLIM, for it limpidly shows that the press implicitly is accepting the argument that Muslims are considered UNFIT to hold the office of POTUS. THE AMERICAN PRESS SUBLIMINALLY ASCRIBES TO ISLAMOPHOBIA.
Why does the press have to repudiate the false assertion? Instead, it is the duty of the press to point out the non-relevance of the assertion to the discussion.
The repudiation of this FALSE assertion is actually an abuse to American citizens who are MUSLIM, for it limpidly shows that the press implicitly is accepting the argument that Muslims are considered UNFIT to hold the office of POTUS. THE AMERICAN PRESS SUBLIMINALLY ASCRIBES TO ISLAMOPHOBIA.
3
Maybe the time to stop the false stories was back in the 1970s, when mainstream papers began to reprint celebrity gossip items from the tabloids, reasoning that they were only telling people "what was being said."
I fact check all the time. Over and over I read comments here that are just plain wrong, even with the NY Times Picks. I will then painstakingly research and write a rebuttal to these NY Times Picks comments, a process that can easily take over a half hour. Nine times out of ten it is never even printed.
3
We've had lies thrown at us for all of our history. With the advent of highly effective means of mass communication, the speed and severity of the lies is just on a much larger scale than ever before.
However, since the second amendment protects speech without requiring that lies be forbidden, it has always been the task of the listener to scrutinize what they receive. This is why an informed and educated electorate is an essential factor for maintaining an effective democracy.
Take note that the forces that lie the most are also the forces that prefer to block policies that would improve education in schools, and adult awareness of relevant facts and issues.
However, since the second amendment protects speech without requiring that lies be forbidden, it has always been the task of the listener to scrutinize what they receive. This is why an informed and educated electorate is an essential factor for maintaining an effective democracy.
Take note that the forces that lie the most are also the forces that prefer to block policies that would improve education in schools, and adult awareness of relevant facts and issues.
2
Agree with everything except asking those over 60 to leave office. Doing so would eliminate a portion of the population that not only has life experience but represents an entire generation.
1
What does this say about the state our country and our elected leaders? Don't blame Trump- blame the inept two party system which gave Trump the platform to address issues both Democrats and Republicans have failed to act on. Border Security, Open Trade, Jobs for Americans, Health Care- these aren't Trump issues. These are issues all of us should be concerned about. As soon as Trump started speaking- then both parties finally decided they have better solutions? Where were they the last 20 years? Term Limits for Congress is the best place to start. Better yet, any Senator or Rep. over 60 YO should be asked to leave.
How about we don't insist on blaming anybody and instead take responsibility to confront confirmation bias when we see it -- especially our own?
The author may have missed that Stephen Colbert also discussed "Trumpiness"
http://theweek.com/speedreads/636881/stephen-colbert-resurrects-colbert-...
http://theweek.com/speedreads/636881/stephen-colbert-resurrects-colbert-...
1
"There’s no simple answer, but the only way people will start rejecting falsehoods being fed to them is by confronting uncomfortable truth."
Exactly.
But the political correctness that dominates the mainstream media and most schools and universities says certain uncomfortable truths cannot be spoken of -- because they would be hurtful or hate speech to chosen interest groups.
Of course political correctness says it is not only allowed, but good, to say hurtful or hateful thing about those it considers the "Deplorables".
Exactly.
But the political correctness that dominates the mainstream media and most schools and universities says certain uncomfortable truths cannot be spoken of -- because they would be hurtful or hate speech to chosen interest groups.
Of course political correctness says it is not only allowed, but good, to say hurtful or hateful thing about those it considers the "Deplorables".
1
This is why I've given up trying to have a discussion with Trump supporters. They do not understand the concept of facts versus opinion. And, even if you try to explain that there can still be political disagreement while there is agreement as to certain provable facts, they think that if they agree to such facts they are giving something up. In actuality a meaningful political debate can only happen when both sides are talking from a factually stable premise. This is what happens every single day in court. Lawyers on both sides of a disagreement file motions for summary judgment based on agreed facts and the court then decides who is right on the law and analysis as applied to those facts. If we as a country want to have a productive discussion about the issues confronting our nation and our future we all need to stick to the facts and the media needs to do it's part to keep the focus on the facts. One place to start is less talking heads on TV and more actual news.
5
Truth has always been like that: truth is what you want to become true.
Everything else is reality.
Everything else is reality.
When evidence-based truths become completely subsumed to conviction-based truths, which form a coherent fabric, we can call the result an "orthodoxy". Orthodoxies, as Europe learned from the 12th through 17th century, can be self-sustaining in holding beliefs to be true long after considerable evidence shows them to be false. More, those who participate in orthodox thought have strong motivations, cognitive and emotional, to suppress the expression of evidence-based truth where it conflicts with their canon: as a result, things like the Inquisition, the death penalty for "blasphemy", and witch-trials can come about.
Orthodoxies are an extreme form of all shared human belief systems -- after all, we always have to take much of what we know on 'faith', and can't check every assumption and every fact. And it may be that informational self-segregation increases the likelihood that Americans will fall to orthodox belief systems.
Education, civil discourse, and respect for diversity are the cure for exaggerated orthodoxy. Let us all support these means loudly and forcefully, as they have been one foundation of the American republic (for all of its flaws) since the 1770s.
Orthodoxies are an extreme form of all shared human belief systems -- after all, we always have to take much of what we know on 'faith', and can't check every assumption and every fact. And it may be that informational self-segregation increases the likelihood that Americans will fall to orthodox belief systems.
Education, civil discourse, and respect for diversity are the cure for exaggerated orthodoxy. Let us all support these means loudly and forcefully, as they have been one foundation of the American republic (for all of its flaws) since the 1770s.
4
People need to get out more and do their own fact-checking.
Knowing people of Mexican descent, Muslims, LGBTQ people. Knowing Republicans, Evangelical Christians, hardworking people whose jobs have been wiped out by technology. Demonization works only when all the "demons" you've ever seen are caricatures drawn by their opponents.
Knowing people of Mexican descent, Muslims, LGBTQ people. Knowing Republicans, Evangelical Christians, hardworking people whose jobs have been wiped out by technology. Demonization works only when all the "demons" you've ever seen are caricatures drawn by their opponents.
10
That's easier said than done if you live somewhere like the rural Rust Belt without diverse religious or ethnic populations -- or if you don't, and are somewhere that hasn't been so impacted by jobs being streamlined out of existence.
What's driving some of the faux spin leaders is the belief that any means is justifyable as long as the ends are noble. Not true and a dangerous and slippery slope to be on.
4
Ann is so right. Eventually you find the devout partisan who says in effect, ''We can't waste time backing up our statements! We must simply denounce our enemies and make those on our side a little bit angrier.''
Lying and the harm of personal attacks will linger even after the end of the campaign is realized.
Lying and the harm of personal attacks will linger even after the end of the campaign is realized.
There is no more rabid enforcer of political correctness as they define it than Trump supporters, Breitbart, Limbaugh, and the whole apparatus of the far right. No deviation from their weird party line of phony assertions allowed.
So Trump is a successful businessman? Facts not welcome, but this exposes the real truth: "A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims" http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-5...
Six bankruptcies. He never stopped taking other people's money, but he ruined Atlantic City. He's just a big baby bully. Over 3500 lawsuits, to the point that the Bar Association decided he was too litigious to publish a report about his litigation bullying (today's paper).
He lies about his bullying women, and if any victim dares come forward, that is grounds for attack. So what about Ivana: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-5... "Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women": "Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation ... Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. ... she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’" He denied it and Ivana was forced to go along.
The stories multiply. Facts matter.
So Trump is a successful businessman? Facts not welcome, but this exposes the real truth: "A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims" http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-5...
Six bankruptcies. He never stopped taking other people's money, but he ruined Atlantic City. He's just a big baby bully. Over 3500 lawsuits, to the point that the Bar Association decided he was too litigious to publish a report about his litigation bullying (today's paper).
He lies about his bullying women, and if any victim dares come forward, that is grounds for attack. So what about Ivana: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-5... "Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women": "Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation ... Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. ... she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’" He denied it and Ivana was forced to go along.
The stories multiply. Facts matter.
29
Oops, I pasted the wrong link for the Ivana Trump story. Here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of...
4
Very well presented... good information and links to back up your remarks... Sweet....
2
Here in the United States, Susan, political correctness is the concept where no one in the media or even among elected political opponents dare criticize decisions by Barack Obama because they cause knees to jerk and makes non-thinkers say, ''racist.''
P.C. is when Party R does the exact same things that Party D has done for decades but it is used to ignite fear and hate in ignorant millennials.
P.C. is when Melania Trump says exactly the same thing as Michelle Obama but is called everything but a child of God by non-cognitice zealots.
There is a complete lack of political correctness with Donald Trump. That is his appeal and why the GOP saw millions more primary votes cast that ever before.
That lack of P.C. is also the subject of 70% of the NY Times' partisan dog-whistle articles since last summer. With a politically correct Donald, there would be nothing left to say except hair jokes.
P.C. is when Party R does the exact same things that Party D has done for decades but it is used to ignite fear and hate in ignorant millennials.
P.C. is when Melania Trump says exactly the same thing as Michelle Obama but is called everything but a child of God by non-cognitice zealots.
There is a complete lack of political correctness with Donald Trump. That is his appeal and why the GOP saw millions more primary votes cast that ever before.
That lack of P.C. is also the subject of 70% of the NY Times' partisan dog-whistle articles since last summer. With a politically correct Donald, there would be nothing left to say except hair jokes.
People on the right say they dislike "political correctness ". In that spirit, I would say that the Fox News nation has basically turned into a cult. An uncomfortable fact which goes a long way toward explaining American politics today, especially the popularity of Trump. His main selling point has been to serve the kool-aid straight. He's not the guy who tells it like it is...he's just the bartender at Hannity's tavern.
46
Whoops - you repeat the lie that will not die. In an almost Trumpian move, President Obama has pulled a stats switcheroo, suddenly counting border-crossing rejections as “deportations.”
Okay show us we’re wrong when we say that Obama is flouting the immigration laws. Give us the name of a single illegal alien deported by Obama for no reason other than the fact that they’re here illegally.
Okay show us we’re wrong when we say that Obama is flouting the immigration laws. Give us the name of a single illegal alien deported by Obama for no reason other than the fact that they’re here illegally.
9
30% of federal convictions are immigration convictions -- ie, people whose cringe is just being here illegally. They are then deported.
So, there are many, many people "deported by Obama for no reason other than the fact that they are here illegally."
So, there are many, many people "deported by Obama for no reason other than the fact that they are here illegally."
There may be a difference between simply affirming a proposition as fact because something happened and affirming it as fact because the opposite didn’t happen. It may sound like higher-level logic chopping, but the difference can be great when two alternatives are presented.
5
“President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported,” Mr. Trump said at the third and final debate. " That true statement from Trump shows he is an unabashed liar about Obama's immigration policy and why would any of his supporter's continue to buy his con game ? They just need to listen to what he is actually saying and realize they are being suckered.
14
And you might have mentioned that illegal immigration into the U.S. is today at a 45 year low.
3
W.A. needs to check ANY statement by the actual Border Patrol agents. They see millions getting away into the U.S. each year, on top of Mr. Obama's known 66,000 criminally-convicted illegals that he refuses to send home.
You should be curios why he wants them here.
You should be curios why he wants them here.
And that MR. Trump wasn't concerned about illegal immigration when the largest group of illegal immigrants in the country were Irish working in New York. It's only when they became brown people that anyone got concerned.
"At a rally in Cleveland, a pair of Trump supporters called the press “lügenpresse,” or “lying press” — a term used in Nazi Germany that has recently been resurrected by the German anti-immigrant party known as Pegida."
Go to any kiosk in Germany and ask for "Das Lügenblatt," and I guarantee you they'll give you the Bildzeitung, the notorious, best-selling, right-wing tabloid.
Go to any kiosk in Germany and ask for "Das Lügenblatt," and I guarantee you they'll give you the Bildzeitung, the notorious, best-selling, right-wing tabloid.
13
As the great Molly Ivans said back in 1992 during the Pat Bucannan "Culture war" RNC speech "I preferred it in the original German" I only she was around today.
2
Dems want a larger government.
The Trump people want exactly the opposite.
The Nazis were ALL about a gigantic government in charge of everything.
Thus, the party most likely to re-create the Nazi Germany of the 1930's is led by Barack and Hillary.
Check which party has people right HERE demanding that the opposition be hushed: the Democrats. There is really no comparison.
The Trump people want exactly the opposite.
The Nazis were ALL about a gigantic government in charge of everything.
Thus, the party most likely to re-create the Nazi Germany of the 1930's is led by Barack and Hillary.
Check which party has people right HERE demanding that the opposition be hushed: the Democrats. There is really no comparison.
1
The biggest lie of any election season is that voters want their politicians to tell them the truth. We don't. We want them to tell us what we want to hear: that climate change is a hoax and coal is coming back to WV and Eastern Kentucky (the good coal is gone, natural gas is cheaper and cleaner, and conveniently we have forgotten mine cave-ins, strikes, black lung, mud slides, and strip mines); that we really want term limits (we have them, because every elected official must be re-elected to stay in power, but we have low voter participation even in presidential election years and even less in the interim); that we can slash taxes by half but pay for the VA, a larger military, Social Security, and roads. We long for our biases to be confirmed (not to mention our worst imaginings), gasp in hypocrisy and horror when we find out politicians are just like the rest of us, no better or worse. Our political alliances are informed by tribal feelings not by reasoning or information.
We turn our noses up at the political process and call it corrupt, but the truth is, we have exactly the politicians we deserve.
We turn our noses up at the political process and call it corrupt, but the truth is, we have exactly the politicians we deserve.
26
Maybe the NYT's should engage in some sensationalistic reporting that would both grab viewers and point out how much misinformation is out there. How about "TRUMP LIES 17 TIMES IN DEBATE WITH CLINTON" as the front page lead story? It is certainly time to attack the idea that politicians (and lots of other folks) can get away with ignoring the truth to their own advantage. In order for us to take our media seriously, they need to point out the truth and hold those who lie accountable. We have to turn this around. People who believe nonsense need to be set straight. Otherwise, this will only get worse.
13
A great deal of this is to be found in Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer."
The problem with facts is, they are a liberal thing, those damned liberals use them to make us right wingers look bad.
Then of course there are the relativist philosophers. Reality to them is their perception of it, not what actually exists. So reality is relative, and that puts facts in the same envelope.
I like to point out occasionally that there are facts, it you do not believe it, try testing gravity by jumping off a high building. People like Rush make claims and demand you prove it is not true, reversing the law of cause and effect. You can not disprove a negative, but that is how the catch you. that is how conspiracy theories work, the perpetrators can always find another link to support their view.
We have Trump telling his supporters the elections are rigged, there is no way to disprove it, their proof is what he says it is.
The problem with facts is, they are a liberal thing, those damned liberals use them to make us right wingers look bad.
Then of course there are the relativist philosophers. Reality to them is their perception of it, not what actually exists. So reality is relative, and that puts facts in the same envelope.
I like to point out occasionally that there are facts, it you do not believe it, try testing gravity by jumping off a high building. People like Rush make claims and demand you prove it is not true, reversing the law of cause and effect. You can not disprove a negative, but that is how the catch you. that is how conspiracy theories work, the perpetrators can always find another link to support their view.
We have Trump telling his supporters the elections are rigged, there is no way to disprove it, their proof is what he says it is.
11
as someone else noted (thanks times, hard to search format) right wing people often use articles from the times as a basis for stories; in these cases, the right wingers ask their audience to take the times as correct
and they do this by introducing, here is a story from the n y slimes...and then they talk for ten minutes, a talk which assumes the story is accurate !!!
and they do this by introducing, here is a story from the n y slimes...and then they talk for ten minutes, a talk which assumes the story is accurate !!!
1
I have a colleague who is very conservative who shares what he learns from conservative media. I know what is on conservative media because I read it as well. His typical horror story about Hillary Clinton includes elements of multiple stories mixed up into one stew. Money, wikileaks, international actors, direction of cash flows - all get mixed up into one nonsensical story.
I'm assuming his sources are more accurate, even if they are right wing, but the stories are written with selective relaying of facts mixed with innuendo to give this viewer his false knowledge.
It doesn't matter what a news organ reports, it matters what viewers take away. And in the case of conservative media, viewers are taking away dead wrong information, and considering it fact.
I'm assuming his sources are more accurate, even if they are right wing, but the stories are written with selective relaying of facts mixed with innuendo to give this viewer his false knowledge.
It doesn't matter what a news organ reports, it matters what viewers take away. And in the case of conservative media, viewers are taking away dead wrong information, and considering it fact.
11
More and more, politicians have realized what psychopaths have always known, being caught in a lie is not as disastrous as normal folks fear. Politically, lies work wonderfully well because they can be designed to strike exactly where your opponent is most vulnerable. So then, even being caught tends to be a net gain because often the truth never attains the impact of the lie and then the day-after-day river of politics sweeps away the exposure.
Today we have organizations like PolitiFact whose job is to rate lies; but they lack broad impact. We desperately need an unbiased foundation that is so well funded that it can effectively publicize lies in proportion to their venality. Television ads, targeted mailings, internet outreach can all make lies too dangerous to try, but they are too expensive - way beyond the reach of a PolitiFact.
Is there a billionaire out there who is not a psychopath? Warren Buffet, are you listening?
By the way, Bill O’Reilly should not be grouped with deceivers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as people confined to left wing echo chambers, but who have not watched him, suspect. He has his biases, but no more than the nightly network news, and he covers both sides more often than they do.
Today we have organizations like PolitiFact whose job is to rate lies; but they lack broad impact. We desperately need an unbiased foundation that is so well funded that it can effectively publicize lies in proportion to their venality. Television ads, targeted mailings, internet outreach can all make lies too dangerous to try, but they are too expensive - way beyond the reach of a PolitiFact.
Is there a billionaire out there who is not a psychopath? Warren Buffet, are you listening?
By the way, Bill O’Reilly should not be grouped with deceivers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as people confined to left wing echo chambers, but who have not watched him, suspect. He has his biases, but no more than the nightly network news, and he covers both sides more often than they do.
4
Years ago I read the Wall Street Journal daily cover to cover and discovered that the news pages contained facts often not in tune with the corporate owners and the editors of the WSJ. But real business owners and managers needed truthful factual information to face their challenges (and figure out better ways to squeeze dollars from us). Then I would read the Editorial pages of the WSJ and see that the Opinions expressed were assuming totally different things.
It now seems the profit motivated corporate owners of 95% of the media outlets are opting for profits over truth, facts, science, and sanity. On Radio? Then scream out your right wing message. On MSNBC? Then repeat the talking points of the progressives.
The commodification of journalism with greed as the motivator has led to the destruction of credible sources. Journalists have kowtowed to their bosses as all us Peons must to survive and thereby contributed to the destruction of "truth". I now digest material from 3-6 sources and track multiple divergent agencies reports and analysis to arrive at a conclusion. Sometimes sadly right and sometimes more sadly wrong due to optimism.
-I dare sources to track Union membership percentages/Press stories and editorials anti-Union/Stagnation of wages for the lower 90%. If they do not track closely I long to see the details.
It now seems the profit motivated corporate owners of 95% of the media outlets are opting for profits over truth, facts, science, and sanity. On Radio? Then scream out your right wing message. On MSNBC? Then repeat the talking points of the progressives.
The commodification of journalism with greed as the motivator has led to the destruction of credible sources. Journalists have kowtowed to their bosses as all us Peons must to survive and thereby contributed to the destruction of "truth". I now digest material from 3-6 sources and track multiple divergent agencies reports and analysis to arrive at a conclusion. Sometimes sadly right and sometimes more sadly wrong due to optimism.
-I dare sources to track Union membership percentages/Press stories and editorials anti-Union/Stagnation of wages for the lower 90%. If they do not track closely I long to see the details.
10
Our inability to have a rational discussion began with slavery. We arranged the Constitution and our hoary congressional procedures and customs so that those who wished to avoid a rational discussion of slavery could do so. A rational discussion of slavery would have concluded that it violated our national principles as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence (written by a man who was incapable of a rational discussion on this topic), and would have sought a way to wind it down without crashing the Southern economy.
Instead we had our worst war.
After Reconstruction, rational discussion of race was still studiously avoided, with Southern propaganda (Gone With the Wind and much, much worse) taking its place. So we were trained not to be rational about stuff, including religion and economics, holding firm to attractive, easy-to-understand myths instead.
And this training got us to our current situation. We avoided learning anything from Vietnam or any other of our traumatic national experiences. And here we are.
Instead we had our worst war.
After Reconstruction, rational discussion of race was still studiously avoided, with Southern propaganda (Gone With the Wind and much, much worse) taking its place. So we were trained not to be rational about stuff, including religion and economics, holding firm to attractive, easy-to-understand myths instead.
And this training got us to our current situation. We avoided learning anything from Vietnam or any other of our traumatic national experiences. And here we are.
9
The guy singing at the rally seems to be drawing attention even there. Classy journalism here.
1
Point being he's an anomaly and shouldn't be used to characterize Trump supporters. This is bias and poor journalism.
(I've noticed you often get characters like this when a gathering is winding down..... and they're always dudes.)
(I've noticed you often get characters like this when a gathering is winding down..... and they're always dudes.)
As a liberal, I don't get my news solely from "liberal sources." I don't limit my reading to progressive blogs or news sites. I watch BBC News or the PBS Newshourr "real" news. Yes, I also go to sites that would be considered "liberal" by most Republicans. But, the difference between the left and the right, is that I don't believe everything I read/see/hear from progressive sites. And, frankly, I don't see the kind of bald faced lies in these sources versus a Breitbart site or Rush Limbaugh radio show. I also don't see the hate, racism, bigotry and self victimization I see on Fox, hear on Rush, or read even in the Weekly Standard etc.
Charlie Sykes is right to question his own part in the rise of a Donald Trump. Right wing talk radio has ruined political discourse in this country. 99% of the "talk" on radio is right wing. It's everywhere. And it's poisoning the minds of many Americans. It's been very useful to the Republican party and they've encouraged the various conspiracy theories (birtherism anyone?) to their own detriment.
One thing that bothers me about opinion pieces like this; they engage in false equivalency in order to prove they're "fair." Most so called left wing news sources might promote a leftist view on their shows but it rarely descends into total fabrication. Maddox is a good example. Yes, she's a liberal. But she's also a fine journalist who, unlike O'Reilly, Hannity et al, does due diligence in her reporting. There is a difference.
Charlie Sykes is right to question his own part in the rise of a Donald Trump. Right wing talk radio has ruined political discourse in this country. 99% of the "talk" on radio is right wing. It's everywhere. And it's poisoning the minds of many Americans. It's been very useful to the Republican party and they've encouraged the various conspiracy theories (birtherism anyone?) to their own detriment.
One thing that bothers me about opinion pieces like this; they engage in false equivalency in order to prove they're "fair." Most so called left wing news sources might promote a leftist view on their shows but it rarely descends into total fabrication. Maddox is a good example. Yes, she's a liberal. But she's also a fine journalist who, unlike O'Reilly, Hannity et al, does due diligence in her reporting. There is a difference.
23
I worry that Donald Trump may be crossing the lines of safety in regard to the meanings of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Am I observing correctly (?) that what he says stimulates people to get somewhat offensively physical with people who disagree with him and with newspaper as well as T.V. news station staff D. Trump says, in his intense ways, do not support him?
Is there a legal way to inhibit Mr. Trump's over-the-top accusations?
Is there a legal way to inhibit Mr. Trump's over-the-top accusations?
8
Thank you Emma,
After 12 years of comments NYT op-eds confirms there are enough people out there willing to affirm the opinions I and others have made over the last dozen years that my comments are no longer needed but maybe there is hope the ship might be turned around.
I am an Agnostic who cares less in being right than in reaching a proper understanding.
There are three very important stories in the Bible that really need scrutiny.
The three are about the messenger and the reality the message is really always the same. Moses and Jonah are flawed messengers who bring the message of an outside observer and Jesus is the messenger from inside the fiery furnace.
Donald Trump is today's messenger and he is indeed a flawed messenger and the message he is bringing is the worst possible message one can bring, Let's keep doing what we have always done. Pay no attention to the collapse of our society it is but an illusion.
After 12 years of comments NYT op-eds confirms there are enough people out there willing to affirm the opinions I and others have made over the last dozen years that my comments are no longer needed but maybe there is hope the ship might be turned around.
I am an Agnostic who cares less in being right than in reaching a proper understanding.
There are three very important stories in the Bible that really need scrutiny.
The three are about the messenger and the reality the message is really always the same. Moses and Jonah are flawed messengers who bring the message of an outside observer and Jesus is the messenger from inside the fiery furnace.
Donald Trump is today's messenger and he is indeed a flawed messenger and the message he is bringing is the worst possible message one can bring, Let's keep doing what we have always done. Pay no attention to the collapse of our society it is but an illusion.
1
That photo says it all. Loud, boorish, even menacing, and probably nothing much enlightening coming out of that big mouth.
14
I'm guessing, you are reacting EXACTLY as they intended you to react in selecting this photo.
Am I missing something? I mean, who in their right minds receive their news from Facebook, of all places? Emphasis on "RIGHT" mind.
11
It can be tedious and maybe not the best for rhetoric, but citing sources should be the custom. Simply saying "I'm hearing" or "People are telling me" a la Trump must not be the norm. Sure, Limbaugh and his ilk will continue to fabricate, but a standard needs to be set somewhere. The incoming Clinton administration will have the opportunity to do this, and I would contend it deserves more than a "check my website" treatment.
7
I love to read articles about confirmation bias because they confirm my bias about confirmation bias.
4
For years now, after listening to all the poisoned rhetoric about the dangers liberals bring to America, I will list just a few things that make me proud to be a "liberal" --- a word far-right Republican pundits have clearly demonized for much too long in America. A "liberal" is NOT an outrage possessed by an evil spirit.
Liberals believe in more freedom for working slaves who serve the wealthy and powerful.
Liberals believe in economic justice and a fair playing field.
Liberals detest bullies and blowhards who think they know-it-all.
Liberals abhor corporate workers who make $500,000,000 bonuses every year.
Liberals believe that poor children deserve a free meal at school.
Liberals believe you can't force theocratic morality onto anybody.
Liberals tend to be more kind and gentle.
Liberals tend to be more caring and compassionate toward all life on earth.
Liberals do not have bleeding hearts --- they are tough and resilient to the cruelties of a free market economy that is much too free at times to exploit a global environment which all humans and wildlife depend on for continued life on earth.
In that last way, liberals are the only true conservatives. . . .
Liberals believe in more freedom for working slaves who serve the wealthy and powerful.
Liberals believe in economic justice and a fair playing field.
Liberals detest bullies and blowhards who think they know-it-all.
Liberals abhor corporate workers who make $500,000,000 bonuses every year.
Liberals believe that poor children deserve a free meal at school.
Liberals believe you can't force theocratic morality onto anybody.
Liberals tend to be more kind and gentle.
Liberals tend to be more caring and compassionate toward all life on earth.
Liberals do not have bleeding hearts --- they are tough and resilient to the cruelties of a free market economy that is much too free at times to exploit a global environment which all humans and wildlife depend on for continued life on earth.
In that last way, liberals are the only true conservatives. . . .
19
If "liberals" now include the Clintons and their supporters - who oppose news programs like Democracy Now - then we'll need a third category. How about "progressives"?
1
Dear Emma, you presented your facks. Let me present my facts.
$20 Trillion national debt.
$587 Billion deficit. $1.6 Billion added per day.
$400 Billion interest payment on the national debt.
$500 Billion trade deficit.
$1.346 Trillion student loan debt.
43 Million American living in poverty.
Massive structural under/unemployment.
On, and on, and on......
To paraphrase Wittengenstein, the facts you ignore are at least as important as the facks you state.
I suggest you spend less time on Facebook and more time in the Real World, Emma.
It's the Economy, stupids.
$20 Trillion national debt.
$587 Billion deficit. $1.6 Billion added per day.
$400 Billion interest payment on the national debt.
$500 Billion trade deficit.
$1.346 Trillion student loan debt.
43 Million American living in poverty.
Massive structural under/unemployment.
On, and on, and on......
To paraphrase Wittengenstein, the facts you ignore are at least as important as the facks you state.
I suggest you spend less time on Facebook and more time in the Real World, Emma.
It's the Economy, stupids.
9
GLC - If you were to sum up the point of your comment in a sentence or two, how would you do that? Also, could you please clarify how it relates to the gist of the article? Thanks.
Now, GLC of USA, I want you to go research the facts concerning these measures of the economy at the end of Geo. W. Bush's presidency. If you are interested in truth, please do so. We need to compare them.
at what point do you apply at least some of the fault of the facts you present to the great recession we were in when Obama took office? It's as if the economy was perfect and Obama wrecked it in your world. Do I need to remind you that the economy was in shambles 8 years ago and where we are now is because if the current administration? Yes it needs to be better, but crying and complaining about it not being perfect and slinging blame on an administration that kept us from hitting a depression is irresponsible. Maybe you should be directing your blame to the party that controlled every branch of government while things we t south instead of the current one that saved it.
Tavis Smiley has been espousing the prediction that a Trump presidency will see the re-institution of slavery. This is not some "crackpot" website making this prediction. There are still no refutations of this craziness from the left.
7
Fortunately a Trump presidency will not happen so Smiley's statement cannot be either proved or disproved. It is a prediction, not a statement of fact. Only if the predicate happens can the prediction be tested.
Exactly because the majority of the Media has been proven by the WikiLeaks dump to be a defacto state run wing of the Democrat party and those who are not like Fox amount to the same but for the GOP. The media like The NY Times know that Travis saying this and letting it go unchecked will be good for black voter turnout and increase Hillarys chance of winning.
What is so shameful and corrupt about it is a white girl at Temple Unin philly just had her body stomped into the ground by a large gang of enraged black youth and the media is not held accountable for her hospitalization.
No instead they will not report the FACT Hillarys people were paying people to commit and inspire acts of violence at Trump rallies It really is amazing and mind blowing how courrupt the American media is and how censored what the American people are and hear is.
What is so shameful and corrupt about it is a white girl at Temple Unin philly just had her body stomped into the ground by a large gang of enraged black youth and the media is not held accountable for her hospitalization.
No instead they will not report the FACT Hillarys people were paying people to commit and inspire acts of violence at Trump rallies It really is amazing and mind blowing how courrupt the American media is and how censored what the American people are and hear is.
Who?
A few years ago, Texas executed a developmentally disabled adult for murder. The story told at the time was that this inmate saved the dessert from his last meal, telling his jailers that he would eat it later.
Contrast that to the behavior of British voters who spent the morning after the Brexit vote Googling "What is the European Union," or of Trump voters who have come to believe that their manufacturing jobs will suddenly return from overseas if their tough-talking, fact-challenged political hero wins the election. Not much difference, is there?
Let's pretend that this is a widespread problem on the left, because otherwise we might offend some right wingers who think the Constitution guarantees their right to insist that climate change isn't real, or that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or whatever their current illness-of-the-day demands of them.
Reality is a brick wall that exists independent of your belief in bricks or walls. People who ignore reality tend to crash headlong into it. I don't want to be part of that accident.
Donald Trump is going to lose this election. Afterward, Republicans can start to put their party back together again. The rest of us will just wait here on this brick wall, watching you Republicans roll around in pain on the ground, telling each other that it's the mainstream media's fault for not warning them about the wall they just crashed into..
Contrast that to the behavior of British voters who spent the morning after the Brexit vote Googling "What is the European Union," or of Trump voters who have come to believe that their manufacturing jobs will suddenly return from overseas if their tough-talking, fact-challenged political hero wins the election. Not much difference, is there?
Let's pretend that this is a widespread problem on the left, because otherwise we might offend some right wingers who think the Constitution guarantees their right to insist that climate change isn't real, or that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or whatever their current illness-of-the-day demands of them.
Reality is a brick wall that exists independent of your belief in bricks or walls. People who ignore reality tend to crash headlong into it. I don't want to be part of that accident.
Donald Trump is going to lose this election. Afterward, Republicans can start to put their party back together again. The rest of us will just wait here on this brick wall, watching you Republicans roll around in pain on the ground, telling each other that it's the mainstream media's fault for not warning them about the wall they just crashed into..
16
I don't want to endorse Social Darwinism, but people who allow themselves to be so thoroughly deceived as many Trump supporters apparently do are bound to be severely disadvantaged in competing for jobs and for mates and in managing their careers, money, and other property. They are also likely to be defrauded by various unscrupulous people. It is no wonder they are suffering and are angry.
4
Mr. Podgurski - I know at least two such people and, while I agree that there is a form of self-deception going on (I'd actually call it a willful blindness), it doesn't seem to correlate with the more general deficits that you mention. My hypothesis is that the psychological processes involved are either/or -- i.e. the brain weighs the reality of Donald Trump against the anger and/or hatred that these people feel when they think about Hillary Clinton, one wins out and then the mind does whatever acrobatics are required to hide itself from the other.
How do mainstream Republicans restore a commitment to fact when their core policies are factually unsupportable? Calling scientific studies on the impact of CO2 on climate change fraudulent and promoting lower taxes on the wealthy to spur broad based economic growth are demonstrably wrong.
Unless they can retune a small government philosophy to the world that actually exists, mainstream Republicans have no place to go.
Unless they can retune a small government philosophy to the world that actually exists, mainstream Republicans have no place to go.
8
What this piece illustrates is that facts are insufficient.
Because: to come to an agreed-upon understanding of facts, you need to share assumptions about metaphysics (what is real) and about epistemology (how do we know).
And assumptions are pre-logical: they depend on plausibility, which is partly a function of social construction.
Because: to come to an agreed-upon understanding of facts, you need to share assumptions about metaphysics (what is real) and about epistemology (how do we know).
And assumptions are pre-logical: they depend on plausibility, which is partly a function of social construction.
2
It is a very important point but I am afraid it is somewhat above the heads of the partisan posters who only want to bash the opposite side. However, I am not on board with extreme cultural relativism: reality exists even if we have no unmediated access to it. But it is important to realize that even science has a cultural bias built into it.
Thank you, Karl for a succinct analysis of our existential predicament. Perhaps many educated persons will understand your point. Alas the portion of our population that might benefit most will understand least.
I wish President Obama would, in a speech, ask Republicans the following:
"You said I was going to take away your guns. Exactly how many of your guns have I actually taken?"
"You said I was going to take away your guns. Exactly how many of your guns have I actually taken?"
16
“President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported..."
Doesn't Trump want to do the same thing? Many of his supporters want to deport 11 million illegals.
Doesn't Trump want to do the same thing? Many of his supporters want to deport 11 million illegals.
7
It is impossible to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Anyone who says they can is lying to you.
2
Perhaps since Trump and his supporters think that the Press is rigged against them...the Press should not cover them anymore. Interesting that when the Press covered Trump continuously during the Primaries, they were not rigged.
7
There was a time (in the 1950's and 1960's) when Americans got most of their news and facts from comparatively few sources. There was a general clustering of thought and opinion around the 'middle' that most of these sources represented. There were far fewer right wing and left wing outliers and a general consensus (it seemed) as to what was acceptable in public discourse.
If one is fair, the 'consensus' produced by the media back then was, to some important degree, just as manipulated as the hyper-partisan mess that we now find ourselves in. There is plenty of evidence of stories that were not reported fully or at all because they did not conform to the agreed upon narrative. It is also arguable that with mostly mainstream sources, the level of professionalism and patriotism as well as fealty to the truth was both higher and consistent.
It has become common to decry the lack of common civil knowledge in the voting public as well as the apparent inability of today's voter to separate even basic facts from fiction. These skills may well be lacking but there is no evidence these skills were more abundant 50 years ago-- there were simply far fewer sources to sift through.
What is apparent to me is the important role that a serious and responsible press plays in civil society Charlie Sykes says that the right wing has "destroyed all of the gatekeepers' and in doing so has opened the floodgates to anyone willing to create their own sets of facts.
He is correct.
If one is fair, the 'consensus' produced by the media back then was, to some important degree, just as manipulated as the hyper-partisan mess that we now find ourselves in. There is plenty of evidence of stories that were not reported fully or at all because they did not conform to the agreed upon narrative. It is also arguable that with mostly mainstream sources, the level of professionalism and patriotism as well as fealty to the truth was both higher and consistent.
It has become common to decry the lack of common civil knowledge in the voting public as well as the apparent inability of today's voter to separate even basic facts from fiction. These skills may well be lacking but there is no evidence these skills were more abundant 50 years ago-- there were simply far fewer sources to sift through.
What is apparent to me is the important role that a serious and responsible press plays in civil society Charlie Sykes says that the right wing has "destroyed all of the gatekeepers' and in doing so has opened the floodgates to anyone willing to create their own sets of facts.
He is correct.
3
"“President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported,” Mr. Trump said at the third and final debate." I was really struck by that blurt from T rump, it seemed to be the only true thing he has said in 18 months. And it was so out of context with everything else he has said over the last decade.
We used to have a "truth in advertising" ethos in this Country, which included the Fairness Doctrine which was destroyed by Reagan along with so many other safeguards needed in a civilized society.
When I was in debate club, back when schools had such things, the first thing that was done to kick off a debate was the definition of terms which both sides agreed on. Our approach to those definitions was the crux of the debate, but the overlying facts were not up for grabs.
I am hoping that one of the first things Clinton and her new democratic majority will do is to re institute the Fairness Doctrine, putting the onus back on the 4th Estate to do its job of reporting facts instead of repeating opinions.
We used to have a "truth in advertising" ethos in this Country, which included the Fairness Doctrine which was destroyed by Reagan along with so many other safeguards needed in a civilized society.
When I was in debate club, back when schools had such things, the first thing that was done to kick off a debate was the definition of terms which both sides agreed on. Our approach to those definitions was the crux of the debate, but the overlying facts were not up for grabs.
I am hoping that one of the first things Clinton and her new democratic majority will do is to re institute the Fairness Doctrine, putting the onus back on the 4th Estate to do its job of reporting facts instead of repeating opinions.
3
Everyone is prone to the problem of guarding their own ‘facts’ and questioning those of others, whether they are conservatives, moderates or liberals. Conservatives are used the most common example of the problem as they are typically explicit about their facts, but few seem to understand that what is not stated can be just as telling. Moderates and liberals tend to have more implicit problems with their ‘facts’, such as ‘they are racists and we aren’t’, but this election cycle has made it clear that moderates and liberals are more heavily clustered in urban areas, areas which include some of the most heavily segregated cities in the country, areas with the most racial strife.
People just need to step out of the echo chambers and try to look at the larger picture, quit being so biased, and quit being so trustful of your sources of information. Having been in the middle of a couple of incidents in my life which went national in coverage, it was surprising to see how often the media got it wrong and how the coverage was distorted, apparently in an attempt to make it more newsworthy. Some sources eventually get it right, depending upon what is being covered and what their bias is.
People just need to step out of the echo chambers and try to look at the larger picture, quit being so biased, and quit being so trustful of your sources of information. Having been in the middle of a couple of incidents in my life which went national in coverage, it was surprising to see how often the media got it wrong and how the coverage was distorted, apparently in an attempt to make it more newsworthy. Some sources eventually get it right, depending upon what is being covered and what their bias is.
6
Now I have no need to post because you said it all.
This really should be a "Times Pick". It's the best comment in the series.
As a retired scientist who spent his career developing research methods to get at scientific truth, it is painful to see so many blinded by belief willing to disregard the truth. As Al Gore noted, truth may be "inconvenient," but ignoring it may also be life-threatening. Unfortunately, for many politics is more a religion where dogma supplants truth as in the climate deniers mantra, "I'm not a scientist." Well, the very "inconvenient truth" of this election is that all too many Americans have chosen to ignore that they support a mentally unbalanced man who has no respect for others as well as our democratic institutions. And that, too, is life-threatening to very essence of our civil society.
14
"As a retired scientist ..."
"... too many Americans have chosen to ignore that they support a mentally unbalanced man ..."
Please give a scientifically rigorous definition of "mentally unbalanced".
"... too many Americans have chosen to ignore that they support a mentally unbalanced man ..."
Please give a scientifically rigorous definition of "mentally unbalanced".
1
Hey, GML, have you ever listened to a Trump speech? There's your "scientifically rigorous definition of mentally unbalanced" in the flesh.
2
These "truths" do not come out of no where. For years the conservatives have been pouring tons of money into a right wing infrastructure of think tanks, pundits, publications etc. all with the end purpose of creating an alternative narrative. They have succeeded - at least with their base. They do not allow alternative explanations and facts into their well crafted narrative. I sure they are funding entire staffs whose job is to churn out disinformation and a conservative spin on whatever is going on at the time. If you notice when something negative that does not comport with the conservative viewpoint - they immediately come up with a narrative that distorts, districts, or changes the subject altogether. The corporate press dutifully reports these distortions as truth.
4
My opinion is government employees should not be able to charge vacation travel expenses to the tax payer.
"The $2,001,468.90 Obama spent for his flights between DC and Los Angeles to vacation in San Diego brings his known total expense to the American taxpayers thus far for all Obama travel to $72,881,504.68," Judicial Watch notes. "That comes to more than $10 million per year for each year he has been in office."Jan 22, 2016
"The $2,001,468.90 Obama spent for his flights between DC and Los Angeles to vacation in San Diego brings his known total expense to the American taxpayers thus far for all Obama travel to $72,881,504.68," Judicial Watch notes. "That comes to more than $10 million per year for each year he has been in office."Jan 22, 2016
3
Yes, he should definitely fly coach if he wants to travel. Particularly if we only pay him $400,000 per year. And the military carrying the football should fly coach with him. He can ship all his bulletproof limousines on an open car carrier for about $1000 each across the country.
Good thing you are focusing on the big picture!
Good thing you are focusing on the big picture!
We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. For 38 years, it set parameters that resulted in objective news reporting. People still had opinions, but there was a pretty consistently accepted set of facts. The birther lie never would have made it into serious political discussion in those days.
Ronald Reagan killed The Fairness Doctrine. Fox News, Rush, et al flooded in. Until we can again count on news reports to be sincere attempts to report facts, we're at risk of low-information voters electing people like Trump -- and perhaps far worse.
Ronald Reagan killed The Fairness Doctrine. Fox News, Rush, et al flooded in. Until we can again count on news reports to be sincere attempts to report facts, we're at risk of low-information voters electing people like Trump -- and perhaps far worse.
14
You are in favor of "government-approved" opinions. That's scary.
3
No, the fairness doctrine simply said that media that used public resources had to present both sides. Media that did not use public resources did not.
To quote Robert Kennedy Jr:
We had a law ... passed in 1928 that ... the air waves belong to the public. The broadcasters can be licensed to use them, but only if they use them to promote the public interest, to inform the public and advance democracy. That’s why we have the 6 o’clock news. ... The broadcasters didn’t want that because the news departments were chronic money losers.…
They no longer have an obligation to serve the public interest. Their only obligation is to their shareholders. They serve that obligation not by informing us, telling us the things we need to understand to make rational decisions in a democracy, but rather by entertaining us...
We’re the best entertained, the least informed, people on the face of the world. They got rid of their investigative reporters. 85 percent of them lost their jobs in the last 15 years.
They got rid of their foreign news bureaus so the Bush and Cheney administration can say ... ‘Oh, we’re gonna go into ...Mesopotamia and they’re gonna meet us with rose petals in the streets’ and the Americans believe them.
The Canadians didn’t believe them because the Canadians still have a Fairness Doctrine…
England has the same kind of rules and in Europe, but in our country, we lost those rules and, as a result, we know a lot about Britney Spears’ gradual emotional decline and we know a lot about Charlie Sheen, but we don’t know much about global warming or the fact that the Appalachian Mountains essentially no longer exist.
We had a law ... passed in 1928 that ... the air waves belong to the public. The broadcasters can be licensed to use them, but only if they use them to promote the public interest, to inform the public and advance democracy. That’s why we have the 6 o’clock news. ... The broadcasters didn’t want that because the news departments were chronic money losers.…
They no longer have an obligation to serve the public interest. Their only obligation is to their shareholders. They serve that obligation not by informing us, telling us the things we need to understand to make rational decisions in a democracy, but rather by entertaining us...
We’re the best entertained, the least informed, people on the face of the world. They got rid of their investigative reporters. 85 percent of them lost their jobs in the last 15 years.
They got rid of their foreign news bureaus so the Bush and Cheney administration can say ... ‘Oh, we’re gonna go into ...Mesopotamia and they’re gonna meet us with rose petals in the streets’ and the Americans believe them.
The Canadians didn’t believe them because the Canadians still have a Fairness Doctrine…
England has the same kind of rules and in Europe, but in our country, we lost those rules and, as a result, we know a lot about Britney Spears’ gradual emotional decline and we know a lot about Charlie Sheen, but we don’t know much about global warming or the fact that the Appalachian Mountains essentially no longer exist.
What a bunch of defensive, mumbo jumbo by a NYT writer. The press as some sort watchdog really ... you need to read some history starting with the likes of Hearst on ...through the cover ups by NYT of any adverse news that could affect there editorial choice for President.
3
I'm afraid there is no solution for this problem--people are going to believe what they want to believe, not matter how strong the evidence to the contrary. My mother, a staunch Catholic, denies the priest sex abuse scandal, even though the church has acknowledged it. How would you get through to someone like that?
8
I believe the President should no longer allow daily intelligence briefings sent to Trump. Trump's comments, demeanor, and apparent mental derangement show him to be insufficiently loyal to our country. He cannot be trusted with that information, nor can his cronies, Giuliani and Christie, et al.
5
At some point adults need to take responsibility for the impact of their own purposeful ignorance.
If you live on the coast , believe global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, and vote accordingly, don't be shocked and angered when flood insurance disappears. Can't blame that on Mexico or Muslims.
If you believe that vaccines are a dangerous fraud foisted on the world by evil pharmaceutical companies, dont be angered and shocked that other people take herd immunity seriously and force you to home school your kids. Nothing personal, just stay away.
If you're the Speaker of the House and endorse a mean-spirited anti-democratic buffoon for President, don't be angered and shocked that your cowardice is a stain that will not fade with time. Purposeful ignorance of what is Right counts too.
If you live on the coast , believe global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, and vote accordingly, don't be shocked and angered when flood insurance disappears. Can't blame that on Mexico or Muslims.
If you believe that vaccines are a dangerous fraud foisted on the world by evil pharmaceutical companies, dont be angered and shocked that other people take herd immunity seriously and force you to home school your kids. Nothing personal, just stay away.
If you're the Speaker of the House and endorse a mean-spirited anti-democratic buffoon for President, don't be angered and shocked that your cowardice is a stain that will not fade with time. Purposeful ignorance of what is Right counts too.
14
It's kind of glossed over that Trump supporters are shouting neo-Nazi anti-press propaganda (and doing so in German). This might be dismissed as a one-off occurrence, but this is in the context of Trump adopting the name of a 1940's nazi-appeasement political movement for his campaign ("America First") as well as re-tweeting alt-right propaganda that used six-pointed stars as parts of attacks of Hillary Clinton and refusing to disavow David Duke (at least through the primaries). And have you heard Trump over-enunciate "Sydney Blu-men-thal!" with palpable disdain at his rallies? The anti-press rejection of facts on the right this year may not be garden variety truthiness, but an intentional attempt to discredit any criticism by preconditioning supporters to reject facts/people that contradict Trump's narrative. Combined with a stream of threats to sue newspapers and accusers, this starts to smell like the machinery of fascist propaganda.
Sure, anti-vaccers and anti-GMOs and lots of others on the left refuse to acknowledge facts contrary to their preconceived worldviews. But as with so much else this political cycle, it's a whole other level with Trump. (And another example of the risks of false equivalences)
Sure, anti-vaccers and anti-GMOs and lots of others on the left refuse to acknowledge facts contrary to their preconceived worldviews. But as with so much else this political cycle, it's a whole other level with Trump. (And another example of the risks of false equivalences)
7
This is all very fascinating in a sociological sort of way, but the really disturbing thing is how much of the country is incapable of critical thinking.
The idea that a large portion of the electorate puts together 2 + 2 and gets @#?6.47 should worry us as a nation. For a moment let's leave aside things like angels and chem trails and try to grasp how we can have people in this country who believe the planet is only 6000 years old, that evolution is just some crazy theory and that there is no global climate change. These aren't things you have to accept on faith. These are facts with volumes of data and in the case of the age of the planet and evolution nearly 100 years of scientific study to support them.
In a nation where everyone goes to school for 12 years how can this be so? What the heck is wrong with us as a people that we are so mind- numbingly and willfully ignorant? And when did we become so arrogant we tell people who have spent their lives working on this things they are wrong and we know better?
The idea that a large portion of the electorate puts together 2 + 2 and gets @#?6.47 should worry us as a nation. For a moment let's leave aside things like angels and chem trails and try to grasp how we can have people in this country who believe the planet is only 6000 years old, that evolution is just some crazy theory and that there is no global climate change. These aren't things you have to accept on faith. These are facts with volumes of data and in the case of the age of the planet and evolution nearly 100 years of scientific study to support them.
In a nation where everyone goes to school for 12 years how can this be so? What the heck is wrong with us as a people that we are so mind- numbingly and willfully ignorant? And when did we become so arrogant we tell people who have spent their lives working on this things they are wrong and we know better?
14
@ MJ in MI: The rise of home schooling has coincided with this rise in the inability of people to think critically. Home schooling these days is mainly practiced by fundamentalist Christians who don't want their children learning facts that contradict their religion-based notions of how the world was created. Nor do they want their kids learning about sex in school. The rise of Christian universities is a natural outcropping of the home schooling movement. It's now possible for a child in our culture to grow to adulthood without ever being exposed in any meaningful way to critical thinking and the scientific method.
Old-fashioned religious schools, such as those run by the Catholic church, may have played down the sex education, but they were still obligated to teach the scientific method and critical thinking, because religion was not as heavily blended with education as it now is.
There are, of course, a few home schoolers who are highly educated themselves and who home school their kids because they think they can give their kids a better education than what they'll get in a public school, but those folks are rare in comparison to the myriad who essentially know nothing outside of their narrow interpretations of the Bible, and simply want to perpetuate through their kids the proud tradition of knowing nothing, too.
Old-fashioned religious schools, such as those run by the Catholic church, may have played down the sex education, but they were still obligated to teach the scientific method and critical thinking, because religion was not as heavily blended with education as it now is.
There are, of course, a few home schoolers who are highly educated themselves and who home school their kids because they think they can give their kids a better education than what they'll get in a public school, but those folks are rare in comparison to the myriad who essentially know nothing outside of their narrow interpretations of the Bible, and simply want to perpetuate through their kids the proud tradition of knowing nothing, too.
8
You apparently haven't taken the time to understand the nature of 'creationism' in the US. One is that it isn't just an issue that splits completely along party lines as a fair number of Democrats also subscribe to creationism, 27% per the survey below. It isn't just a belief for the uneducated as a fair number of people with college degrees also still believe in creationism, 24% per the survey below. I've known a couple of people with graduate degrees that did. It comes down to that fact that it is a religious belief, and like any religious belief it is prone to being held central to one's outlook, overriding all others.
It is certainly no worse than believing that nuclear power is the worst form of power generation on the planet, as it has been shown to have actually saved millions of lives due to the reduced amount of coal that has been used. Japan, Germany, and many other nations are increasing the number of coal powered plants that are being used, in part due to shutting down nuclear powered plants. About 2000 coal fired plants are planned across the globe, coal and gas are roughly tied for the major sources of power in the US; what do you think that will do for reduced life spans and climate change? This is by far a worse problem than creationism; how could educated people support such a position? Hint, it is beliefs which are not subject to change with additional information.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
It is certainly no worse than believing that nuclear power is the worst form of power generation on the planet, as it has been shown to have actually saved millions of lives due to the reduced amount of coal that has been used. Japan, Germany, and many other nations are increasing the number of coal powered plants that are being used, in part due to shutting down nuclear powered plants. About 2000 coal fired plants are planned across the globe, coal and gas are roughly tied for the major sources of power in the US; what do you think that will do for reduced life spans and climate change? This is by far a worse problem than creationism; how could educated people support such a position? Hint, it is beliefs which are not subject to change with additional information.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
Everybody knows Obama broke up families. climate change legislation and an alliance with Lindsay Graham was sacrificed by Reid to try to appeal to Latino/Hispanic voters. If Obama had been less consistory with the Republicans on this, Reid wouldn't have been in that position and we'd be farther along with cap and trade. So yes, we knew then, we know now. I adore Obama now, but he was way to naive believing that Republicans would feel some responsibility and try to fix our government. Reps felt no responsibility, felt no desire to fix our countries issues under a Dem administration.
1
Mike Pense was on Meet the Press recently and he used a New York Times article as his reference to something that did not cast Hillary in a favorable light. Chuck Todd smiled and asked Pense about his use of the Times. He did not respond but just kept firing away! So yes as long as your facts agree with me it is all good!
6
Have submitted two eminently readable and informative comments on Ms. Rollers's piece, and neither has been published.Likewise for the dozen or so submissions over the past several days.Quite unfair, and I would like to know why.
2
There is another good reason for why so many lies are being accepted. It is because they fit the larger narrative. Listening to the right wing radio I have noticed that they throw out there many lies daily to see which ones get attention and response. It is like Natural Selection of Lies. Those which have resonated the most with their listeners are amplified and incorporated into the main narrative. What you get in result is a surprisingly coherent alternative reality that is quite believable to an uninformed listener, and seems emotionally consistent with their core beliefs.
6
Excellent analysis, but it needs to be complemented by a healthy dose of reception theory to gain actual usefulness, not to mention eke us out of the despair the apocalyptic right has dipped us in. Because, what should be clear is that there are necessarily varying degrees of responsiveness to any truth claim, based on personal biases, psychological states, resentments, or love of cats.
Take the statement that Obama will declare martial law after Trumpollini wins (well, we may never know, lol). Responses are bound to range from the "that's ridiculous!" to the "I wouldn't be surprised" to the plain "YES, HE WILL!!!". Even if we file utterers of the latter somewhere deep in the basket of deplorables as lost to rational argument, we may still want to appeal to the Not Surprised segment, the idea being to peel away from the opposition with a divide and conquer wedge the material needed to build a governing majority. This is how political coalitions are made. Some of our past presidents have been very good at that, LBJ foremost. The key is not to assume that the other side is automatically monolithic.
It does not dent my affection for Obama to state my belief that Clinton will be much better at this than he was.
Take the statement that Obama will declare martial law after Trumpollini wins (well, we may never know, lol). Responses are bound to range from the "that's ridiculous!" to the "I wouldn't be surprised" to the plain "YES, HE WILL!!!". Even if we file utterers of the latter somewhere deep in the basket of deplorables as lost to rational argument, we may still want to appeal to the Not Surprised segment, the idea being to peel away from the opposition with a divide and conquer wedge the material needed to build a governing majority. This is how political coalitions are made. Some of our past presidents have been very good at that, LBJ foremost. The key is not to assume that the other side is automatically monolithic.
It does not dent my affection for Obama to state my belief that Clinton will be much better at this than he was.
4
What, Charlie Sykes has finally gotten a conscience? A little late there. This is the man that denied the air pollution problem in Milwaukee because when he looked straight up, the sky was blue. Meanwhile, I am looking at the western horizon and all I see is brown.
I am pretty far to the left as things go in this country, but one thing I do share with those on the right is a complete mistrust of the mainstream media, who are guilty of censorship by omission. Both ends of the spectrum. Space is limited, so you play to the biases of your base so you don't lose readership.
I am pretty far to the left as things go in this country, but one thing I do share with those on the right is a complete mistrust of the mainstream media, who are guilty of censorship by omission. Both ends of the spectrum. Space is limited, so you play to the biases of your base so you don't lose readership.
8
There is only one set of facts in our universe. Whether you can identify and accept them, be it in politics, economics or science is a function of critical thinking skills. If you do not have these skills, facts become difficult or impossible to recognize.
7
I'm a progressive Democrat who listens to NPR.... and now also Fox News. On Friday, NPR had a typical news round-up with four academic/journalistic "authorities" about Trump's claim of a 'rigged election'. Not one of the five saw the irony that there was NO representative of Trump's position present. Such a person would have said that Trump's main concern is institutional BIAS, especially from the media - not stuffed ballot boxes and dead people voting. They didn't seem to recognize that they, themselves, were evidence of what they were trying to refute. It was actually comical. There are countless other cases where the straw men and false equivalencies are clearly constructed knowingly. With every Wikileak revelation and every case of media bias skewed in the same direction it's certain that conspiratorial interpretations will continue to emerge - and they will be seized upon by mainstream media for disproportionately wide display.
Processed news may be as unhealthy as processed food - get to the sources.
Processed news may be as unhealthy as processed food - get to the sources.
9
@carl bumba: So, according to your notion, if Mr. Trump were to claim that the Earth is flat, NPR would be obliged to call in a panel of scientists and a panel from the Flat Earth Society, in order to present the "facts" on both sides.
The Flat Earth Society's website is pretty interesting, but they go at the topic from a speculative, philosophical point. Their theories are fun to toss around as a kind of mental exercise, but in the end, they have no basis in fact whatsoever. The Earth is ovoid, and that's the fact.
You can call out "institutional bias," because there is indeed evidence of its existence. But follow the idea to its logical end; don't stop with accusations. Why does institutional bias exist? Because ultimately, the bias is in favor of reality and verifiable facts, as opposed to speculation, rumor, innuendo, flaky ideas, and ideology.
I don't like the fact that President Obama's administration has deported so many people, but I'm not going to pretend deportations aren't occurring. The President is obligated to carry out the law of the land. People who don't like it need to work to change the law.
Buddhists teach that we need to accept what is. In order to do anything, change anything, you first have to recognize and accept what the problems are. It's human to deny and distort what is, because people prefer the comfortable bubble to the hard truth. But until we all have the courage to look truth in the face, we all live in willful ignorance and denial.
The Flat Earth Society's website is pretty interesting, but they go at the topic from a speculative, philosophical point. Their theories are fun to toss around as a kind of mental exercise, but in the end, they have no basis in fact whatsoever. The Earth is ovoid, and that's the fact.
You can call out "institutional bias," because there is indeed evidence of its existence. But follow the idea to its logical end; don't stop with accusations. Why does institutional bias exist? Because ultimately, the bias is in favor of reality and verifiable facts, as opposed to speculation, rumor, innuendo, flaky ideas, and ideology.
I don't like the fact that President Obama's administration has deported so many people, but I'm not going to pretend deportations aren't occurring. The President is obligated to carry out the law of the land. People who don't like it need to work to change the law.
Buddhists teach that we need to accept what is. In order to do anything, change anything, you first have to recognize and accept what the problems are. It's human to deny and distort what is, because people prefer the comfortable bubble to the hard truth. But until we all have the courage to look truth in the face, we all live in willful ignorance and denial.
4
Allison, I think you're reducing this to the absurd. Even so, yes, at least one representative of the Flat Earth Society should be present if the topic IS a critique of this society.
More seriously, institutional biases are not skewed toward the truth. Even the biases of scientific institutions are not skewed toward reality. (See Karl Popper on the Scientific Method). These institution are, by nature, self-promoting. Before the media became intertwined with our political establishment, their biases led them to interpret the news in ways that would increase their paper and ad space sales and the revenues of companies that advertise with them. Now that there is a revolving door between the handful of monopolized media outlets, our two political parties and the corporate backers of both, the biases also strongly support the political establishment - both Democrat and Republican versions.
If we wait to address the problems defined by the established order around us, we may be waiting a long time for constructive change to occur. I suspect the Dali Lama would concur.
More seriously, institutional biases are not skewed toward the truth. Even the biases of scientific institutions are not skewed toward reality. (See Karl Popper on the Scientific Method). These institution are, by nature, self-promoting. Before the media became intertwined with our political establishment, their biases led them to interpret the news in ways that would increase their paper and ad space sales and the revenues of companies that advertise with them. Now that there is a revolving door between the handful of monopolized media outlets, our two political parties and the corporate backers of both, the biases also strongly support the political establishment - both Democrat and Republican versions.
If we wait to address the problems defined by the established order around us, we may be waiting a long time for constructive change to occur. I suspect the Dali Lama would concur.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
Reliance on unverified sources of information belies ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills.
Reliance on unverified sources of information belies ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills.
9
Which is why many of us have little faith in what newspapers tell us.
1
Just look at the photo with this story of the Trump supporter. Loud, threatening, old white guy. And they wonder why people think they are deplorable.
11
If someone chooses to believe that a large swath of the population is deplorable based on one picture in a newspaper, that's just sad.
4
Yes, Andy, look at that photo, the text and the credit.
There are dozens of people in the photo. The guy in the orange shirt doesn't look loud, threatening (what a horrifying smile on his face) or old. The elderly lady on the lower right doesn't even appear to be a guy.
Who says the guy in the foreground is a Trump supporter? Why, the redoubtable New York Times says so. Any proof? Any verification? Any anything? No, just the Times saying it is so. We don't even know that the picture wasn't Photo Shopped.
One thing is for sure. The photo is a dog whistle that caught the attention of the pack.
There are dozens of people in the photo. The guy in the orange shirt doesn't look loud, threatening (what a horrifying smile on his face) or old. The elderly lady on the lower right doesn't even appear to be a guy.
Who says the guy in the foreground is a Trump supporter? Why, the redoubtable New York Times says so. Any proof? Any verification? Any anything? No, just the Times saying it is so. We don't even know that the picture wasn't Photo Shopped.
One thing is for sure. The photo is a dog whistle that caught the attention of the pack.
1
I'm one of those people that would never vote for Trump. I believe he is totally unfit for the office. But I think the photos of him chosen for print in the NYT (and elsewhere) are biased. They nearly always show him in full bloviating mode. Hillary Clinton's photos could be edited this way, but they're not. That liberals accept this without uneasiness is an example of confirmation bias. We're all guilty of this.
2
It is apparent that the NY Times has liberal political ambitions. Very little is ever published that shows the total corruption of the Democrat leadership through this presidential campaign, starting from the destruction of Bernie Sanders which resulted in the resignation of the DNC chair. It is too bad that your readership doesn't understand the corruption that it plans to vote for to run our country.
7
I disagree vehemently with the thesis of this article.
I have spent decades following evidence and pursuing and advocating policies that are indicated or confirmed by the evidence. The truth, no matter how inconvenient, is my primary concern followed by a prejudice to care for others no matter what. Millions of Americans are just like me. A few vaccine deniers does not make the left just as prone to confirmation bias as Trump supporters.
The author sees confirmation bias among a large majority of Trump supporters. Just point to that and don't project it where it doesn't belong.
I have spent decades following evidence and pursuing and advocating policies that are indicated or confirmed by the evidence. The truth, no matter how inconvenient, is my primary concern followed by a prejudice to care for others no matter what. Millions of Americans are just like me. A few vaccine deniers does not make the left just as prone to confirmation bias as Trump supporters.
The author sees confirmation bias among a large majority of Trump supporters. Just point to that and don't project it where it doesn't belong.
7
Come on. Haven't you read the Bernie Followers' regular posts about Hillary as being corrupt and a criminal....
3
Way back in the Stone Age, I took two courses about news story writing and composing headlines taught by a respected journalist who had decades of experience in his field. I had never considered a career as a reporter and took the courses to satisfy an elective requirement, but some of the things he taught have stuck with me throughout my life. In any news story you should answer these basic questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? Answer these inquiries with verifiable facts. Anything else is filler.
5
Ah, but the devil is in the How and Why. Who, What, When, Where can often stay within the realm of verifiable fact, but the last two are the money questions, and they require analysis that goes beyond straightforward fact.
"In any news story you should answer these basic questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? Answer these inquiries with verifiable facts."
How would you answer the "Why?" question with "verifiable facts" when Trump says "President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period"?
Trump Drops False ‘Birther’ Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It
By MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALAN RAPPEPORT
SEPT. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama...
2016-10-25 21:12:01 UTC
How would you answer the "Why?" question with "verifiable facts" when Trump says "President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period"?
Trump Drops False ‘Birther’ Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It
By MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALAN RAPPEPORT
SEPT. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama...
2016-10-25 21:12:01 UTC
One suggestion which can go a very long way. How about the media move away from explaining the political implications of events/topics (i.e. how events will help/hurt one party vs. the other, which is really commentary and entertainment, not news), and instead concentrate on dissecting events, explaining the context, history, precedents, and vetting the various data points/metrics available?
8
Critical thinking, the recognition that everything we see and do is built on personal biases, isn't really taught much until one enters medical, law or engineering school and even then, it's all too easy to put the blinders back on without even knowing it. Can you perform critical thinking? If you're willing to change your perspective from a Republican to a Democrat or vice versa at any time then "yes", else "no". Limiting possibilities limits possibilities and critical thinkers recognize there are many ways to approach issues and many different ways to address them, so it's most important to always keep an open mind.
What Mr. Trump has done is show the significant failings within our educational system. Yes, many complete school, college even, and are able to regurgitate what they've learned, but few recognize there's not much thought behind any of that, just memorization. People relish seeing their viewpoints in print as affirmation of their perspective, much more than seeing another’s, and that is part of being all too human. But education is more than just a collection of facts and figures, but like maturity, learning to get over yourself.
What Mr. Trump has done is show the significant failings within our educational system. Yes, many complete school, college even, and are able to regurgitate what they've learned, but few recognize there's not much thought behind any of that, just memorization. People relish seeing their viewpoints in print as affirmation of their perspective, much more than seeing another’s, and that is part of being all too human. But education is more than just a collection of facts and figures, but like maturity, learning to get over yourself.
6
I have heard,and this is going to be huge, that Hillary is carrying Bernie Sanders' love child. Bill, when he was president, sent researchers to the NIH to find hormones that will prolong fertility so they could have another child.©
I also heard , and this is even bigger, that the president is starting on his plan to take our guns away. He has told the FBI and the special forces to sweep a small town in upstate New York that is not as liberal as the city and take them all. A few residents have died. The Feds are paying the New York Times and the Washington Post to not report it. If Billary wins then it gets spread over the entire nation. ©
There are tens of thousands of Syrian terrorists in boats outside of territorial waters just waiting for the guns to be gone. Just huge...
Be aware.
I also heard , and this is even bigger, that the president is starting on his plan to take our guns away. He has told the FBI and the special forces to sweep a small town in upstate New York that is not as liberal as the city and take them all. A few residents have died. The Feds are paying the New York Times and the Washington Post to not report it. If Billary wins then it gets spread over the entire nation. ©
There are tens of thousands of Syrian terrorists in boats outside of territorial waters just waiting for the guns to be gone. Just huge...
Be aware.
5
It's election day and exit polls are clear that Hillary has won. Now what?
Buyer's remorse has already begun to eat at all those who voted for Hillary. The rage of defeat is rising in the throats of Trump's minions and they're out for blood.
Instead of a calm settling over America after the election's outcome is clear, there is a pervasive feeling of disatisfaction by the entire country that something very wrong has just occurred.
Trump refuses to concede defeat and claims the vote was rigged. Hillary asks everyone to set the past aside and move on.
But moving on is not possible because something is missing in the American psyche. Somewhere along the line during the last year of campaign agony citizens simply lost their faith in the possibility of any positive outcome.
No one feels like they got what they wanted!
Buyer's remorse has already begun to eat at all those who voted for Hillary. The rage of defeat is rising in the throats of Trump's minions and they're out for blood.
Instead of a calm settling over America after the election's outcome is clear, there is a pervasive feeling of disatisfaction by the entire country that something very wrong has just occurred.
Trump refuses to concede defeat and claims the vote was rigged. Hillary asks everyone to set the past aside and move on.
But moving on is not possible because something is missing in the American psyche. Somewhere along the line during the last year of campaign agony citizens simply lost their faith in the possibility of any positive outcome.
No one feels like they got what they wanted!
4
We cannot ignore that a great many people are strongly motivated by beliefs that they see as "instinctively" true (to use Emma Roller's words) and are undeterred by the absolute lack of empirical support. We call this "religion." It is no surprise at all that the party that dismisses journalism, science, and academics as part of a conspiracy is also the party that talks most often about religion.
11
The picture says it all, unfortunately: some guy too busy yelling loudly to listen. I see it in my own family, where my brother forwards Through-the Looking-Glass "revelations" about Obama that any reasonably educated twelve year-old would view with deep skepticism (Try "Michelle and I have attended many flag-burning ceremonies"). It's to hard to examine sources (if any) or calm down and think - and it's far, far more comforting to believe the worst and yell about it with you mind locked shut, especially when fed the same poison day after day after day by the usual sources, whose interests are equally divided between money and power. Unhappily, while this satisfies temporary emotional needs, it lands our country in deep difficulty from which it is hard to see any way out, given the degree of responsibility shirked daily by the right wing media.
8
I see all of these younger people, mostly men at Trump rallies. Don't they have jobs?
3
Face it a great portion of the population are morons too stupid to be interested in an accurate appraisal of whatever is before them. Equally frustrating are those with some intellectual integrity but still cling to their sacred cows.
The truth the news media has to come to terms with is that the political American right has lost its way and the press needs to stop skirting around this general fact and call out its lies in real time.
I and many others are plain worn out watching the press fail to do its job. The cowardly practice of weasel worded prose can actually force subscription cancelation.
The truth the news media has to come to terms with is that the political American right has lost its way and the press needs to stop skirting around this general fact and call out its lies in real time.
I and many others are plain worn out watching the press fail to do its job. The cowardly practice of weasel worded prose can actually force subscription cancelation.
7
Trying to think clearly about anything - let alone politics - while following social media is like trying to light a match in a hundred mile per hour wind.
It's worse than just a waste of time. You could be blown out to sea, metaphorically speaking.
Talk about "sheeple"!
It's worse than just a waste of time. You could be blown out to sea, metaphorically speaking.
Talk about "sheeple"!
3
What all this hot blooded furious foaming at mouth style of vituperation in the guise of political expression reveals is a culture that has lost both interest and ability at conducting civic reasoned discourse in which arguments are presented within certain understood and commonly accepted rules of what is truthful, verifiable, and conceptually relevant.
This is probably due to the fact that all the noise
is not really designed to convince but to self express one's deepest
emotions of fury, contempt for the opponent. and general fed upness.
This orgy of primitive urges coming to the surface and being spat at
one's opponents under cover of anonymous postings or crowd attendance
is hardly unique in this society's history. But it is now a very powerful urge
that cannot be contained because of the strong feedback loops between
social media, corporate media systemic propagandizing under cover of and in the guise of "journalism" and talk radio, and a deeply failed education system that over many decades failed to inculcate the positive values of mutual respect, analytical rigor, coherent
argumentation to far too many of its youths, aided and abetted by a society at
large that couldn't really care less that its youth had no basic training in this.
The fact also that much of the fury is white based insecurity of loss of
privilege has aggravated matters in this deeply split along race lines society.
So there is much acting out with pitiful justifications.
This is probably due to the fact that all the noise
is not really designed to convince but to self express one's deepest
emotions of fury, contempt for the opponent. and general fed upness.
This orgy of primitive urges coming to the surface and being spat at
one's opponents under cover of anonymous postings or crowd attendance
is hardly unique in this society's history. But it is now a very powerful urge
that cannot be contained because of the strong feedback loops between
social media, corporate media systemic propagandizing under cover of and in the guise of "journalism" and talk radio, and a deeply failed education system that over many decades failed to inculcate the positive values of mutual respect, analytical rigor, coherent
argumentation to far too many of its youths, aided and abetted by a society at
large that couldn't really care less that its youth had no basic training in this.
The fact also that much of the fury is white based insecurity of loss of
privilege has aggravated matters in this deeply split along race lines society.
So there is much acting out with pitiful justifications.
4
Why is fact checking a specialized activity, relegated to page xx (or two clicks away) rather than a normal part of any news article?
How did that happen?
How did that happen?
5
The author of this thoughtful piece I'm sure did not mean to suggest that fact checking is a new activity in journalism, but it is a new as a separate feature or specialized department. Fact checking is the essence of all reporting. ... Do I need to say, all REAL reporting?
Physical violence is all they have left. November 9 could be an interesting morning when rednecks wake up to a woman president.
16
Trump is certainly correct in one of his recent claims, that polls showing Clinton leading by a widening margin are highly biased.
Most of these polls are "scientific" polls, and scientists are well-known for their strong bias... These are the same people that have perpetrated the Chinese-inspired myth of global warming. Obviously this is all part of the larger fact-based conspiracy. As Colbert, himself, admitted (shamelessly!) reality has a Liberal bias. Trump and his supporters need to stick to their guns.
Most of these polls are "scientific" polls, and scientists are well-known for their strong bias... These are the same people that have perpetrated the Chinese-inspired myth of global warming. Obviously this is all part of the larger fact-based conspiracy. As Colbert, himself, admitted (shamelessly!) reality has a Liberal bias. Trump and his supporters need to stick to their guns.
13
If some of us distrust the media, it is because you have given us a very good reason to do so. There have been so many negative articles about Donald Trump some justified and others are not. Hillary Clinton is treated with kid gloves by the liberal media and if there is a negative finding it is briefly discussed or swept under the rug. You keep rehashing the same bias against Mr. Trump because you favor Mrs. Clinton.
Neither are without their faults but you do not report them equally. Mrs. Clinton has done some pretty underhanded things but you excuse them. Her email fiasco is rarely discussed these days but we need to know the truth. Report fairly and honestly and the you will gain our trust.
Neither are without their faults but you do not report them equally. Mrs. Clinton has done some pretty underhanded things but you excuse them. Her email fiasco is rarely discussed these days but we need to know the truth. Report fairly and honestly and the you will gain our trust.
3
Beyond the fact that the e-mail stories--both relating to her personal server and what's come out from Wikileaks--are on all the major networks, and the major papers, front page, nearly every day...
Could you please name an "unfair," story about Trump? Keep g in mind that the standard isn't "fairness," but whether or not it's true?
Could you please name an "unfair," story about Trump? Keep g in mind that the standard isn't "fairness," but whether or not it's true?
14
I've also noticed the inceasingly popular tactic of stripping facts and quotes completely out of any context, proportion or perspective, so they can be spun into virtually any conclusion that fits the desired narrative.
It's the political equivalent of a label proclaiming, "Contains real juice!" in a product that is 1% juice and 99% sugar water. True in a literal sense, but still a total misrepresentation of reality. It's a sneaky way of giving lies the same credibility as the tiny grain of fact they were spun from.
We now require product labels and inspections so you know your wheat crackers don't contain flour scraped from a dirty warehouse floor and mixed with chalk and cheaper grains. We need some better way for political speech -- not suppressing it, but of labeling its content, especially in a time when hundreds of opaque "think tanks" crank out "scholarly articles" that are thinly disguised partisan suppositions. And our schools should teach not just critical thinking but also the ways that human minds tend to shape the world into pleasing pre-formed narratives instead of messier, more accurate approximations of reality.
It's the political equivalent of a label proclaiming, "Contains real juice!" in a product that is 1% juice and 99% sugar water. True in a literal sense, but still a total misrepresentation of reality. It's a sneaky way of giving lies the same credibility as the tiny grain of fact they were spun from.
We now require product labels and inspections so you know your wheat crackers don't contain flour scraped from a dirty warehouse floor and mixed with chalk and cheaper grains. We need some better way for political speech -- not suppressing it, but of labeling its content, especially in a time when hundreds of opaque "think tanks" crank out "scholarly articles" that are thinly disguised partisan suppositions. And our schools should teach not just critical thinking but also the ways that human minds tend to shape the world into pleasing pre-formed narratives instead of messier, more accurate approximations of reality.
4
It is heartening that as the campaign winds into the last two weeks the reliable media sources are actually questioning assertions by the campaigns in real time. Although CNN seems to have taken the view that a balanced news commentary requires the presence of some of the Trump hyperpartisans, moderators are starting to a) rein in the attempts to overrun the discussion with mindless repetition of talking points and b) point out during presentations that some of the "information" is not, in truth, factual.
Although this seems to offend people who feel that the networks should provide an unfettered pipeline for whatever sewage they choose to dump into the river of public discourse, it makes for a better chance that an interested viewer or reader can get a more factual, and therefore closer-to-the-truth, insight into important issues.
And for the fans of confirmation bias, well they can always whine about how dishonest the press is because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear, just what they need to hear.
Although this seems to offend people who feel that the networks should provide an unfettered pipeline for whatever sewage they choose to dump into the river of public discourse, it makes for a better chance that an interested viewer or reader can get a more factual, and therefore closer-to-the-truth, insight into important issues.
And for the fans of confirmation bias, well they can always whine about how dishonest the press is because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear, just what they need to hear.
8
I'm a little surprised that the author of this piece, Emma, only alludes to the dichotomy between liberals and conservatives espoused by right wingers themselves. Right wingers tend to identify as "faith based" while liberals tend to identify as "reality based". Some of that difference is religious, but not all of it. People on the far right...and the far left (not everyone on the left is a liberal)...want to believe in something, something pure. They prefer to have faith in their beliefs rather than trust any source of mere facts. So, when the media spouts "facts", they don't care. They don't trust anyone who they believe is deluded by objective facts. Their faith is stronger than facts. People who are faith based believe they can transform reality to fit their faith. Truthiness taking the next step. If enough of them really, really believe something...it becomes true. Throw in the idea that the winners get to declare what is true and we are off to the races.
6
First, I believe in people, and people are certainly not pure, but they seem to need someone to believe in them.
Second I believe in the scientific method, proposing hypotheses And testing them against reality to see if they are true.
In 1980 I liked Ronald Reagan. His ideas about devolving power back to the states seemed very democratic. It didn't take too many facts to realize that that was a smokescreen, that the states tend to be more corrupt than the federal government.
Then I moved to the center. I essentially believed what I read in the paper of record and saw on the nightly news, but as a trained sceptic, I read between the lines. And in between the lines were a lot of clues that much of the truth was being white washed, that there was a lot left unsaid, and certain ideas while demonstrably true, were ignored.
I followed my nose and did a lot of research. I read declassified documents and looked at the big picture and connected a lot of obvious dots that many seem to want to ignore.
I have had to reject my null hypotheses that the center represents the middle of the country. The facts say that the "center" represents the corporations that own mass media and use it to push their agenda, and they rent both Democrats and Republicans. The fact is, what is pushed as bipartisan policy is not what most citizens want, it's what corporations want.
In short the facts have moved me to the far left, not the other way around.
Second I believe in the scientific method, proposing hypotheses And testing them against reality to see if they are true.
In 1980 I liked Ronald Reagan. His ideas about devolving power back to the states seemed very democratic. It didn't take too many facts to realize that that was a smokescreen, that the states tend to be more corrupt than the federal government.
Then I moved to the center. I essentially believed what I read in the paper of record and saw on the nightly news, but as a trained sceptic, I read between the lines. And in between the lines were a lot of clues that much of the truth was being white washed, that there was a lot left unsaid, and certain ideas while demonstrably true, were ignored.
I followed my nose and did a lot of research. I read declassified documents and looked at the big picture and connected a lot of obvious dots that many seem to want to ignore.
I have had to reject my null hypotheses that the center represents the middle of the country. The facts say that the "center" represents the corporations that own mass media and use it to push their agenda, and they rent both Democrats and Republicans. The fact is, what is pushed as bipartisan policy is not what most citizens want, it's what corporations want.
In short the facts have moved me to the far left, not the other way around.
The problem with Trump is not only the direction of his policy changes, but the size of them. The reason we move in small steps is, we can always get back to where we were if something goes awry.
Donald might undo NATO. Donald might reject the treaties against torture. Donald might backtrack on civil rights progress -- and equal rights progress. And Donald might retrace economic protections.
Do we really want to wake up in 1941 again?
Donald might undo NATO. Donald might reject the treaties against torture. Donald might backtrack on civil rights progress -- and equal rights progress. And Donald might retrace economic protections.
Do we really want to wake up in 1941 again?
8
Truthiness is mis-defined. It is the sense that something that isn't true is felt to be true and is treated as true. The listeners to right-wing media don't have alternative facts. They are lied to and believe fictions.
6
As Edward Bernays, the "father of public relations", showed, any message can be spread by framing it in words that cast it to the best advantage, and constant repetition. Joseph Goebbels took this a massive step further with the oft-repeated big lie. Orwell's "1984" was imaginary, but the world he portrayed is all too possible.
Both public and private institutions can propagate the big lie, and in this era of the internet and social media, it may only take one or a handful of malevolent individuals to do it.
Our society needs to inoculate itself against this worm. People needs to learn how to defend themselves against lies and propaganda - maybe every student should be taught media literacy. But we are in a catch-22. The very society that could make this happen is the one that has been corrupted into having its so many of its people believe any crackpot or demagogue that comes along.
Both public and private institutions can propagate the big lie, and in this era of the internet and social media, it may only take one or a handful of malevolent individuals to do it.
Our society needs to inoculate itself against this worm. People needs to learn how to defend themselves against lies and propaganda - maybe every student should be taught media literacy. But we are in a catch-22. The very society that could make this happen is the one that has been corrupted into having its so many of its people believe any crackpot or demagogue that comes along.
4
Rush Limbaugh telling people to disbelieve fact checking. No wonder.
"I will see it when I believe it" as they say. Now more than ever.
"I will see it when I believe it" as they say. Now more than ever.
2
This is a profoundly important article. The scale of Wikileaks releases are unprecedented in our history. Shouldn't one expect great displays of "confirmation bias" and "backfire effect" from establishment Democrats right now? Why are there no examples of this presented here?
This article is actually a good example of the one-sided, media bias that some conservative outlets decry, sometimes irrationally. To use a huge photo of one obnoxious Trump supporter for this article is unfair (See Edward Said's "Covering Islam"). Using videos and audio of extreme rally participants - not representative of the campaign - is even more reckless. Finding an obscure article about a single person using a German term, equating it with Nazism, and publishing it HERE, perhaps hoping it will trend, is journalistically irresponsible and maybe even reprehensible. It's also not fair to Germans. There's a German term for everything - that's the language. (The French would use two words at their rallies.) Using a "Fact Checker" that considers every rhetorical exaggeration that Trump uses for affect, like emphasis or humor, and counting it as a LIE is also unfair. Unlike Trump, politicians (and lawyers) are experts at not lying - TECHNICALLY. They cover themselves with qualifiers, like "maybe", "most", and "often". They use the subjunctive case. If "fact checking" authorities and media institutions like NYT show bias - IN A SINGLE DIRECTION - the people will continue to revolt.
This article is actually a good example of the one-sided, media bias that some conservative outlets decry, sometimes irrationally. To use a huge photo of one obnoxious Trump supporter for this article is unfair (See Edward Said's "Covering Islam"). Using videos and audio of extreme rally participants - not representative of the campaign - is even more reckless. Finding an obscure article about a single person using a German term, equating it with Nazism, and publishing it HERE, perhaps hoping it will trend, is journalistically irresponsible and maybe even reprehensible. It's also not fair to Germans. There's a German term for everything - that's the language. (The French would use two words at their rallies.) Using a "Fact Checker" that considers every rhetorical exaggeration that Trump uses for affect, like emphasis or humor, and counting it as a LIE is also unfair. Unlike Trump, politicians (and lawyers) are experts at not lying - TECHNICALLY. They cover themselves with qualifiers, like "maybe", "most", and "often". They use the subjunctive case. If "fact checking" authorities and media institutions like NYT show bias - IN A SINGLE DIRECTION - the people will continue to revolt.
3
Trump says what he says. I judge him by that. He lost me at banning Muslims and calling Mexican migrants rapists.
As to Wikileaks, hacked personal emails from Clinton staffers selectively released by Julian Assange who has a personal beef with Clinton, what am I to conclude? During a campaign, I assume staffers float all kinds of ideas and thoughts past each other and talk smack about people they don't like. I'd need to know more to put it in perspective.
Who hacked her and why? Were the emails altered or selective? Why was only Clinton targeted? Do these emails reflect Clinton's own thoughts? Did she even know about them? Will they affect her presidency? Did anything unethical ever get past the contemplation stage? Are these emails any different than those of other campaigns? Do they give me a compelling reason to switch to a candidate who spouts and encourages naked bigotry and hostile slogans? I don't see any "humor" in it.
The fact that Trump attracts neo-Nazis is just icing on his toxic cake. I'm not swallowing the poison though clearly many have -- and are indeed revolting.
As to Wikileaks, hacked personal emails from Clinton staffers selectively released by Julian Assange who has a personal beef with Clinton, what am I to conclude? During a campaign, I assume staffers float all kinds of ideas and thoughts past each other and talk smack about people they don't like. I'd need to know more to put it in perspective.
Who hacked her and why? Were the emails altered or selective? Why was only Clinton targeted? Do these emails reflect Clinton's own thoughts? Did she even know about them? Will they affect her presidency? Did anything unethical ever get past the contemplation stage? Are these emails any different than those of other campaigns? Do they give me a compelling reason to switch to a candidate who spouts and encourages naked bigotry and hostile slogans? I don't see any "humor" in it.
The fact that Trump attracts neo-Nazis is just icing on his toxic cake. I'm not swallowing the poison though clearly many have -- and are indeed revolting.
3
Very thoughtful, Naomi.
Trump's rhetoric can be terrible, no doubt! But have you listened to his entire speeches - or only the most extreme snippets provided to you? If Julian Assange really sought to destroy Clinton, he would have released this material during the primaries or right after the nomination. (I'm a Bernie supporter and wish he did.) I think he's waited until now for dramatic effect - so that institutions manipulating us would expose themselves. This is his true mission. It's now clearer that ever how "unfree" our press really is. The media focuses on the Russians here (while ignoring NBC's tactical release of the Trump video) is just a ploy to avoid the content of the emails. They're even supported by "intelligence findings" that we're supposed to simply believe - just like WMD.
Hillary did not just contemplate setting up a private, email SERVER (not just an account as she continues to suggest) to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries. She did not just contemplate destroying 32,000 emails and many, many lies involving this. Nixon's missing 18 minutes seems like a tiny misdeed, in comparison. If you inform yourself about what measures the Clintons took to avoid scrutiny of their methods to consolidate political power and to impede the investigation of these practices you might see things differently.
Trump's rhetoric can be terrible, no doubt! But have you listened to his entire speeches - or only the most extreme snippets provided to you? If Julian Assange really sought to destroy Clinton, he would have released this material during the primaries or right after the nomination. (I'm a Bernie supporter and wish he did.) I think he's waited until now for dramatic effect - so that institutions manipulating us would expose themselves. This is his true mission. It's now clearer that ever how "unfree" our press really is. The media focuses on the Russians here (while ignoring NBC's tactical release of the Trump video) is just a ploy to avoid the content of the emails. They're even supported by "intelligence findings" that we're supposed to simply believe - just like WMD.
Hillary did not just contemplate setting up a private, email SERVER (not just an account as she continues to suggest) to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries. She did not just contemplate destroying 32,000 emails and many, many lies involving this. Nixon's missing 18 minutes seems like a tiny misdeed, in comparison. If you inform yourself about what measures the Clintons took to avoid scrutiny of their methods to consolidate political power and to impede the investigation of these practices you might see things differently.
1
Thank you, Carl, for your thoughtful answer. I have listened to entire Trump speeches, and during the GOP primaries, I give him credit for stating openly that Iraq was a stupid, unnecessary mistake. In his speeches, I can hear him bring up issues of great concern to many Americans. On the other hand, he is so vague about his plans that I hear everyone "interpret" his words as what they hope he meant, rather than what he actually said. His history is business is a gift for intuitively knowing how to read the audience and pitch a product. However, his pitch can reverse itself 180 degrees if the audience changes, and he has a long history of stiffing the little guy and carrying personal grudges, as well as a fascination with weird cpnspiracy theories, some actively racist in origin. As the daughter of a father who feld Berlin in 1932, I cant't overlook the bigotry he foments, even if it's not aimed at me. I hate to say it, but even Hitler talked a lot about bringing back respect for the nation and the working man. He was still a bad leader.
As to Clinton, I'm very aware of her past, but I don't see it as quite so troubling, in light of the more recent Bush presidency, where something like 100,000 official emails wrre stored on a private RNC server and erased, with absolutely NO investigation. Clinton has been investigated continuously by Republicans, and they've never found anything exceptional enough to prosecute. So, it isn't enough to persuade me Trump is better.
As to Clinton, I'm very aware of her past, but I don't see it as quite so troubling, in light of the more recent Bush presidency, where something like 100,000 official emails wrre stored on a private RNC server and erased, with absolutely NO investigation. Clinton has been investigated continuously by Republicans, and they've never found anything exceptional enough to prosecute. So, it isn't enough to persuade me Trump is better.
The people who are either unable of unwilling to engage critical thinking skills to determine a greater reality that their subjective impression through bias filters, are unqualified to live in a democratic society.
3
Everyone is qualified to live in a democratic society. That's kind of the point.
1
Why am I pretty sure that my first impression was that the big-mouth guy in the accompanying photo is not a Clinton Clinton supporter but a Trump supporter. Confirmed--I then saw the "Women for Trump" preprinted signs in the background. This guy's expression and attitude says it all when it comes to valuing and caring about facts.
Why? is a question we need to know a lot more about.
Why? is a question we need to know a lot more about.
3
In my post election fantasy, Hillary actually has her team reach for some of these angry Trump supporters. She invites them to participate in a round table discussion of their vision for America-- their hopes, fears, disappointments. Maybe they shed their anger, maybe they are happy to be asked to really think, maybe they shake hands with people they assume they should not like. It may be a pipe dream, but it's better than the semi-automatic weapons these people possess in scary numbers, going out on the town and havin' their say. And maybe all would learn something?
1
I find it amazing that you can tell someone's attitude bout valuing and caring about facts based on a picture in the paper.
When a con man seeks political power, he becomes a demagogue--always metabolizing the interest of others so that they best serve his own.
I recently read that business people who have actually dealt with Donald Sr. note the following:
(1) Trump is, of course, always most interested in himself and the single-minded pursuit of his own objectives.
(2) Trump possesses an extraordinary ability to read his audience, to sense when its interest is drifting away from his own, and to inject the tone or theme that will draw them back into the sphere of his own interests.
Misdirection, misinformation, distraction and outright lies are the basic tools of this con man's "art".
Why should we expect these tools to fall into disuse when Mr. Trump's election bid fails? Won't Mr. Trump remain on the scene to insure that his "vision and agenda" remain influential?
The neoconservatives assumed that they could create "a new reality"!
The Donald puts those amateurs to shame. He has created a multitude of "alt-realities", no one of which need be consistent with any other.
He comes on the scene after major institutions--the Republican Party, Fox News, the Koch Brothers Billionaire Boy's Club et al.--have seduced so many members of the GOP base into the world of "truthiness".
Welcome to the fun-house world of post-fact, post-truth "alt-realities", Ms. Roller.
We should all just sit back, willingly suspend our disbelief and enjoy the show--until it comes time to pay the piper
I recently read that business people who have actually dealt with Donald Sr. note the following:
(1) Trump is, of course, always most interested in himself and the single-minded pursuit of his own objectives.
(2) Trump possesses an extraordinary ability to read his audience, to sense when its interest is drifting away from his own, and to inject the tone or theme that will draw them back into the sphere of his own interests.
Misdirection, misinformation, distraction and outright lies are the basic tools of this con man's "art".
Why should we expect these tools to fall into disuse when Mr. Trump's election bid fails? Won't Mr. Trump remain on the scene to insure that his "vision and agenda" remain influential?
The neoconservatives assumed that they could create "a new reality"!
The Donald puts those amateurs to shame. He has created a multitude of "alt-realities", no one of which need be consistent with any other.
He comes on the scene after major institutions--the Republican Party, Fox News, the Koch Brothers Billionaire Boy's Club et al.--have seduced so many members of the GOP base into the world of "truthiness".
Welcome to the fun-house world of post-fact, post-truth "alt-realities", Ms. Roller.
We should all just sit back, willingly suspend our disbelief and enjoy the show--until it comes time to pay the piper
5
A businessman acting in his own interest? How dare he! Whose interest is he supposed to act in, yours?
1
"Suits By Pataki"
Stepped into the Big Box
To see what was on sale
Products once touted
No one expected to fail
Items that once sold
At the price of great sin
Now find themselves in
The CostCo discount bin
So let's see the great bargains
I can find if I try
Oh, look what I found
A two dollar Trump Tie
A tie that once sold
For a hundred or two
Now with a couple of dollars
I can buy quite a few
So the day's a success
Clothes for the cost of cheap dirt
What else might I find
Oh look, a Trump shirt
This shirt was first priced
Way beyond my modest means
But thanks to Trump tanking
I can by a dozen for my teens
Oh, and now look what I found
So adorable, so cute
For $9.99
I can buy a Trump Suit
It looks kinda ugly
And the style quite tacky
But it's almost as nice
As my Suits by Pataki
Stepped into the Big Box
To see what was on sale
Products once touted
No one expected to fail
Items that once sold
At the price of great sin
Now find themselves in
The CostCo discount bin
So let's see the great bargains
I can find if I try
Oh, look what I found
A two dollar Trump Tie
A tie that once sold
For a hundred or two
Now with a couple of dollars
I can buy quite a few
So the day's a success
Clothes for the cost of cheap dirt
What else might I find
Oh look, a Trump shirt
This shirt was first priced
Way beyond my modest means
But thanks to Trump tanking
I can by a dozen for my teens
Oh, and now look what I found
So adorable, so cute
For $9.99
I can buy a Trump Suit
It looks kinda ugly
And the style quite tacky
But it's almost as nice
As my Suits by Pataki
2
There is a story on NPR about Trump's team broadcasting their own imaginary flotsam as news - from Trump Tower. This is sounding more like the comic book campaign that it is. You can contribute after you listen to Roger and Steve's confections about con man Donald. Maybe they are reduced to picking up some tips from the old Jimmy Swaggart days.
5
Back in 2009, when the Obama administration was pushing for passage of the ACA (remember "pushing grandma off the cliff" and the "death panels" paranoia of Chuck Grassley?), one of our neighbors asked me in all seriousness, "Do you think there is going to be a revolution?" I asked, "where did you get that idea" and it was clear that he got it from talk radio. I then responded, "no, Ricky, there isn't going to be a revolution," and we left it at that. Moral: Talk radio was powerful then, and it still is, compounded by scare-tactic rhetoric by the tea partiers, and now Trump, who have taken over the Republican party. The angry face of the man in the photo accompanying this article shows it all. And it isn't funny.
13
If you go to youtube and search for videos on the "American workforce" or "American economy," the first ten videos that come up are almost all videos from alt-right websites filled with conspiracy theories. I haven't done further research on this, but try it.
5
Yes, it is simply astounding that some of my very reasonable, intelligent friends spout the far-right rhetoric. They all watch fox so-called news and some listen to hate radio. They get quite upset when I send them links to articles about The King Predator and Con Don's sexual abuse and lies. It's like they are wearing blinders. However, I can't give up - I must get the truth out whether they like it or not. All it took was for good people to do and say nothing while Hitler rose to power. All it took was for good people to do and say nothing while the Taliban took over Afghanistan and forced professional women to stay home and wear burkas. The hate-anger-fear-lies-war crowd is a small minority of Americans but they shout very loud and constantly. WE must overwhelm their messages with the truth so people cannot say "we didn't know". They know and must start to be honest with themselves.
6
Ms. Roller has made a profound point: "The strongest bias in American politics is not a liberal bias or a conservative bias; it is a confirmation bias, or the urge to believe only things that confirm what you already believe to be true." In our increasing fractured and "millefaceted" media world, we have gone from a "broadcast" model where millions depended on a few major, professional, and fact-checked sources for their news to a "narrowcatch" model in which individuals can surround themselves with hundreds of tiny, personal, and mostly unchecked sources that confirm what they already believe. Given what we know about human psychology this is truly scary and we as a society are now experiencing the tears in the social fabric that come from this increasingly widespread myopia.
69
Great article. This is what happens to a society that isn't required to take formal logic classes. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. What did he mean?
Facts are independently verifiable and everyone can agree on them. For example, we can all look at the report from the CBO that says the Bush tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and added trillions to the debt relative to a baseline without them.
Whether we agree with the claim (opinion or conclusion) that "Tax cuts increase deficits and debt" is our own opinion; CBO offers credible evidence that that is the case.
Once you start talking to someone who is fine with conclusions that are unsupported by credible evidence, you are dealing with an emotional rather than rational argument. You can decide how to proceed accordingly.
Facts are independently verifiable and everyone can agree on them. For example, we can all look at the report from the CBO that says the Bush tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and added trillions to the debt relative to a baseline without them.
Whether we agree with the claim (opinion or conclusion) that "Tax cuts increase deficits and debt" is our own opinion; CBO offers credible evidence that that is the case.
Once you start talking to someone who is fine with conclusions that are unsupported by credible evidence, you are dealing with an emotional rather than rational argument. You can decide how to proceed accordingly.
71
A CBO computer simulation isn't a fact. No one can assume that reported income would be the same at different tax rates. If it was that simple, economists would just use business models, but instead their predictions vary wildly. For example, companies can't assume if they raise a product's price 10%, they will raise profits at the same rate. It's possible to make less money than before because sales may drop.
Or how about this?
"E Pluribus Unum".
Which being translated from Latin means
"From the many, one".
"E Pluribus Unum".
Which being translated from Latin means
"From the many, one".
3
Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth? And so it goes.
1
"there is also a “backfire effect,” which sees people doubling down on their beliefs after being presented with evidence that contradicts them."
This fact negates your next sentence:
"... the only way people will start rejecting falsehoods being fed to them is by confronting uncomfortable truths."
There is nothing to do, except to hope that the fever breaks soon, and all the lunatics fade away.
This fact negates your next sentence:
"... the only way people will start rejecting falsehoods being fed to them is by confronting uncomfortable truths."
There is nothing to do, except to hope that the fever breaks soon, and all the lunatics fade away.
1
Another Times hit piece. Obviously no liberal organizations lie and twist the truth whenever it suits them.
5
Regardless of the source, we should all be skeptical. If the story can't be backed up, it's not true.
That "Obama is a muslim" cannot be backed up, therefore it's not true.
Men DID land on the moon.
Oswald DID shoot Kennedy.
The moon is NOT made of green cheese.
and so on
That "Obama is a muslim" cannot be backed up, therefore it's not true.
Men DID land on the moon.
Oswald DID shoot Kennedy.
The moon is NOT made of green cheese.
and so on
6
I always look at the source. In deciding which Democratic primary candidate to vote for (I liked both), I stopped paying attention to the endless policy arguments and looked at where Republican attacks were directed. With startling unanimity, they avoided criticism of Sanders and went all out at Clinton. Clearly, they wanted to push Dems away from Clinton and toward Sanders. So what people SAID was irrelevant -- their ACTIONS told me that Clinton had the best shot at winning the general election. This approach cut out all the noise and bias, and looked at what the reality was likely to be. I voted Clinton.
Unfortunately, we'll never know what would have happened if Bernie was nominated. I tend to think he's have been swiftboated in short order, because the GOP was so confident in not "softening him up" early on and not giving a hint of what their attack strategy would be if he won the primaries. But there's no way to be certain, unless some operative spills the beans in years to come, or Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin change party.
Unfortunately, we'll never know what would have happened if Bernie was nominated. I tend to think he's have been swiftboated in short order, because the GOP was so confident in not "softening him up" early on and not giving a hint of what their attack strategy would be if he won the primaries. But there's no way to be certain, unless some operative spills the beans in years to come, or Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin change party.
1
You're wasting your time. It's clear from Dan's comment that he's a prisoner of confirmation bias, and could care less for the truth.
2
Who among the Rep leadership and Rep pundits have called out Trump when he lies? In the last debate Hillary recalled Donald making fun of the disabled Times reporter to which Trump (automatically) said wrong.' Who among us have not seen that video??
Whether through cowardice or complicity, Rep leadership and media have either stood with him or silently stood by while he utters lie after lie. Their silence has added to the idea that what he utters is truth. And, of course, when liberal pols and media say he is lying, they are lying.
It's a sad state of affairs when the Rep leadership stand by either out of fear or incompetents and say nothing. Kudos to the few who have courage and shame on those who haven't.
Whether through cowardice or complicity, Rep leadership and media have either stood with him or silently stood by while he utters lie after lie. Their silence has added to the idea that what he utters is truth. And, of course, when liberal pols and media say he is lying, they are lying.
It's a sad state of affairs when the Rep leadership stand by either out of fear or incompetents and say nothing. Kudos to the few who have courage and shame on those who haven't.
83
Was it Helen Keller or Eleanor Roosevelt who said "Silence is the voice of complicity"? I should remember, but I don't, and the point is that all Republicans are bear guilt for Mr. Trump's rise.
When Donald lies, Republicans -- not just Democrats -- need strongly to object.
When Donald lies, Republicans -- not just Democrats -- need strongly to object.
Can we agree on this?
"One nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for All"
The Pledge of Allegiance.
"One nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for All"
The Pledge of Allegiance.
1
No we cannot all agree on this. Not all people believe in God. And with the "separation of church and state" principle not all people who believe in God think our government should be under God.
9
Therein lies the problem; identity politics has divided us into easily manipulated subsets, reference to God is forbidden in civil discourse, and "liberty and justice for all" means justice for me and my mine no matter the facts or offense, not equality before the law. We are so focused on special pleading for our cause and issues, there seems to be very few watching over the country.
1
Apart from the scary and wholly unfounded predictions of post-election scenarios, there is a serious problem inn the administration of Early Voting.
Having been overcome by the desire to save the Union, I went to an early vote there where I live. The WRITE-IN option that I had to use was restrictive:
1. The system allowed only electronic voting, no paper ballots.
2. Only the name of the Presidential candidate, made of no more than three words, could be entered.
3. No name for Vice-President could be added.
Having been overcome by the desire to save the Union, I went to an early vote there where I live. The WRITE-IN option that I had to use was restrictive:
1. The system allowed only electronic voting, no paper ballots.
2. Only the name of the Presidential candidate, made of no more than three words, could be entered.
3. No name for Vice-President could be added.
As we (hopefully) reach the end of the first Trump cycle, the most powerful trend is taking place. It is now not "in," to support Trump. While I think this fleeing of popular support is a very good thing- I am not blind to how the penchant for violence, arrogance and conformity could have easily swayed the election in another direction.
A few months ago, I thought the only thing that could destroy Trump's base of support were charges of murder, rape or incest. Instead, the sexual predator revelation was enough to catapult his apparent downfall- that and his candid portrayal of himself in the debates. But if I am right, what does this say about the 40% of Americans who still support him.
Personally, I believe it speaks poorly of a large number of Americans. It is a reminder that that Trump's supporters are a significant force in American politics. This should be a cautionary note that if there is to be political change- real change- it must be from the ground up.
Accountability is a bad word in American society. I see this painfully at my work and I see it at play in every endeavor. For some, the concept is truly alien. "I was just mistaken- time to move on." But accountability is more. For to be accountable there must be self reproach. Pain should inspire reflection. This is the only way mistakes are not repeated. Sadly- this is not how the world runs and most people function.
A few months ago, I thought the only thing that could destroy Trump's base of support were charges of murder, rape or incest. Instead, the sexual predator revelation was enough to catapult his apparent downfall- that and his candid portrayal of himself in the debates. But if I am right, what does this say about the 40% of Americans who still support him.
Personally, I believe it speaks poorly of a large number of Americans. It is a reminder that that Trump's supporters are a significant force in American politics. This should be a cautionary note that if there is to be political change- real change- it must be from the ground up.
Accountability is a bad word in American society. I see this painfully at my work and I see it at play in every endeavor. For some, the concept is truly alien. "I was just mistaken- time to move on." But accountability is more. For to be accountable there must be self reproach. Pain should inspire reflection. This is the only way mistakes are not repeated. Sadly- this is not how the world runs and most people function.
1
The rise of truthiness is linked not just to right-wing paranoia but also to the left-wing insistence that every human being automatically deserves "respect", regardless of whether they have ever done anything to earn it. From here, it is unfortunately an easy slide to the idea that the contents of every human being's head deserve respect as well. So you cannot criticize fundamentalist Christianity, radical Islam or vaccine denialism because it offends individual Christians, Muslims or anti-vaxxers. And since Americans try to be polite in face-to-face interactions, they have lost the art of political debate and instead pour their misspelled anger into the anonymity of cyberspace. I recently was accosted by a woman in Whole Foods asking me to sign some anti-GMO petition. I told her I was in favor of GMOs and there was no evidence whatsoever that they cause any health damage. She was as shocked as if I called her an insulting name to her face. Unless people learn to separate their views from their identities, denialism, both on left and right, will continue.
3
Every human being does deserve respect but that doesn't mean that we have to agree with everybody. We do have to respect other peoples' right to disagree with us while at the same time explaining in a civil way why we think they are wrong.
4
When Obama ran for his second term, there was a gang of right wingers that set up a booth outside our small town post office, daily. They had signs depicting Obama as either an ape or Hitler, or worse-- a hybrid. They shouted profanities at passersby. They did not earn or deserve even the scantest amount of respect from anyone. There was no hope of "explaining in a civil way" just how wrong their behavior was. On the other hand, i saw plenty of people calmly campaigning for Obama. Not a word or a picture vilifying his opponent, just participation in the electoral process. Those people deserved the respect of even the most enthusiastic Romney supporter. There is a real difference, Steve-- and we need to keep that in perspective as we evaluate the alt-right direction of the GOP; the extremism of many Trump supporters; and the role of right-wing TV and talk radio in what we have witnessed.
1
"The urge to believe only things that confirm what you already believe to be true" or as I have been saying(mostly to myself) for many years-people believe whatever they want to believe! What is fact and what is opinion? No one knows anymore because everyone has their own facts which are unshakeable! In 1970(I believe) President Nixon said at a news conference that journalists must "separate fact from opinion". How can they when most believe their opinions are facts?
1
Social media can feed the rumor mill so much faster than before and visual information can be more easily doctored to appear real. I remember not believing the TV footage of the Twin Tower disaster until enough different sources corroborated it. I feel increasingly vulnerable to misinformation in our brave new world. Republicans have exacerbated this problem with their propaganda news network fox news whose viewpoint seems to spew out a constant barrage of what is essentially fear and hate-mongering.
3
So don't watch Fox News.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts'.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Once one of our two parties received it's very own Ministry of Propaganda courtesy of Rupert Murdoch, a large portion of Americans started to have their own opinions thrice pre-chewed 24/7 on Fox so-called news. Ergo, they automatically became facts for them, because Hannity, O'Reilly et al. told them so.
All my adult life, and before moving to these shores from what Republicans so endearingly call 'socialist' Europe, I made it a habit to read both a respected newspaper from the center left and center right, emphasis on center.
That way people are able to compare arguments by those who have more background information than the reader about certain domestic and foreign policies from both sides of the political spectrum.
The Washington Post - despite having endorsed Mrs. Clinton - has overall moved to the center right since the Grahams sold their paper to Mr. Bezos, while the Grey Lady is still on the center left, and both are now my go-to sources for information.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Once one of our two parties received it's very own Ministry of Propaganda courtesy of Rupert Murdoch, a large portion of Americans started to have their own opinions thrice pre-chewed 24/7 on Fox so-called news. Ergo, they automatically became facts for them, because Hannity, O'Reilly et al. told them so.
All my adult life, and before moving to these shores from what Republicans so endearingly call 'socialist' Europe, I made it a habit to read both a respected newspaper from the center left and center right, emphasis on center.
That way people are able to compare arguments by those who have more background information than the reader about certain domestic and foreign policies from both sides of the political spectrum.
The Washington Post - despite having endorsed Mrs. Clinton - has overall moved to the center right since the Grahams sold their paper to Mr. Bezos, while the Grey Lady is still on the center left, and both are now my go-to sources for information.
4
early in life I became dedicated to rooting out bias and prejudice that I could identify in my own thinking. As the studies on implicit bias are revealing, this is challenging and inevitably imperfect.
The most stubborn prejudice I retain is a loathing for willful ignorance. I have wicked, nasty thoughts about stupid people. It's angry, hateful, and I do my best not to hurl it around.
This political season is trying my patience in the extreme. Only the vow never to become 'like them' is keeping me from exploding.
This is our own fault. We cannot dismiss education, science, history as trivial, resource it as such, and expect an improving society.
The most stubborn prejudice I retain is a loathing for willful ignorance. I have wicked, nasty thoughts about stupid people. It's angry, hateful, and I do my best not to hurl it around.
This political season is trying my patience in the extreme. Only the vow never to become 'like them' is keeping me from exploding.
This is our own fault. We cannot dismiss education, science, history as trivial, resource it as such, and expect an improving society.
6
Having spoken to quite a few millennials in the last several weeks, I have been encouraged by one aspect of this election cycle. Millennials are not as inclined to believe the mainstream media as were the older generations. Older people grew up in an era when you could generally believe what you saw and read in the news. So we tend to not be overly skeptical. Younger folks have no such history, so they question most everything. So the constant and continuous sensationalizing by today's media tends to get discounted or ignored.
I don't think this phenomena will be enough to overcome the media's massive lying campaign against DJT. But I do believe the mainstream media will have much less influence in the future as more and more Americans recognize that one has to go elsewhere for the truth. So isn't it interesting that the media, by putting out its constant barrage of misinformation, in order to get its candidate elected, has harmed themselves irreparably moving forward.
I don't think this phenomena will be enough to overcome the media's massive lying campaign against DJT. But I do believe the mainstream media will have much less influence in the future as more and more Americans recognize that one has to go elsewhere for the truth. So isn't it interesting that the media, by putting out its constant barrage of misinformation, in order to get its candidate elected, has harmed themselves irreparably moving forward.
2
But why do you think the "truth" is more readily avaialable from partisan, non-fact-checked websites and blogs than from established outlets that try to adhere to modern journalistic standards and accountability?
1
"the media's massive lying campaign against DJT"
Thanks for confirming the author's point about confirmation bias.
Thanks for confirming the author's point about confirmation bias.
1
Dear angry old white men, prepare to move to the back of the line.
2
There is an article about the election according to East Texas that quoted a Silsbee Texas evangelical voter who talks about how she and others hate Clinton too much to not support the guy with no morals. You are just supposed to start with her unproven ball of assumptions and reach that conclusion. As a Christian no less. Absurdity has a logic too.
5
There is nothing like a virgin receptive mind, ready and willing to believe what he or she is told is the truth, are the facts, and feel confident to use those 'values' as a frame of referendum in the future. So, it better be the truth; once that young mind is entrenched in it, it may be mighty difficult to open that mind to critical thinking, to change his/her mind, if things aren't as depicted. Take religion, for instance; a make-believe proposition we have no proof of whatsoever; it may be true there is a god creator of all, and highly interested in your every move; but, as likely, it may not be true at all. And yet, we parents think we ought to teach what we were taught, however suspect; some have called this attitude of proselitizing our kids a form of child abuse, given how little (if any) we ourselves know about it. Now, can you imagine telling others a lie, just because you hate somebody, or are highly ignorant about something and unwilling to admit it; and further, as ignorance has baggage (prejudices), telling was isn't may do irreparable damage to a young individual, even if lucky enough to still have an open mind? Now, when we listen at the invectives, insults and right-out lies about something/somebody, if we could respond but do not, we become complicit in it. This is happening with a cowed republican party, faithful to its own prejudices, and a tender bed for demagogues to fester and then come back, as rabid dogs, to bite them...and harm us all.
1
It's not a lie if you think it's the truth.
2
Knowing what is true—or at least more probable—requires being curious, open-minded, willing to challenge your understanding and beliefs, accepting humbly that you may be wrong and if so welcome having to change your mind, that what is true may be very complicated, not black or white, have no simple answers, that you will never know many things, especially for certain, and that in the absence of certainty judge things in proportion, lest you be judged harshly too.
1
since reporting Reagan assertion that trees cause more air pollution than cars without missing a beat, he "press" has given equal time to "both sides" whether one side was false or not.
Right wing control of press and media, which was permitted under Reagan, has ushered in an era where superstitious nonsense is presented along side fact as having equal weight.
This has been only part of what helped create the Trump candidacy
Right wing control of press and media, which was permitted under Reagan, has ushered in an era where superstitious nonsense is presented along side fact as having equal weight.
This has been only part of what helped create the Trump candidacy
6
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Leith Anderson said: “Evangelicals are people of faith and should be defined by their belief, not by their politics or race.” In God’s bible, John 10:16 verse says “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
Some Evangelical Christians call Donald Trump a hero for his position against abortion. A man who is a bully; made his money on casinos; had several wives and affairs; a liar who portrays himself as a savior of the working class when he’s been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits from ordinary Americans for refusing to pay for services performed.
Donald Trump’s also captured the racist gender of white and poor making less than $50,000; people who believe they’re the forgotten class; that immigrants are the cause of most of their economic downfall. Sadly, they can’t see Trump doesn’t have a real economic plan other than more tax breaks to wealthy people like him.
These are my facts; Donald Trump is a con man who’s viciously made use of the pain and suffering believing he’s “above the human race.”
Some Evangelical Christians call Donald Trump a hero for his position against abortion. A man who is a bully; made his money on casinos; had several wives and affairs; a liar who portrays himself as a savior of the working class when he’s been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits from ordinary Americans for refusing to pay for services performed.
Donald Trump’s also captured the racist gender of white and poor making less than $50,000; people who believe they’re the forgotten class; that immigrants are the cause of most of their economic downfall. Sadly, they can’t see Trump doesn’t have a real economic plan other than more tax breaks to wealthy people like him.
These are my facts; Donald Trump is a con man who’s viciously made use of the pain and suffering believing he’s “above the human race.”
6
The "democratization of the news" by the Internet and social media means, among other things, that the well-educated are no longer the gatekeepers to what is propagated and validated as factual information. Millions of less educated people who, frankly, just don't think very well, as well as those prepared to exploit them for political and profit motive, now also serve that role.
Conspiracy theories are particularly appealing, in my observation of friends who subscribe to them, because such theories simultaneously account for all not known by the less educated while flattering their ability to follow a tight, narrow chain of ratiocination to conclusions in that general darkness. To say that they do not think very well is not to say they are "stupid," but paradoxically that they have an undue overestimation of chains of apparently logical reasoning, absent the perspicacity to see they are reasoning in circles and minus the general knowledge to recognize that they have reasoned their way off a cliff, outside the bounds of human experience and just plain common sense.
A typical result is that in defense of a conspiracy theory, say those of the "911 Truthers," the conspiracy must grow increasingly vast to fill all its circular reasoning that an impossibly large number of people must "be in on it" to ever to keep such a secret. And of course the theory by that point is a "secret" that is blasted from tens of thousands of websites, blogs, and social media accounts. Some secret.
Conspiracy theories are particularly appealing, in my observation of friends who subscribe to them, because such theories simultaneously account for all not known by the less educated while flattering their ability to follow a tight, narrow chain of ratiocination to conclusions in that general darkness. To say that they do not think very well is not to say they are "stupid," but paradoxically that they have an undue overestimation of chains of apparently logical reasoning, absent the perspicacity to see they are reasoning in circles and minus the general knowledge to recognize that they have reasoned their way off a cliff, outside the bounds of human experience and just plain common sense.
A typical result is that in defense of a conspiracy theory, say those of the "911 Truthers," the conspiracy must grow increasingly vast to fill all its circular reasoning that an impossibly large number of people must "be in on it" to ever to keep such a secret. And of course the theory by that point is a "secret" that is blasted from tens of thousands of websites, blogs, and social media accounts. Some secret.
4
Religion is the central problem here, which very few perfectly rational people are willing to admit. We encourage people to be free to believe all manner of things which cannot be proven to be true, or even things which can demonstrably be shown to be false. But on that subject matter, we say that it is wrong to try to change their deeply held beliefs; we draw a magic line between those beliefs and the "real-world" and expect everybody to understand where that magic line is and what it separates. If much of your most deeply held beliefs may be untrue and society is happy for you to hold on to those, why should we protest against people adding other beliefs of questionable certitude to their system of views? It's not just people who are religious, but the overall atmosphere of tolerating views that are beliefs rather than things which hold up against close examination.
9
Media needs to distinguish between fact and fantasy and provide context.
Trump tells his cult members not to believe election polls and then quotes polls to prove his points. Limbaugh telling Americans not to believe any sources but him is insanity.
No way but through: Report the facts.
Trump tells his cult members not to believe election polls and then quotes polls to prove his points. Limbaugh telling Americans not to believe any sources but him is insanity.
No way but through: Report the facts.
3
This commentator NEVER listens to any Trump speeches even as a keen observer of US politics because of outright lies and convoluted messages. His cohorts simply lap up EVEYTHING he says.
Any message must have three elements – facts, logic and context. Trump messages - almost ALWAYS - have NONE of that.
To arrive at a conclusion one needs to analyze (based on logic) information (based on facts) in a related context. It is ALSO logic that requires fact checking to avoid confirmation bias.
Guess what happens if one avoids facts, logic and context?
The situation in US reminds the science fiction "The Marching Morons" written by American writer Cyril M. Kornbluth. The story is about a man from the past put into suspended animation by a freak accident to be revived in the future. “The world seems mad to this man due to a combination of intelligent people not having children and excessive breeding by less intelligent people … the world is full of morons, with the exception of an elite few who work slavishly to keep order.”
Is this happening NOW??
Any message must have three elements – facts, logic and context. Trump messages - almost ALWAYS - have NONE of that.
To arrive at a conclusion one needs to analyze (based on logic) information (based on facts) in a related context. It is ALSO logic that requires fact checking to avoid confirmation bias.
Guess what happens if one avoids facts, logic and context?
The situation in US reminds the science fiction "The Marching Morons" written by American writer Cyril M. Kornbluth. The story is about a man from the past put into suspended animation by a freak accident to be revived in the future. “The world seems mad to this man due to a combination of intelligent people not having children and excessive breeding by less intelligent people … the world is full of morons, with the exception of an elite few who work slavishly to keep order.”
Is this happening NOW??
1
Roy quoting Kornbluth: "... the world is full of morons, with the exception of an elite few who work slavishly to keep order."
Where do you fit in that classification?
Where do you fit in that classification?
5
Watching the three women discuss the polls and Trump's silly attack on them during PBS' News Hour last night I came to think about how one would eliminate outlier polling sources. If, only "IF" they exist...
In 207A the Prof said, just look at the thing and throw out the obvious offenders. In Astrophysics for the "standard lumen" in distant galaxies the rule was formed, to keep close to a supposed "average" of such, that one ignores the two brightest super novas...
Well, as a practical approach, say you have 31 "prestigious" polls, ignore date. Take randomly a set of five from that pool, and calculate the average for that sample of the universe. Repeat the process. 31 times, let's just say.
Sum up those sample averages to get a new average to use. Then throw out from the "universe of 31" any that deviate more than one standard deviation. Then- repeat the whole thing with what is left until you get a new average, and increase the exclusion to 1.5 SD. Do until no poll is excluded.
The upshot is that when Reuters call 4% and CNN 5% the House of MOuse (ABC) `2% should not skew the universe averages, as it has three times already (1st after the Dem convention, 2nd after the tax form, 3rd...you know)
If the outliers are excluded over time it seems that the race is where it was July 4, with only drift and no trend. That Trump is where the last two Gops were, or somewhat better.
But this is an EC race, and with IA, OH, & NV added from 2012 T is 24 votes short. FL has 29...
In 207A the Prof said, just look at the thing and throw out the obvious offenders. In Astrophysics for the "standard lumen" in distant galaxies the rule was formed, to keep close to a supposed "average" of such, that one ignores the two brightest super novas...
Well, as a practical approach, say you have 31 "prestigious" polls, ignore date. Take randomly a set of five from that pool, and calculate the average for that sample of the universe. Repeat the process. 31 times, let's just say.
Sum up those sample averages to get a new average to use. Then throw out from the "universe of 31" any that deviate more than one standard deviation. Then- repeat the whole thing with what is left until you get a new average, and increase the exclusion to 1.5 SD. Do until no poll is excluded.
The upshot is that when Reuters call 4% and CNN 5% the House of MOuse (ABC) `2% should not skew the universe averages, as it has three times already (1st after the Dem convention, 2nd after the tax form, 3rd...you know)
If the outliers are excluded over time it seems that the race is where it was July 4, with only drift and no trend. That Trump is where the last two Gops were, or somewhat better.
But this is an EC race, and with IA, OH, & NV added from 2012 T is 24 votes short. FL has 29...
You should look to the news, not to "reflect you," but rather to "cause you to reflect."
4
I seem to recall hearing about a study done by Fairleigh_Dickinson_University which showed that those who watched Fox News were less informed than those who never watched or read any news.
8
Is that a fact?
2
Hahah, google it.
1
Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers.
Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers.
Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.
The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don’t watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers.
Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.
The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don’t watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
2
The railing against the "mainstream media" is like the continuous attacks on the budgets and reputation of the IRS and SEC, like the long-term GOP efforts to suppress the vote, and Trump's attacks (pre-election!) on the integrity of the elections: extremely corrosive.
Worse, I think the corrosive effects were foreseen and welcomed by most of the people making the attacks.
You degrade the democracy and the press sufficiently and people can be more easily bamboozled. You run down the IRS enough and people will help you keep more of your money because they resent the IRS more than the guy who is sending jobs overseas or dodging taxes.
So the trend is no accident. Trump is an accident, but only because he's not got the subtlety of his GOP opponents.
Worse, I think the corrosive effects were foreseen and welcomed by most of the people making the attacks.
You degrade the democracy and the press sufficiently and people can be more easily bamboozled. You run down the IRS enough and people will help you keep more of your money because they resent the IRS more than the guy who is sending jobs overseas or dodging taxes.
So the trend is no accident. Trump is an accident, but only because he's not got the subtlety of his GOP opponents.
66
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. We have failed to educate our people.
3
“We need a secretary of the Treasury who is prepared to take on the greed and recklessness of Wall Street, not someone who comes from Wall Street,” Mr. Sanders wrote in an email on Monday.
What will Hillary Clinton do regarding the appointment of the Secretary of Treasury AFTER she is elected? I think that Senator Sanders has a very legitimate concern about Hillary Clinton's answer to this question AFTER she is elected.
And, the same legitimate concern surrounds each and every issue addressed in the Democratic Party platform approved in Philadelphia.
What will Hillary Clinton do regarding the appointment of the Secretary of Treasury AFTER she is elected? I think that Senator Sanders has a very legitimate concern about Hillary Clinton's answer to this question AFTER she is elected.
And, the same legitimate concern surrounds each and every issue addressed in the Democratic Party platform approved in Philadelphia.
3
The powers that be use that partisan truthiness to rally the base, which is quick to jump on board because it feels good to be angry. Political rallies become like recess to these guys - they shout and spit and run around like children. Look at the photo above - the angry man shouting away, picking a fight on the schoolyard and there behind him is that other guy, laughing. Truth doesn't even come into this. It's all about the woefully misplaced anger and entertainment.
1
The diction that makes progressives stay near the bathrooms is equaled by the mania against Trump by the tilted media like this fading publication. As crazy as your opponents seem to be perfectly matches the opinions of people old enough to remember the decades when newspapers represented all sides of issues.
Of course the NY Times would not have a member of their political opposition write today's piece. No, the progressive cause is so incredibly weak that any new voices like Ms. Roller must only reflect the institutional mindset. Even Arthur Brooks is too much for our snowflakes hereabouts.
Of course the NY Times would not have a member of their political opposition write today's piece. No, the progressive cause is so incredibly weak that any new voices like Ms. Roller must only reflect the institutional mindset. Even Arthur Brooks is too much for our snowflakes hereabouts.
4
This has certainly done a bang-up job of pointing out the errors of fact in the piece. I mean, Charlie Sykes, what a left-wing fool, right? And that Rush Limbaugh line about the whole enterprise of fact-checking being a lie! That was so comforting and true. Maybe next time, try offering an explanation of what exactly is incorrect here rather than reflexive windy disdain.
4
I've read many of this person's comments and, unfortunately, it seems that all he/she has is "reflexive windy disdain."
1
Everyone who plans to vote for the Trump boy knows he is lying. Truth is truth. Nohing subtle here. Now they've found a champion who's let them know that lying is perfectly acceptable, even better than the truth. Lying works.
Think rebelios children in a schoolyard with their fingers stuck in their ears saying nah, nah, nah. Call them republicans but that would be unfair to the sacrifices of the many adults who have preceded them.
They have found their bully child too big to spank. Teachers are afraid of his litiigious track record, and dreading the possibility that he may one day become the principal and they will be fired. He rants and raves and they cheer him on. No matter what dribble he spouts, in unison he is applauded and then his nonsense is repeated and accepted as fact, without concern for the truth or a critical thought in the lot.
The republican primaries were a collection of boys. In spite of her 'common' flaws there remains only one adult in the room who is responsible enough to take the blathering idiot to task; Hilary.
Think rebelios children in a schoolyard with their fingers stuck in their ears saying nah, nah, nah. Call them republicans but that would be unfair to the sacrifices of the many adults who have preceded them.
They have found their bully child too big to spank. Teachers are afraid of his litiigious track record, and dreading the possibility that he may one day become the principal and they will be fired. He rants and raves and they cheer him on. No matter what dribble he spouts, in unison he is applauded and then his nonsense is repeated and accepted as fact, without concern for the truth or a critical thought in the lot.
The republican primaries were a collection of boys. In spite of her 'common' flaws there remains only one adult in the room who is responsible enough to take the blathering idiot to task; Hilary.
5
The rise of Trump is so objectively horrifying precisely because he has embodied an alternative, hate-filled reality.
I believe this problem of "truth vs fiction" can only be solved by reasonable Republicans joining forces with reasonable Democrats to take on this conspiracy driven propaganda machine that has become the nation's new "alt-right party".
Only with a bi-partison fight for truth, will we be able to overcome this insidious threat to our country.
I believe this problem of "truth vs fiction" can only be solved by reasonable Republicans joining forces with reasonable Democrats to take on this conspiracy driven propaganda machine that has become the nation's new "alt-right party".
Only with a bi-partison fight for truth, will we be able to overcome this insidious threat to our country.
75
LK Who are these "reasonable" Republicans? Why haven't they denounced Trump up until now? Are they really more interested in their Party than in America? The answer to that appears to be "yes"...Party first, America second.
1
Where are the reasonable Democrats hiding, Anarctica? Both of them should come out and enjoy the light of day.
LK,
The problem is that there are no reasonable Republicans left, at least not on the national stage.
If there were, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed long ago.
If there were any even semi-reasonable but highly conservative Republicans left, he would have least have had his nomination voted on.
There are some who wear the "moderate" banner, but at this point, the definition of a moderate Republican is one who will not shoot a Democrat on sight.
The problem is that there are no reasonable Republicans left, at least not on the national stage.
If there were, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed long ago.
If there were any even semi-reasonable but highly conservative Republicans left, he would have least have had his nomination voted on.
There are some who wear the "moderate" banner, but at this point, the definition of a moderate Republican is one who will not shoot a Democrat on sight.
The NYT is not a lot of help on this matter. We just bombed Yemen and not one single question to either of the candidates about it so far. The NYT has had a few articles about it, but not nearly enough.
Most people live in a vacuum these days. They get their news from echo chambers and don't get very balanced and unbiased informtaion. They listen to cute, clever wrap-ups from John Oliver and Bill Maher or angry rants from Rush Limbaugh, etc. They hear what they want to hear. They talk about 3am tweets, old cold war propaganda, and the dangers of third parties spoiling the election, yet don't seem to care that Hillary wants a no fly zone over Syria which is essentially a call to war.
Your mention of Obama deporting more people than ever is a good example of things we should be talking about, but simply don't. When it's inconvenient for our side it's brushed off. We need to hold all our politicians' feet to the fire no matter what. We don't need to pick sides we need to hold them all accountable.
Most people live in a vacuum these days. They get their news from echo chambers and don't get very balanced and unbiased informtaion. They listen to cute, clever wrap-ups from John Oliver and Bill Maher or angry rants from Rush Limbaugh, etc. They hear what they want to hear. They talk about 3am tweets, old cold war propaganda, and the dangers of third parties spoiling the election, yet don't seem to care that Hillary wants a no fly zone over Syria which is essentially a call to war.
Your mention of Obama deporting more people than ever is a good example of things we should be talking about, but simply don't. When it's inconvenient for our side it's brushed off. We need to hold all our politicians' feet to the fire no matter what. We don't need to pick sides we need to hold them all accountable.
2
Among the stupid mistakes the left has made over the past few decades is to cede many local election races to far better organized rabid right wing extremists. As a result, we have school boards dominated by religious crazies who believe that the bible, simply a collection of parables, is the literal truth, and they have injected their narrow minded, willfully blind zeitgeist into public school curricula nationwide: dumbing down has become their norm, and it is corroding our national ability to remain in the vanguard in scientific research, global climate change, and a host of other urgent issues. We need to take back our towns from these folks - e.g., the voters in Glendale, AZ finally kicked out Christian extremists who were demanding that pages of science textbooks be cut out because they didn't like the material - but the fact that they had taken hold of their school boards to begin with is deeply troubling. For all that President Obama is vilified and denigrated for being a "community organizer," that is precisely what the left must do. One entire party has been wholly consumed by people adamantly refusing to accept scientific and medical facts, preferring to rely upon their faith in a complex, deeply nuanced and fraught world. We cannot allow this to continue if we are ever to restore secular government and progressive values.
7
Is it that we want to believe or is it that we need to believe to confirm our biases. The difference may be subtle but significant.
1
Didn't Mark Twain write something to the effect that (loosely paraphrased) "It's not that people don't know stuff, it's just that so much of what they know just ain't so." Combine this with Barnum's "You can fool some of the people all of the time, etc." and you have 2016's version of American politics in a nutshell -- or a campaign ad or speech.
6
Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich in the early years of the Reagan Administration demonstrated their contempt for the American electorate when they demonstrated that facts are irrelevant to winning elections but mis-information and hyperbolic grandstanding will. The spores from this fungus disseminated throughout our body politic and gave us Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly. and others of their ilk. Until this boil is drained the Republican Party will become and remain a minority Party unless and until a more polished demagogue than Trump arises from their shattered remains and actually gets elected to the White House... and our Democratic Republic comes to an end.
83
Even though I agree with many of the empirical assertions in this post, its use of the language of disease and decay are themselves signs of a leaning towards orthodoxy, private truth, and rejection of differences. Let us not become that which we want to counteract.
Do not be lulled by the fact that we have food, clothing, medical care, and a roof over our heads. We are at the beginning of the second great Dark Age.
The difference is that in the last Dark Age it followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. The new Dark Age is going to take place while the structures of society are still in place. That is the new twist on the old theme.
Reason, Thought, and the search for truth and understanding of the world are out the window.
The difference is that in the last Dark Age it followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. The new Dark Age is going to take place while the structures of society are still in place. That is the new twist on the old theme.
Reason, Thought, and the search for truth and understanding of the world are out the window.
1
You know we have hit rock bottom when conservative propaganda can convince its base of millions that what they can clearly see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears is a "myth". I am referring to the recorded speech of Donald Trump mocking a disabled Times reporter, and, yes, Trump supporters now believe this to be a debunked myth.
2
"Fact-checking is like exposure therapy for partisans, and there is some reason to believe in what researchers call an “affective tipping point,” where “motivated reasoners” start to accept hard truths after seeing enough claims debunked over and over."
.....while unmotivated "non-reasoners" will continue in their willfully ignorant delusions. My question is: What makes people want to persist in their delusions? I suspect it is one or more of the three following reasons: 1. They have a fragile ego and can’t bear the shame/ humiliation of admitting they were wrong. (In mild cases, they are trying to save face. In extreme cases, they are trying to save their carefully constructed delusional world from flying apart.); 2. They have some other base motive(s) they are hiding under their lies/ delusions such as hatred, anger, selfishness, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. (in other words, still shame - this time not of being wrong in their facts, but of having base motivations; or 3. Total intellectual laziness.
.....while unmotivated "non-reasoners" will continue in their willfully ignorant delusions. My question is: What makes people want to persist in their delusions? I suspect it is one or more of the three following reasons: 1. They have a fragile ego and can’t bear the shame/ humiliation of admitting they were wrong. (In mild cases, they are trying to save face. In extreme cases, they are trying to save their carefully constructed delusional world from flying apart.); 2. They have some other base motive(s) they are hiding under their lies/ delusions such as hatred, anger, selfishness, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. (in other words, still shame - this time not of being wrong in their facts, but of having base motivations; or 3. Total intellectual laziness.
2
The basis of debate is for each side to accept a premise, a resolution, from which to form a proposition (affirmative) and an opposition (negative) argument.
No rational debate on any issue is possible when the basic premise, the facts on which the premise is formed, cannot be agreed upon. At best, you have two people - two sides - talking at each other, not with each other - because they are not even using the same language.
I believe that is what has been happening, not just on the Presidential debate stage, but in our national political discourse and in our national discourse in general. More and more we are talking at, not with each other, not necessarily out of any deep seated rancor, but we are just not speaking the same language, we do not share the same frame of reference, we are not coming from the same perceived experience, living in the same perceived world - aliens from different planets trying to communicate and devolving into frustration and anger.
We have to somehow start going to an English as a second language class together again. We all have to agree on certain basic facts (the earth is round, gravity and relativity and climate change are not theories).
Once we get a bank of agreed upon facts, we can form the premises, the resolutions, upon which we can have rational and respectful and meaningful public debate - and hopefully - the final "Resolved...".
No rational debate on any issue is possible when the basic premise, the facts on which the premise is formed, cannot be agreed upon. At best, you have two people - two sides - talking at each other, not with each other - because they are not even using the same language.
I believe that is what has been happening, not just on the Presidential debate stage, but in our national political discourse and in our national discourse in general. More and more we are talking at, not with each other, not necessarily out of any deep seated rancor, but we are just not speaking the same language, we do not share the same frame of reference, we are not coming from the same perceived experience, living in the same perceived world - aliens from different planets trying to communicate and devolving into frustration and anger.
We have to somehow start going to an English as a second language class together again. We all have to agree on certain basic facts (the earth is round, gravity and relativity and climate change are not theories).
Once we get a bank of agreed upon facts, we can form the premises, the resolutions, upon which we can have rational and respectful and meaningful public debate - and hopefully - the final "Resolved...".
2
The nytimes destroyed it credibility when the decided Clinton should be elected a few months after Obama took office. It lost it''s credibility when it decided to not examine the issues but blame the Republicans for being obstructionist rarely if ever examining Democrats and their policies. The nytimes has not examined the issues facing the country but promoted a circus like atmosphere putting what one feels about a candidate above what they will do. The nytimes publishes propaganda on global warming and foreign policy rather than examine reality. It does not recognize the banking elite's grasp on the world is failing in europe and here.
Has the nytimes become nothing more than a college newspaper a partisan rag immune to the facts or become the newspaper of record once again? Fox news is stupid is not an answer.
Has the nytimes become nothing more than a college newspaper a partisan rag immune to the facts or become the newspaper of record once again? Fox news is stupid is not an answer.
2
"It lost it's credibility when it decided to not examine the issues but blame the Republicans for being obstructionist"...You lie....Our number one goal is to make Obama a one term President...Shut down the government over raising the debt ceiling...Ousted Bohener because he was willing to negotiate....Refused to allow the Senate bipartisan immigration reform bill to come to the floor of the House for a vote.... Refused to readjust the gas tax for inflation after languishing at the same level for 20 years.... Refused to allow a vote on Judge Garland 11 months before the expiration of the Obama term...Defeated highly respected Senator Lugar of Indiana because he was willing to work across the aisle...Repeated House hearings on Benghazi, Found the attorney general in contempt of Congress for what I still don't know...Refused emergency funding for Zika virus....Refused to vote on supporting efforts against ISIS in Syria.
If you claim that the Republican Congress was not deliberately obstructionist, then you have absolutely no sense of objectivity. None. Period.
If you claim that the Republican Congress was not deliberately obstructionist, then you have absolutely no sense of objectivity. None. Period.
4
If you think you can sum up Zika and Flint with the word obstructionist your wrong. If you are capable of asking how the did the Democrats come up with the number's, excessive at least in the case of Flint, you might understand war I'm taking about.
What makes you think I don't believe you're right about the Supreme Court replacement?
What makes you think I don't believe you're right about the Supreme Court replacement?
Here is one of the key points of the piece:
A big part of the problem is not just Republicans’ willingness to say untrue things, but more of a willingness to let other people in their party say crazy and untrue things without pushing back.
The list of falsehoods, aspersions and brazen lies muttered by the Republicans this century--thus far--is obnoxiously long. More obnoxious still is that, in virtually all instances, few or no Republicans have ever publicly renounced any of them. They truly put the grotesque oily pandering of their party above the truth of their country. Swift boats--disrespecting the war service of a senator--birtherism--mocking the heritage of our first black president--death panels--crass hyperbole that insulted common intelligence--Saul Alinksky--a double-play clarion call for racist and pretentious nerds--yellowcake uranium--a bait-and-switch scam--Valerie Plame--outed vindictively--and on and on.
I think by now that deceitfulness has become ingrained in Republican DNA. They seem hopelessly addicted to knowably bogus proclamations. Could the party even function without a daily dose of mendacity? Most of their m.o. for 20 years has been to build themselves up by trying to wound its opponents. Ultimately, that is not a good basis for ideology or policy, it is no long-term way to help run a huge country, and, as we now see in its exposure on center stage for all the world to see, it is blowing up or melting down in the flaming id of Mr. Trump.
A big part of the problem is not just Republicans’ willingness to say untrue things, but more of a willingness to let other people in their party say crazy and untrue things without pushing back.
The list of falsehoods, aspersions and brazen lies muttered by the Republicans this century--thus far--is obnoxiously long. More obnoxious still is that, in virtually all instances, few or no Republicans have ever publicly renounced any of them. They truly put the grotesque oily pandering of their party above the truth of their country. Swift boats--disrespecting the war service of a senator--birtherism--mocking the heritage of our first black president--death panels--crass hyperbole that insulted common intelligence--Saul Alinksky--a double-play clarion call for racist and pretentious nerds--yellowcake uranium--a bait-and-switch scam--Valerie Plame--outed vindictively--and on and on.
I think by now that deceitfulness has become ingrained in Republican DNA. They seem hopelessly addicted to knowably bogus proclamations. Could the party even function without a daily dose of mendacity? Most of their m.o. for 20 years has been to build themselves up by trying to wound its opponents. Ultimately, that is not a good basis for ideology or policy, it is no long-term way to help run a huge country, and, as we now see in its exposure on center stage for all the world to see, it is blowing up or melting down in the flaming id of Mr. Trump.
4
First thing to do, get out of Facebook, entirely, not easy but can be done. Write letters or call on the phone.
Then read more than one news source, in Pairs, (in that they all have a political agenda, perhaps the truth lies in the middle, if it is there at all) NY Times and POST, Washington Post and Times, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor. Then listen to your favorite music, not on UTube, but on CD or Radio. Then if the wrong person wins, and you are sure life will end as you want it, leave the country, really leave, not like the clowns who say they will and then stay.
Then read more than one news source, in Pairs, (in that they all have a political agenda, perhaps the truth lies in the middle, if it is there at all) NY Times and POST, Washington Post and Times, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor. Then listen to your favorite music, not on UTube, but on CD or Radio. Then if the wrong person wins, and you are sure life will end as you want it, leave the country, really leave, not like the clowns who say they will and then stay.
And it is just becoming apparent now that the extreme right wing will only listen to "facts" they deem to be true? Try talking to an Evangelical. Their facts consist of birth certificates, Obama couldn't possibly have gone to Harvard and that every remark he makes and every speech he makes is done via a teleprompter. There is no convincing any of them otherwise.
4
What??? Trump got caught telling the truth about Obama deporting millions??? Why wasn't that a major headline?
4
Reading the flow of comments in stories like this in the Times and the Washington Post seem to confirm the thesis: people are hardened in their positions and tend to draw from purported "facts" that support their view with little regard for their accuracy; or even if accurate, that ignore complicating facts from another's point of view. I wonder to what extent this is a generational matter, and we will have to hope that younger hearts and minds -- millennials and beyond -- can straighten out the mess we have gotten ourselves into. In the meantime we'll just have to muddle through.
13
I don't think it's generational. I think cognitive biases like confirmation bias are essentially 'hardwired' into us. We didn't evolve to be perfectly rational. A person benefits more from appearing to win an argument than they do from coming to the correct conclusion. Overcoming these cognitive biases is hard for most people. It requires an open mind and a willingness to accept criticism of one's most strongly held beliefs. A lot of people don't have thick enough skin to accept that many of their beliefs might be wrong, so they find ways to dismiss contradictory information without even thinking.
Some of my favorites are the lies that are true. The national debt has doubled during the Obama administration. The Obama administration has reduced the budget deficit by $800 billion dollars, more than any other President.
3
Do actual math, WA. This clown spent $4.1 Billion a DAY that he had to borrow when he first took Power in 2009.
It is no achievement that he is simply giving away less free stuff this year.
It is no achievement that he is simply giving away less free stuff this year.
1
L'Osservatore... The fact is Obama inherited from the Bush administration a budget deficit of $1350 billion, not to mention the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression. Of course with that kind of inherited deficit and economy the National Debt is going to increase significantly, but who deserves the blame for that? Why are you afraid to address the facts honestly?
3
109 vs 13... wow they're the same number, Trump must is right!
1
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Isn't it funny how Evangelical Christians lose it if you don't let them post The Ten Commandments anywhere they want in public spaces. You know, the Ten Commandments, the ones which exhort us to not bear false witness? And its the Evangelicals, who simultaneously vote for Trump, yet decry the decline of Christianity in America?
I lied. It's not funny at all.
I lied. It's not funny at all.
3
Dear Trump Supporters: please mail a check for $200 (or whatever you have left) to Trump Tower, Park Avenue, NY, NY 10101 and you will get the following:
1. your factory jobs will come back
2. White people will reign supreme
3. We will kick out all the smart Indian and Chinese kids from Ivy League schools
ad nauseum
1. your factory jobs will come back
2. White people will reign supreme
3. We will kick out all the smart Indian and Chinese kids from Ivy League schools
ad nauseum
5
Wake up, folks! Who do you think is feeding you these so-called "facts"? Why it's the party bosses and the media they own. Get your own version and close your mind.
Why, you don't ever have to think again. All you have to do is shake your head the right way: up and down, or sideways....and the conductor bosses will tell you when.
What a world! You have met the enemy to free thinking and enemy is now you and the rest of us.
Why, you don't ever have to think again. All you have to do is shake your head the right way: up and down, or sideways....and the conductor bosses will tell you when.
What a world! You have met the enemy to free thinking and enemy is now you and the rest of us.
2
How do the Republicans square what they say about Muslims (that they should all report fellow Muslims who may be radicals) with their own lapses in holding their leaders to the same standards when they are egregiously "misstating the truth?"
I DK what your point might have been, but over-heated politicos don't go into nightclubs and murder 49 people. Muslims not only do this but are told by their religious leaders to keep doing such things.
However, the difference may be beyond your comprehension.
However, the difference may be beyond your comprehension.
2
Every side is playing into their own conspiracy theories. It's becoming modern politics to lodge assaults at one another with faulty facts or blatant lies. But some of those "conspiracy theories" have been proven true.
I'm teaching my own children to be confident in their ability to make decisions and think for themselves; self confidence, discernment. To always ask questions, investigate, do their own research. Not to blindly follow anyone or the status quo just because someone says so. It's IMPERATIVE now as ever before.
I read the NYT because I trust it as a trustworthy news source. Quite status quo, but I look past what I don't agree with like the ignorance on vaccines. It's clear no true journalistic endeavors have been taken to investigate the "anti-vax" movement. Look, if our children in America were healthy perhaps I'd believe the lies too, but I implore you to just look at those statistics, first, as an observation before declaring the movement is a based on debunked lies.
http://wp.me/p6jF9M-bF
I'm teaching my own children to be confident in their ability to make decisions and think for themselves; self confidence, discernment. To always ask questions, investigate, do their own research. Not to blindly follow anyone or the status quo just because someone says so. It's IMPERATIVE now as ever before.
I read the NYT because I trust it as a trustworthy news source. Quite status quo, but I look past what I don't agree with like the ignorance on vaccines. It's clear no true journalistic endeavors have been taken to investigate the "anti-vax" movement. Look, if our children in America were healthy perhaps I'd believe the lies too, but I implore you to just look at those statistics, first, as an observation before declaring the movement is a based on debunked lies.
http://wp.me/p6jF9M-bF
Er...Obama hasn't deported millions of people
2
Facts, and truth, have a liberal bias. That's why I'm damn proud to be a liberal.
7
A picture really is worth a thousand words, especially the one in this article. Angry old white guy...
1
Unfortunately you have become the leader, the main player in the hyper-partisan liberal press. If Wikileaks had released Trump emails you would have been all over them. Now almost no mention. If project Veritas had released a video on Trump it would be front page NYTIMES for the next two weeks. You are failing to publish information about Hillary and by doing that should take blame if she becomes a very corrupt president. You have not held her accountable for her actions and that is dangerous.
2
Thank you for a very interesting column. But falsehoods do creep in. For example Ms Roller wrote: "But while the Republican nominee is dabbling in conspiracy theories..."
"Dabbles" suggests Mr. Trump hints at conspiracy theories. Not exactly. Mr. Trump repeats them, he embellishes them. And he invents his own.
"Dabbles" suggests Mr. Trump hints at conspiracy theories. Not exactly. Mr. Trump repeats them, he embellishes them. And he invents his own.
3
funny column coming from the Times, which routinely spouts progressive tropes that are based on limited factual evidence, if any.
Then we have Obama -- saying Hillary is the most qualified candidate for president ever. All you can do is roll your eyes on that one (LBJ was sitting president when he first ran for pres; most prior candidates have had some sort of executive experience).
Or -- how about health care costs under the ACA -- Obama keeps taking victory laps as costs spiral out of control.
How about our foreign policy? Wow. We sure have put an end to terrorism and gotten our troops out of Iraq.
How about the HUGE, I mean HUGE lie re the reason for the Benghazi attack (hint, something about an anti-Muslim film causing a spontaneous attack, complete with automatic weapons and mortars).
How about ISIS being the JV.
Well, the list of really damaging lies from the dems goes on forever. But the Times op-ed writers seem to have sieve like brains that are incapable of grasping or holding onto these kind of "factual" distortions.
Then we have Obama -- saying Hillary is the most qualified candidate for president ever. All you can do is roll your eyes on that one (LBJ was sitting president when he first ran for pres; most prior candidates have had some sort of executive experience).
Or -- how about health care costs under the ACA -- Obama keeps taking victory laps as costs spiral out of control.
How about our foreign policy? Wow. We sure have put an end to terrorism and gotten our troops out of Iraq.
How about the HUGE, I mean HUGE lie re the reason for the Benghazi attack (hint, something about an anti-Muslim film causing a spontaneous attack, complete with automatic weapons and mortars).
How about ISIS being the JV.
Well, the list of really damaging lies from the dems goes on forever. But the Times op-ed writers seem to have sieve like brains that are incapable of grasping or holding onto these kind of "factual" distortions.
2
Angry bluster is not only a doubling down; it also defends the ego against the devastating fact that you've been snookered. It's hard to admit you're wrong when faced with facts that contradict your opinions if you believe that the person trying to convince you is better educated or perhaps more intelligent. If the election goes as anticipated, the blusterers will be mad as hell. The winning side needs to say, "You make a good point about,,," "You're right that..." "You've been disproportionately affected by..." Agreeing with them would both help them save face and take the wind out of their sails.
3
I wonder if these Trump followers know how sad and appropriate their rage-filled faces will look in the textbook chapter on "American Fascism," taught 100 years from now in the high schools of whatever nation will replace our deplorable, dumbed-down, foolish, ignorant used-to-be-America . . . .
if the GOP wins this election.
if the GOP wins this election.
2
Is this a story you media people tell yourselves to excuse yourselves from listening to and reporting about the 99% of Americans who cannot incorporate and do not have car elevators? Us deplorable nasty women want to know.
This smacks of what folks witnessed in Germany and Austria, back in the 1930s. Is this Donald Trumps latest I.E.D? His October Surprise? Those are the rag-tag devices which are taking the arms, legs and lives of our Troops in the Middle East.
Perhaps this is what Trump meant when he said that his Candidacy would be self-funded. Bill Clinton recently nailed it when he said: "I'm a white Southerner. I know what 'Make America Great Again!' means.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Perhaps this is what Trump meant when he said that his Candidacy would be self-funded. Bill Clinton recently nailed it when he said: "I'm a white Southerner. I know what 'Make America Great Again!' means.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
"Tell me the truth! Tell me I'm not stupid! Tell me I'm not ignorant! It's the other guy who is stupid and ignorant, right? Wrong? I don't believe you!"
Ewwww...Trump supporters are as creepy as their draft dodging candidate.
3
Fact checks of Roller.
1.citing a "BuzzFeed analysis"?false. since it is unknown to most and has no credibility ?
2. citing an "American Press Institute" study-false.since it is unknown to most and has no credibility
3. citing a "CNN poll" about whether Obama is Muslim as fact-false without details of how was it conducted,by whom,with what specific questions?
4. "automatic distrust of the press"? false since the distrust is earned
5. Daniel Dale as non-partisan "fact checker"?false
6. reading the NYT daily means the reader believes "the main stream media" is non-biased ?false,since seeking information and opposing opinions is thought provoking
1.citing a "BuzzFeed analysis"?false. since it is unknown to most and has no credibility ?
2. citing an "American Press Institute" study-false.since it is unknown to most and has no credibility
3. citing a "CNN poll" about whether Obama is Muslim as fact-false without details of how was it conducted,by whom,with what specific questions?
4. "automatic distrust of the press"? false since the distrust is earned
5. Daniel Dale as non-partisan "fact checker"?false
6. reading the NYT daily means the reader believes "the main stream media" is non-biased ?false,since seeking information and opposing opinions is thought provoking
1
One is the truth, on is a lie. Oh my God, you have to figure it out YOURSELF!
The point I would like to make to those who think Obama is Muslim ;
It had not been so bad has it ? Only three more months to go and yet the Nation seems well despite his religion. He seems to be a good advert for his faith. It is the allegedly Christian Trump that is highlighting our moral decline. Perhaps we should be looking for another Muslim for 2024?
It had not been so bad has it ? Only three more months to go and yet the Nation seems well despite his religion. He seems to be a good advert for his faith. It is the allegedly Christian Trump that is highlighting our moral decline. Perhaps we should be looking for another Muslim for 2024?
6
And what's a "fact", Ms. Roller? When it comes to science or math, there ARE indisputable facts....but politics is like arguing about your family. It usually not anything factual, it's opinion and emotion.
You END your opinion piece here by saying that you (and Mr. Trump apparently) think that President Obama "deported more people than any other President in history" -- and state "it is a FACT" -- as if it were inarguable.
But the TRUTH is the Obama Administration simply cleverly changed how they caculate deportations. They now count people turned away at the border, which is most of them -- especially the rush of new illegals from Honduras and other Central American nations. It does NOT count deportations of those who are simply here because they snuck across the border or overstayed a visa! Which is MOST ILLEGALS IN THE US. Many studies have shown that once you are HERE....you are safe and if you don't get in legal trouble, you have almost no chance of being sent home.
Illegals are SO BOLD today, they cheerfully write columns for the NYT under the real names....speak at high school commencements....march in the streets waving MEXICAN flags. Clearly these folks are not terrified of Obama and his "deportations" -- are they?
You END your opinion piece here by saying that you (and Mr. Trump apparently) think that President Obama "deported more people than any other President in history" -- and state "it is a FACT" -- as if it were inarguable.
But the TRUTH is the Obama Administration simply cleverly changed how they caculate deportations. They now count people turned away at the border, which is most of them -- especially the rush of new illegals from Honduras and other Central American nations. It does NOT count deportations of those who are simply here because they snuck across the border or overstayed a visa! Which is MOST ILLEGALS IN THE US. Many studies have shown that once you are HERE....you are safe and if you don't get in legal trouble, you have almost no chance of being sent home.
Illegals are SO BOLD today, they cheerfully write columns for the NYT under the real names....speak at high school commencements....march in the streets waving MEXICAN flags. Clearly these folks are not terrified of Obama and his "deportations" -- are they?
1
Any facts ? To back this up?
2
Joseph Goebbels must be laughing like crazy. I bet he didn't see this scenario coming.
5
It is not facts or myths that are the problem.
The biggest problem is hypothethesis.
The NYT and other Liberal media are fond of trying to scare their weak-kneed readers with frightful tales of what President Trump will do.
Pure fantasy and made up conjecture posing as news.
Trump wants to launch nuclear weapons!
Trump's will start trade wars!
Trump will ban immigration!
Trump will try to cop a feel from Merkel!
The crazier, the better. Just include some random quote from somebody important and call it a news story.
Imagination is not the best tool for a news reporter to have, yet is obviously a quality much in demand for NYT political reporters.
The NYT has so badly shattered their own reputation that no matter what they write it won't be given credibility.
The biggest problem is hypothethesis.
The NYT and other Liberal media are fond of trying to scare their weak-kneed readers with frightful tales of what President Trump will do.
Pure fantasy and made up conjecture posing as news.
Trump wants to launch nuclear weapons!
Trump's will start trade wars!
Trump will ban immigration!
Trump will try to cop a feel from Merkel!
The crazier, the better. Just include some random quote from somebody important and call it a news story.
Imagination is not the best tool for a news reporter to have, yet is obviously a quality much in demand for NYT political reporters.
The NYT has so badly shattered their own reputation that no matter what they write it won't be given credibility.
2
So basically: both candidates are liars, but Trump is a bigger liar, and both sides have crazy supporters seeking only to have their own craziness spit back at them by the "media" -but conservatives are crazier. Someone please start an apathy party....
14
The ugly, contorted faces of Trump and Trumpies speak louder than words.
6
I was thinking the same thing about Hillary Clinton's face; then I realized she was smiling...
1
"“President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported,” Mr. Trump said at the third and final debate.
This criticism was bizarre . . ."
No, the criticism is perfectly valid. Obama deported 2.5 million illegal aliens, and yet, none of the hysterically predicted dire consequences of deporting them has come to pass:
-- It did not cost trillions of dollars, it was done with no extraordinary funding.
-- Our nation's crops are not rotting in the fields, our tables un-bussed, our lawns uncut, our hotel rooms (gasp!) not cleaned, lettuce $20 a head.
-- It did not create a police state where men in dark fedoras and leather trench coats demand "Your papers!", there were no concentration camps, no trains crammed with frightened masses heading to the border and the unknown.
So, step up the effort. Deport the remaining 12 million-ish, improve border security, and have a discussion about whether any more people should be allowed to immigrate to our striving-to-be-great-again country.
This criticism was bizarre . . ."
No, the criticism is perfectly valid. Obama deported 2.5 million illegal aliens, and yet, none of the hysterically predicted dire consequences of deporting them has come to pass:
-- It did not cost trillions of dollars, it was done with no extraordinary funding.
-- Our nation's crops are not rotting in the fields, our tables un-bussed, our lawns uncut, our hotel rooms (gasp!) not cleaned, lettuce $20 a head.
-- It did not create a police state where men in dark fedoras and leather trench coats demand "Your papers!", there were no concentration camps, no trains crammed with frightened masses heading to the border and the unknown.
So, step up the effort. Deport the remaining 12 million-ish, improve border security, and have a discussion about whether any more people should be allowed to immigrate to our striving-to-be-great-again country.
2
2.5 million over 8 years is not the same as 12 million, which includes parents and siblings of U.S. citizens, and people who were brought here here as babies or toddlers, and know no other country.
Here's an idea -- make it a felony to HIRE undocumented workers, and enforce the rule against the owners of large meat-packing plants, hotel chains, construction companies, janitorial companies and industrial-scale farms. Send a few prominent business owners to prison, and things might change. What if Trump had gone to prison for hiring and exploiting his cheap, undocumented "Polish brigade" workers who demolished the Bonwit Teller building? Fines and lawsuits are just a cost of doing business, but prison -- that's personal.
How do you shut off the flow of a faucet? By sticking a thumb in the nozzle and trying to wipe up all the water that gets past it? No, you turn the handle to close off the valve at the source. Yeah, it's harder to go after powerful, wealthy, mainly white business owners. But it makes a whole lot more sense than unloading on a bunch of powerless, impoverished migrants trying to feed their families. Why blame foreigners instead of the politically powerful Americans who perpetuate and profit from their presence?
Here's an idea -- make it a felony to HIRE undocumented workers, and enforce the rule against the owners of large meat-packing plants, hotel chains, construction companies, janitorial companies and industrial-scale farms. Send a few prominent business owners to prison, and things might change. What if Trump had gone to prison for hiring and exploiting his cheap, undocumented "Polish brigade" workers who demolished the Bonwit Teller building? Fines and lawsuits are just a cost of doing business, but prison -- that's personal.
How do you shut off the flow of a faucet? By sticking a thumb in the nozzle and trying to wipe up all the water that gets past it? No, you turn the handle to close off the valve at the source. Yeah, it's harder to go after powerful, wealthy, mainly white business owners. But it makes a whole lot more sense than unloading on a bunch of powerless, impoverished migrants trying to feed their families. Why blame foreigners instead of the politically powerful Americans who perpetuate and profit from their presence?
2
President Obama deported many people. The fact that over 85% of them were criminals, is in stark contrast with Mr. Trump's "plan" of "humanely" (whatever that means) deporting everyone without proper documentation. One is acting to the rule of law, while the other is an isolationist xenophobe.
2
Dishonesty is an integral part of our social world, influencing domains ranging from finance and politics to personal relationships. Anecdotally, digressions from a moral code are often described as a series of small breaches that grow over time. Here we provide empirical evidence for a gradual escalation of self-serving dishonesty and reveal a neural mechanism supporting it. Behaviorally, we show that the extent to which participants engage in self-serving dishonesty increases with repetition. Using functional MRI, we show that signal reduction in the amygdala is sensitive to the history of dishonest behavior, consistent with adaptation. Critically, the extent of reduced amygdala sensitivity to dishonesty on a present decision relative to the previous one predicts the magnitude of escalation of self-serving dishonesty on the next decision. The findings uncover a biological mechanism that supports a 'slippery slope': what begins as small acts of dishonesty can escalate into larger transgressions.
The brain adapts to dishonesty
Neil Garrett, Stephanie C Lazzaro, Dan Ariely & Tali Sharot
Nature Neuroscience (2016) doi:10.1038/nn.4426
The brain adapts to dishonesty
Neil Garrett, Stephanie C Lazzaro, Dan Ariely & Tali Sharot
Nature Neuroscience (2016) doi:10.1038/nn.4426
2
"Eight in 10 Americans view political fact-checking favorably. But reconcile that statistic with the fact that, according to a CNN poll from 2015, 29 percent of Americans, and 43 percent of Republicans, think President Obama is Muslim."
This seems strange if you think of the two statistics as independent. But it is quite possible that the 2 of 10 Americans who don't like fact checking are mostly a subset of the 3 of 10 who think Obama is a Muslim.
This seems strange if you think of the two statistics as independent. But it is quite possible that the 2 of 10 Americans who don't like fact checking are mostly a subset of the 3 of 10 who think Obama is a Muslim.
6
What I learned from this election is how close American Democracy is to American forms of totalitarianism & fascism. When facts don't matter & no amount of media truth-telling can make a difference about the truth of a matter then we have begun to live the novelized versions of Newspeak life imagined by George Orwell in "1984" speaking the Hitler like rumblings of Charles Lindbergh in Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America." With Trump & his most deplorable supporters we were close to a political disaster with hints of demagoguery in it. Let us hope we never get as close such anti-Democratic darkness again.
101
Recommend reading James Thurber's "Meanest Man in the World" I think he had Lindbergh-Trump in mind when he wrote the story.
After weeks of being frustrated by Facebook friends who were constantly reposting sensational and obviously false political articles, I simply decided to unfollow them until after the election. Now my newsfeed is back to the normal vacation photo spread and family pictures. If you don't like the what you see, uncheck them, let the free market decide who gets heard.
49
Marketizing the news? That's fair and balanced! People will pay to learn who killed JR, but not whether tax cuts boost the economy as advertised. Meanwhile, authoritarians will mis-inform you for free!
I get this impulse, particularly when said friends are spouting demonstrable untruths with religious fervor.
But isn't that isolation merely the dispiriting endpoint of the widening ideological gulf? With "digital connectedness" replacing actual togetherness, we can now tailor our news briefings and our interactions to mirror our own priorities and biases, shutting out discordant inputs from even close friends and family.
I wonder if living in that bubble of curated calm isn't ultimately worse than having to suffer (and sometimes engage) a chaotic and infuriating facebook feed. We stop growing when we are not challenged. I'd prefer an intellectually honest debate over mutually agreed facts, but you have to start somewhere...
But isn't that isolation merely the dispiriting endpoint of the widening ideological gulf? With "digital connectedness" replacing actual togetherness, we can now tailor our news briefings and our interactions to mirror our own priorities and biases, shutting out discordant inputs from even close friends and family.
I wonder if living in that bubble of curated calm isn't ultimately worse than having to suffer (and sometimes engage) a chaotic and infuriating facebook feed. We stop growing when we are not challenged. I'd prefer an intellectually honest debate over mutually agreed facts, but you have to start somewhere...
1
The Koch GOP has a problem.
Well, they actually have thousands of problems but their biggest is the 'Chicken Little' effect.
They told their "poorly educated" base that Obama was a Kenyan.
Now their draft dodging candidate said he President Obama is, in fact, a genuine American.
The Koch GOP told their "poorly educated" base that President Obama was coming after their guns.
He didn't.
The Koch GOP told their "poorly educated" base that same sex marriage would result in people marrying animals.
It didn't.
The Koch GOP told their "poorly educated" base that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would bankrupt the nation.
It didn't.
The Koch GOP has conditioned its "poorly educated" base to doubt the Koch GOP.
Like we Americans do.
Well, they actually have thousands of problems but their biggest is the 'Chicken Little' effect.
They told their "poorly educated" base that Obama was a Kenyan.
Now their draft dodging candidate said he President Obama is, in fact, a genuine American.
The Koch GOP told their "poorly educated" base that President Obama was coming after their guns.
He didn't.
The Koch GOP told their "poorly educated" base that same sex marriage would result in people marrying animals.
It didn't.
The Koch GOP told their "poorly educated" base that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would bankrupt the nation.
It didn't.
The Koch GOP has conditioned its "poorly educated" base to doubt the Koch GOP.
Like we Americans do.
74
The biggest fraud the Kochs have pushed on their ignorant base is that CO2 isn't a problem, and that "real Americans" need the Athabascan tar-sand bitumen. Getting the whole GOP behind the Keystone XL -- doesn't that stink of influence peddling?
The Kochs own the leasing rights on about 1/3d of the Athabascan tar sands, have specialized in refineries for the heavy crudes (and also own a lot of coal-based business). They were riding high when oil was $110/bbl, and the Republicans were riding shotgun for them. Oil is < $40/bbl now, and the tar sands are a financial disaster ... as well as an environmental one.
The Kochs are responsible for most of America's pet-coke, and (as reported by the Chicago Tribune):
"uncovered stockpiles of the black dust on the Southeast Side of Chicago that until earlier this year had been growing ever more mountainous. In a grass-roots victory, local residents won a legal battle against KCBX — a storage facility owned by a subsidiary of Koch Industries — and had the mounds removed, so they could no longer blow toxic particles through nearby neighborhoods on windy days. "
And of course Donald Blankenship was an active financial backer of the Republican party and participant in local and state politics -- before he went to jail for the safety violations that killed 29 miners in his Big Branch mine. Today he is circulating a 69-page manifesto claiming he is a "political prisoner."
The Kochs own the leasing rights on about 1/3d of the Athabascan tar sands, have specialized in refineries for the heavy crudes (and also own a lot of coal-based business). They were riding high when oil was $110/bbl, and the Republicans were riding shotgun for them. Oil is < $40/bbl now, and the tar sands are a financial disaster ... as well as an environmental one.
The Kochs are responsible for most of America's pet-coke, and (as reported by the Chicago Tribune):
"uncovered stockpiles of the black dust on the Southeast Side of Chicago that until earlier this year had been growing ever more mountainous. In a grass-roots victory, local residents won a legal battle against KCBX — a storage facility owned by a subsidiary of Koch Industries — and had the mounds removed, so they could no longer blow toxic particles through nearby neighborhoods on windy days. "
And of course Donald Blankenship was an active financial backer of the Republican party and participant in local and state politics -- before he went to jail for the safety violations that killed 29 miners in his Big Branch mine. Today he is circulating a 69-page manifesto claiming he is a "political prisoner."
2
@Bob, As I read your comment, it occurred to me that the "poorly educated" really don't remember the lies that didn't come true. They are actively being distracted by the next captivating lie to keep them active in the GOP fan base, by the numerous lying demagogues to which they are regularly exposed by the hate-talk networks.
We should recast the first amendment as "the freedom to lie".
We should recast the first amendment as "the freedom to lie".
The Kochs are reasonable and responsible conservatives, not like the nut who hijacked the party. You may not agree with the Kochs on many issues, but recognize their essential honesty. You probably have something to learn from them, and they from you, if you'd stop using their name as an insult.
"Conservative politicians and media personalities are stuck in a double bind now, where they are too afraid of comeuppance to tell their audience the truth."
This is the key point. Republicans have gone so far down the "facts aren't facts" rabbit hole that they cannot now extract themselves. Any Republican who tries to back out will be rejected by the rest and will lose all influence and power.
We are witnessing the messy end of a one-great political party. The Republican Party might have thought that lies were a convenient and quick way to cure their political problems, but like the mercury pills of old they are ultimately lethal.
This is the key point. Republicans have gone so far down the "facts aren't facts" rabbit hole that they cannot now extract themselves. Any Republican who tries to back out will be rejected by the rest and will lose all influence and power.
We are witnessing the messy end of a one-great political party. The Republican Party might have thought that lies were a convenient and quick way to cure their political problems, but like the mercury pills of old they are ultimately lethal.
93
Scenario: Paul Ryan loses his seat. Who will become the new Speaker? Someone from the Freedom Caucus? Great ... good luck getting the more "moderate" Republicans to go along. Someone NOT from the Freedom Caucus. Just more Boenering going to happen.
The Republicans have cobbled together a coalition of the right, the far right and the extreme right. The right and the far-right worked to gerrymander to such a state they've made room for the extreme right to sneak under their tent, and until they get them out again, they are NEVER going to appeal to the moderate middle of this country.
The Republicans have cobbled together a coalition of the right, the far right and the extreme right. The right and the far-right worked to gerrymander to such a state they've made room for the extreme right to sneak under their tent, and until they get them out again, they are NEVER going to appeal to the moderate middle of this country.
Who says they want to come out of the rabbit hole? Who even knows they are in a rabbit hole? All the folks on the right still supporting Trump?
I fear you give them too much credit!
I fear you give them too much credit!
As if the Mensa candidate in the picture reads newspapers.
3
Typical liberal pundit claiming that conservatives are less honest than liberals by citing a bunch of liberals and their "analysis".
The NYT is Fox News for liberals. This article is a great example of that.
The NYT is Fox News for liberals. This article is a great example of that.
4
At least you're right about Fox News being a right-wing propaganda channel.
I quit Facebook for just this reason.
NY Times you spend time on a fluff piece like this, how about looking deep into WikiLeaks? Why did Robert Creamer a convicted felon go to the White House an average of once a week since 2009? He met with the president (in his presence) every couple of months. What were those meetings about? When he's on video admitting to disrupting Trump rallies and says that Hillary is aware of what's going on, how about you start practicing impartial journalism and investigate it?
It's disappointing that the NY Times is so one sided and clearly in bed with Hillary and her corrupt bunch.
It's disappointing that the NY Times is so one sided and clearly in bed with Hillary and her corrupt bunch.
5
This article is clearly biased.
3
The problem with fact checking is that there are little fibs and big lies.
Trump does little fibs, Democrats do big lies.
The classic case is "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" when
in fact Obama knew that lots of plans would be as dead as the dodo because made them illegal.
I have always checked the fact checkers, and Limbaugh is right: the big
lies are coming from the Left, as, of course, has always been the Left's
playbook. Literally, of course, as its been official socialist/communist dogma for ever.
Trump does little fibs, Democrats do big lies.
The classic case is "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" when
in fact Obama knew that lots of plans would be as dead as the dodo because made them illegal.
I have always checked the fact checkers, and Limbaugh is right: the big
lies are coming from the Left, as, of course, has always been the Left's
playbook. Literally, of course, as its been official socialist/communist dogma for ever.
1
Confirmation bias is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, confirmation bias is precisely what every human being uses, on a daily basis, in order to survive or just plain function. We need to rely on facts determined by others--facts that we ourselves do not have the time or aptitude to figure out on our own. The real question to ask, then, is, "Who should we listen to as the source of our facts?"
The problem lies here: Unlike Europeans, Americans are deeply informed by an egalitarian outlook that leads us to think each and every one of us, no matter how educated or ignorant, how smart or how stupid, is capable of forming a valid opinion on just about every matter under the sun.
This is a deeply entrenched American outlook that's connected to our ideas about freedom and independence. It's always been around, and it's always been ridiculous. Now, however, in an age of entertainment, media noise, and the Internet, it's actually dangerous.
The problem lies here: Unlike Europeans, Americans are deeply informed by an egalitarian outlook that leads us to think each and every one of us, no matter how educated or ignorant, how smart or how stupid, is capable of forming a valid opinion on just about every matter under the sun.
This is a deeply entrenched American outlook that's connected to our ideas about freedom and independence. It's always been around, and it's always been ridiculous. Now, however, in an age of entertainment, media noise, and the Internet, it's actually dangerous.
3
Whoa!! The likes of Charlie Sykes has an epiphany about how he contributed to this demonization of the mainstream media, and so, after 20 years (and now enlightened), he decides to leave his radio show?? He needs to stay on precisely *because* of his epiphany. His leaving will only open the spot for another extreme radical to come in and start spewing hate and dissension. There seems to be no end to the crazies and conspiracy theorists looking for an opening in the world of right-wing radio.
3
"Conservatism" as practiced today contains a contradictory nougat filling: telling the base that policies that will actually only benefit the elite will actually benefit them. All the other lies are stacked up on this foundational lie...and the worse things get for the base, the bigger and wider the lies need to get to keep the base in line. So the jenga tower teeters - and this year pretty much toppled over.
2
The actual fact about fact-checkers and fact check websites is that they will weigh something that a candidate said, and many times will concede that it is partially true and partially false. It's then that they try to weigh the overall impact of the statement to conclude that something is mostly true, or mostly false, or half-true-half-false, etc. But that's where the partisan spin comes in. It's rare for a statement to be completely true or completely false, for the majority of other times, the so-called fact checking sites are as biased as anything else out there.
1
"according to a CNN poll from 2015, 29 percent of Americans, and 43 percent of Republicans, think President Obama is Muslim"
We would like to think people are that stupid-- to make us feel superior, but if someone asks a stupid question they might just get a stupid (facetious) answer.
And if there are that many stupid people in the world--I don't want to know.
We would like to think people are that stupid-- to make us feel superior, but if someone asks a stupid question they might just get a stupid (facetious) answer.
And if there are that many stupid people in the world--I don't want to know.
30
Got false equivalency? 43 percent of republican voters think Obama is a muslim. Tell me, what percentage of democrat voters believe vaccines are harmful? Or believe in chemtrails and the illuminati? It sure as shootin" ain't 43%!!
2
You forgot to mention the rag newspapers that say President Obama is pardoning Charles Manson.
People are able to find something positive about anything or anyone if they look hard enough. And negative is easy. Nobody is perfect. Hence you have odd situations, like a person I know constantly raving about how "masterful" Trump is without a single comment about what it is that he is so masterfully saying.
Indoctrination is a dangerous thing.
People are able to find something positive about anything or anyone if they look hard enough. And negative is easy. Nobody is perfect. Hence you have odd situations, like a person I know constantly raving about how "masterful" Trump is without a single comment about what it is that he is so masterfully saying.
Indoctrination is a dangerous thing.
4
Where on earth did you get the idea that trump voters want to know the truth? Have you not talked to any of them? In the conversations I have had with them, facts are treated with contempt. At some point I think you have to stop being well-meaning and liberal--they are not good people and they would tear down this country if they could. There is certainly no equivalence between the two groups. How many sucker punches have to be thrown before you get that?
3
Trump appeals to voters who want to blame everyone else for their own plight, particularly people who don't look or think like them.
Just like Trump.
American ignorance on full display to the world.
Just like Trump.
American ignorance on full display to the world.
3
I blame it on the internet. Why do real research to determine facts? That's what the internet is for! Without regard to mental abilities, it makes us all intelligent!
There is today a dismaying trend toward closed-mindedness, especially with access to the internet. No matter what opinion is held, a quick search will turn up support from somewhere - whether that be from FOX news, the New York Times, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And in the face of third party "data" (isn't the entire construct of 1's and 0's in computers called "data"?) to support an opinion, why would anyone want to change their mind?
There's one born every minute.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
There is today a dismaying trend toward closed-mindedness, especially with access to the internet. No matter what opinion is held, a quick search will turn up support from somewhere - whether that be from FOX news, the New York Times, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And in the face of third party "data" (isn't the entire construct of 1's and 0's in computers called "data"?) to support an opinion, why would anyone want to change their mind?
There's one born every minute.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
1
No greater proof to your thesis is in the comments section of this story.
1
I'm not sure how we ever confirm "the facts" about some things like our foreign policy, what's in the TPP, what is in the bills our Congresspeople don't read before they vote on - we have allowed our government to get lazy and to lie to us (which may be necessary sometimes). We don't have the ability or time to watch/read multiple media (or the government bans some like Al Jazeera) which would give us other points of view. It is easier to live and sleep at night if your views are confirmed on a daily basis - not so easy if everything you read or hear makes you doubt the very people you are supposed to be able to trust. It must change but if everyone lies, do you just believe the opposite?
1
Discernment is lacking. I have never seen us so gullible. It makes us look idiotic.
The reason is that people don't judge things for themselves but play follow the leader. There is no sound judgement anymore. We act like sheep. Baa-baa!!
Sound judgment is what is required of judges and juries. Lawmakers need a command of facts, not fiction. Regular folks need to use sound judgement to make a budget or a will. Business people need sound judgement to make sound business decisions. Diplomats need sound judgement and actual facts to prevent all out war, while admirals and generals need to use sound judgement and good information to work out strategies and spend resources carefully.
In a dangerous world, we need to THINK. What a concept!
The reason is that people don't judge things for themselves but play follow the leader. There is no sound judgement anymore. We act like sheep. Baa-baa!!
Sound judgment is what is required of judges and juries. Lawmakers need a command of facts, not fiction. Regular folks need to use sound judgement to make a budget or a will. Business people need sound judgement to make sound business decisions. Diplomats need sound judgement and actual facts to prevent all out war, while admirals and generals need to use sound judgement and good information to work out strategies and spend resources carefully.
In a dangerous world, we need to THINK. What a concept!
2
and she was pointing out that Obama's supporters don't want to believe that he was actually doing it.
2
I'm taking issue with this line from this otherwise fine column: “truthiness”: the instinctive feeling that something is or isn’t true. '"
I think a more accurate definition would be a public sphere in which no fact has actual validity. The mass shooting in Newtown?' Didn't happen. '9/11?' An inside job. Etc... It's a long list---just ask Alex Jones.
I'll posit that the media---in the old days---did provide a consensus of sorts on what was 'true.' And they insisted on their prerogatives as the national 'filter' and it was as obnoxious (and patronizing) as hell.
For better or worse, those days are over. The question is what happens next. When the GOP nominee lends legitimacy to a crank like Mr. Jones, one almost (almost) longs for the days of a media elite that could at least serve an umpire of sorts. A world in which almost every single truth can be reported as a falsehood is a world with no standards at all.
I think a more accurate definition would be a public sphere in which no fact has actual validity. The mass shooting in Newtown?' Didn't happen. '9/11?' An inside job. Etc... It's a long list---just ask Alex Jones.
I'll posit that the media---in the old days---did provide a consensus of sorts on what was 'true.' And they insisted on their prerogatives as the national 'filter' and it was as obnoxious (and patronizing) as hell.
For better or worse, those days are over. The question is what happens next. When the GOP nominee lends legitimacy to a crank like Mr. Jones, one almost (almost) longs for the days of a media elite that could at least serve an umpire of sorts. A world in which almost every single truth can be reported as a falsehood is a world with no standards at all.
The internet has made us information shoppers, instead of, as back in the days of the local paper hitting our porch, information receivers. A while back , Mr. Bruni referred to people seeking information only from their own silos, effectively looking for "echo chambers of affirmation ".
The only thing for me to do is subscribe to, thus financially support, large reputable news outlets like the Times, the Post, and our country's Toronto Globe and Mail, so that a reputable, trained ,diverse crop of reporters put out information unsiloed.
The only thing for me to do is subscribe to, thus financially support, large reputable news outlets like the Times, the Post, and our country's Toronto Globe and Mail, so that a reputable, trained ,diverse crop of reporters put out information unsiloed.
5
The phrase 'confirmation bias' is just a crutch the social sciences have provided us for what used to be labeled as ignorance.
3
Roller incorrectly states that "Lügenpresse" (the lying press) is a Nazi coinage
while it is true that the Nazis also used the term, its roots go back to the 19th century when it was used by conservative Catholics in Germany against the secular liberal press
while it is true that the Nazis also used the term, its roots go back to the 19th century when it was used by conservative Catholics in Germany against the secular liberal press
4
"the only way people will start rejecting falsehoods being fed to them is by confronting uncomfortable truths."
And how do we do that? Start teaching critical thinking in elementary school.
And how do we do that? Start teaching critical thinking in elementary school.
9
And keeping kids off of social media for as long as possible.
3
Lenin and Stalin referred to the people of old Russia who are similar to those in today's GOP base as "the useful idiots." They were being kind.
4
I have to laugh at Emma's pathetic attempt to discuss confirmation bias while not citing one hyperpartisan liberal media outlet. I guess none exist, or maybe Emma is a victim of her own tendency to confirm her bias. (cough cough... Daily Kos, Vox, Salon, Slate, Huffington Post, Think Progress, etc.)
I laugh further when she cites BuzzFeed as a source of analytics between "3 right-wing facebook pages" and an unknown/unstated number of left-wing facebook pages. Wow. That's some hard-hitting analysis: evaluating posts on social media web pages that any halfwit can create. That tells me more about Emma's gullibility than how informative she is attempting to be.
I laugh even more when Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck are called-out as "exerting significant influence in Republican politics;" while citing Stephen Colbert as the precipice from which to launch that statement. Irony anyone? She must be living in a bubble if she doesn't think liberals use Colbert, Stewart, and a host of other talk-show entertainers to "exert significant influence in Democrat politics."
In conclusion, I agree that people tend to seek-out confirmation of what they already believe, but Emma does a poor job of demonstrating an unbiased perspective by concentrating 99% of her piece on Conservatives. Read this article and you'd think confirmation bias is a conservative passtime. That is about as unbiased as, well, only reading the NYT every day.
I laugh further when she cites BuzzFeed as a source of analytics between "3 right-wing facebook pages" and an unknown/unstated number of left-wing facebook pages. Wow. That's some hard-hitting analysis: evaluating posts on social media web pages that any halfwit can create. That tells me more about Emma's gullibility than how informative she is attempting to be.
I laugh even more when Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck are called-out as "exerting significant influence in Republican politics;" while citing Stephen Colbert as the precipice from which to launch that statement. Irony anyone? She must be living in a bubble if she doesn't think liberals use Colbert, Stewart, and a host of other talk-show entertainers to "exert significant influence in Democrat politics."
In conclusion, I agree that people tend to seek-out confirmation of what they already believe, but Emma does a poor job of demonstrating an unbiased perspective by concentrating 99% of her piece on Conservatives. Read this article and you'd think confirmation bias is a conservative passtime. That is about as unbiased as, well, only reading the NYT every day.
5
No, Mr. Gadsden Emma is NOT focusing on "99% of her piece on Conservatives"!!
So you come up with a number 99%? On what basis?
The extent of confirmation bias is NOT Boolean (zero or one). What she is indeed saying that confirmation bias is FAR more among so-called conservatives that so-called liberals. She has provided the numbers AS WELL AS the basis for the numbers.
"During the debates, Mr. Dale fact-checked both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, and found that, over the course of the debates, Mr. Trump made 104 false claims, while Mrs. Clinton made 13 false claims."
Also, one does NOT have to be a "liberal" to know that fact checking is of least concern to people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. Limbaugh OPENLY derides fact checking. Conservative talk radio host Charlie Sykes says that they "basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There’s nobody,”.
Given this FACT (that ugly word - AGAIN!!) based backdrop, is it ANY surprise that the fact avoidance is a particular pastime of conservatives, PRIMARILY???
So you come up with a number 99%? On what basis?
The extent of confirmation bias is NOT Boolean (zero or one). What she is indeed saying that confirmation bias is FAR more among so-called conservatives that so-called liberals. She has provided the numbers AS WELL AS the basis for the numbers.
"During the debates, Mr. Dale fact-checked both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, and found that, over the course of the debates, Mr. Trump made 104 false claims, while Mrs. Clinton made 13 false claims."
Also, one does NOT have to be a "liberal" to know that fact checking is of least concern to people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. Limbaugh OPENLY derides fact checking. Conservative talk radio host Charlie Sykes says that they "basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There’s nobody,”.
Given this FACT (that ugly word - AGAIN!!) based backdrop, is it ANY surprise that the fact avoidance is a particular pastime of conservatives, PRIMARILY???
When even The New York Times reporting is sometimes careless and factually incorrect, it becomes close to impossible to ferret out the truth. An example: The Times reported there was chair-throwing at the Nevada Democratic convention. Though that reported "fact" was debunked almost immediately by other outlets, it remained in The Times' initial story and was repeated/referenced in following stories for days afterward. I sent a note to editors and heard nothing back and saw no change in the copy. I fear that staff reductions in major news outlets mean the public has no reliable place to go for actual facts. "Small" details about important events have great impact. The Bernie supporters looking for reasons to grow their case against Hillary used the misrepresentation to confirm their "bias" against her and her supporters who they believed lied about what happened. And the Hillary supporters used it to confirm their belief that Bernie supporters were out of control.
6
This column raises important points but commits anti-factual errors that it purports to criticize. The first is the traditional left-right equivalence argument about factual error. So one woman he met at a rally in up state New York is the same as Rush Limbaugh with 13 million listeners. When the ridiculousness of that comparison becomes obvious he adds near the end that Democrats, the nominal left, has their own set of anti-factual beliefs.
The other subtle demon slipped in is our old friend 'conspiracy theorists.' There are books written on how rational argument based on fact is routinely dismissed by main stream media with the conspiracy theory argument.
The truth is that there are no left arguments or truly left views in mainstream media. Every radio and TV station in the country has a nightly business report. None have a nightly labor report. Certainly the advent of talk radio and talking heads TV have spread much misinformation. But the real purveyors of misinformation come routinely from government and their allies in corporate media that fail to question what they do. Anyone remember WMD's?
People think of what they hear as fact, especially when it reinforces their beliefs. But belief's themselves are shaped by things we hear over and over again. The world of advertising has proven this. So every time Trump's nonsense gets repeated it functions like an ad and when repeated often enough, the message becomes a belief which morphs into our fuzzy sense of facts.
The other subtle demon slipped in is our old friend 'conspiracy theorists.' There are books written on how rational argument based on fact is routinely dismissed by main stream media with the conspiracy theory argument.
The truth is that there are no left arguments or truly left views in mainstream media. Every radio and TV station in the country has a nightly business report. None have a nightly labor report. Certainly the advent of talk radio and talking heads TV have spread much misinformation. But the real purveyors of misinformation come routinely from government and their allies in corporate media that fail to question what they do. Anyone remember WMD's?
People think of what they hear as fact, especially when it reinforces their beliefs. But belief's themselves are shaped by things we hear over and over again. The world of advertising has proven this. So every time Trump's nonsense gets repeated it functions like an ad and when repeated often enough, the message becomes a belief which morphs into our fuzzy sense of facts.
10
If it wasn't for our self sabotage ability, we would not have anyone to blame for our disappointments.
So true!
'Warren Buffett suggests that many people have “400 horsepower engines, but 100 horsepower of output”. According to Buffet, the person who gets full output from a 200-horse-power engine is a lot better off. Those with a modicum of intelligence can be very successful.' http://inlikeme.com/warren-buffett-offers-advice-to-students/
So true!
'Warren Buffett suggests that many people have “400 horsepower engines, but 100 horsepower of output”. According to Buffet, the person who gets full output from a 200-horse-power engine is a lot better off. Those with a modicum of intelligence can be very successful.' http://inlikeme.com/warren-buffett-offers-advice-to-students/
1
"... there is some reason to believe in what researchers call an “affective tipping point,” where “motivated reasoners” start to accept hard truths after seeing enough claims debunked over and over." The key phrase in that sentence is "motivated reasoners." In other words, supposed someone gave a "debunking" and nobody came? Given the extreme political polarization (comparisons with the Vietnam era and the period in the 1850s prior to the Civil War are reasonable), just where will the "motivated reasoners" come from. College educated people have at least been exposed to analytical and critical thinking, but what about those millions of Trump high school degreed "bitter enders?" Not only are these folks not motivated but the continuing chatter of right wing talk radio and the pervasiveness of what I'll call "Internet nonsense" makes the idea of "an affective tipping point" doubtful at best.
5
I have come to the sad but obvious conclusion that exposure to the distorting mirror of instant feedback from the Internet, has been a magnifier and mirror of the falsehoods and lies we tell. People might well be best served by the absence or destruction of 90% of all the home computers with internet connections, in the world.
A free press is liberating, but too much often clashing information can end up being confusing and ultimately dangerous. As when a celebratory torchlight parade turns into a conflagration, burning down the city and the buildings that it was meant to illuminate and celebrate.
A free press is liberating, but too much often clashing information can end up being confusing and ultimately dangerous. As when a celebratory torchlight parade turns into a conflagration, burning down the city and the buildings that it was meant to illuminate and celebrate.
Social media provide an ideal climate for provocative lies that are accepted as truths by those of us suffering confirmation bias. Truths sometimes require spooling out complex and often lengthy, arguments. The internet, particularly social media, has shortened our attention spans and supplied us with sugary placebos in the form of short, seemingly pithy half-truths and outright lies.
"Climate change is a hoax invented by China" swallows much more smoothly for many than a tightly reasoned essay about the rate of glacier melt. The former requires only an "I knew it!" The latter requires time, intellectual involvement with an argument, and a willingness to perhaps change one's mind. But who has time for that essay on glacier melt--we've got to reply to a bundle of tweets and notifications and texts. See Ya.
"Climate change is a hoax invented by China" swallows much more smoothly for many than a tightly reasoned essay about the rate of glacier melt. The former requires only an "I knew it!" The latter requires time, intellectual involvement with an argument, and a willingness to perhaps change one's mind. But who has time for that essay on glacier melt--we've got to reply to a bundle of tweets and notifications and texts. See Ya.
6
"There’s no simple answer, but the only way people will start rejecting falsehoods being fed to them is by confronting uncomfortable truths." Alas, this "answer" is as unlikely as most of the conspiracy theories. One-on-one arguments with chemtrails True Believers over the years has convinced me that the belief barrier is almost impenetrable. Logic, expert references, thick documentation ... none of that seems to work. And what works for the "crazy" (like a fox) corporatists who love "the uneducated" is a the proven power of advertising propoganda, selling whatever is in their interest to the True Believer mentality infecting more and more Americans.
2
Will Duff--Believer mentality starts in infancy with religious indoctrination. After that, the rest is easy.
3
So, once again, the main difference between progressives and "conservatives" is that when new, verifiable information is introduced, about any subject, progressives are willing to change their minds, to accommodate the new reality. We eschew indoctrination, and have taken education seriously, beyond the third grade.
8
Interesting that that's your takeaway. I'm a progressive and, in my view, that's not the conclusion she seemed to be making. Educated and reasonable progressives and conservatives are probably more willing to consider alternative viewpoints (think David Brooks), but as most of us have surely witnessed, folks at both extremes of the political spectrum are about equally entrenched in their perspectives. There are, though, in my view, fewer oddballs on the extreme left than the extreme right, and the conservative "base" is closer to their edge than the left's.
1
Except ,(as in the '60's through 1980's) when they don't.
Facts haven't changed many progressive's minds about GMOs or pipelines. I have never seen a progressive really change their mind, nor have I seen a diehard conservative change their mind. You have a mindset and so do other people.
Selective perception has morphed into selective reception and self deception.
9
Bob--That is true, for some.
1
Last night I had dinner with an old friend visiting from the opposite coast who solemnly told me that Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic primary by about 4 million votes. This friend no longer reads any mainstream media at all or watches any TV news despite avidly reading "alt-media." I, on the other hand, spend what some would call an inordinate amount of time looking at a wide range of media because these days you really have to do that to eventually ferret out & piece together what might be the likely whole story. It was still hard to know where to even start in answering my friend. I am glad to see some in the media finally waking up to what they have done. We have the collapse of a lot more than the GOP to clean up.
231
In that case, tho, it really isn't the mainstream media that fed that particular fantasy. They reported the results of the primaries and caucuses. It was Bernie himself, and his campaign, with the shock! revelation that there are superdelegates! and the further statements to their followers that the primaries were rigged! Stolen!
Then it was social media time, and all the conspiracist sites only too gleefully happy to repeat, but never to explain.
Then it was social media time, and all the conspiracist sites only too gleefully happy to repeat, but never to explain.
Both parties (or wings of opinion) have their paranoid conspiracy nuts.
I have a hard time figuring out how anyone in their right mind could vote for Donald compared to Hillary.
Hillary has a massive amount of experience in government. Donald has none.
Hillary has done some underhanded things in her time and told a few lies, just as we all do, but nothing on the scale of Donald, whose bankruptcies, lawsuits and failure to produce his tax records signify underhanded business and personal
dealings on a massive scale.
Donald is a blowhard, whose idea of toughness is to file a lawsuit and say nasty things about his opponents. Hillary
talks softly and waves a big stick as numerous terrorist thugs around the world -- those who are still left alive -- have amply attested. It’s safe to say that no red lines will be crossed by the Ayatollah, Putin and Assad while she
Is in the White House.
Hillary will take Bill to the White House. Donald will bring Melania and his kids. I leave it to you to decide who knows more about the world.
Donald is red faced, paunchy and has very strange hair. He reads the National Enquirer and is always asking us to believe him. Every other word out of his mouth is “Amazing.” Do we really want to be looking and listening to him for the next four years?
Hillary is wearing her age very nicely.
Looking at her now, it’s not hard to remember that she was a babe in her time.
Americans who are intent on harming themselves and the country have found their ideal candidate for President. The rest of us are grateful to have Hillary.
Hillary has a massive amount of experience in government. Donald has none.
Hillary has done some underhanded things in her time and told a few lies, just as we all do, but nothing on the scale of Donald, whose bankruptcies, lawsuits and failure to produce his tax records signify underhanded business and personal
dealings on a massive scale.
Donald is a blowhard, whose idea of toughness is to file a lawsuit and say nasty things about his opponents. Hillary
talks softly and waves a big stick as numerous terrorist thugs around the world -- those who are still left alive -- have amply attested. It’s safe to say that no red lines will be crossed by the Ayatollah, Putin and Assad while she
Is in the White House.
Hillary will take Bill to the White House. Donald will bring Melania and his kids. I leave it to you to decide who knows more about the world.
Donald is red faced, paunchy and has very strange hair. He reads the National Enquirer and is always asking us to believe him. Every other word out of his mouth is “Amazing.” Do we really want to be looking and listening to him for the next four years?
Hillary is wearing her age very nicely.
Looking at her now, it’s not hard to remember that she was a babe in her time.
Americans who are intent on harming themselves and the country have found their ideal candidate for President. The rest of us are grateful to have Hillary.
194
Google "narcissistic personality disorder" to get a psychological diagnosis of Trump
This is a NYT pick? Talk about bias...
A "babe"?? You lost me there. Well, actually, no, you lost me before that, when you wandered into the more personal--as opposed to political--topics.
I have a brother who I love dearly. He listens to Sean Hannity and forms his perspective of reality from Hannity. Anything the so-called main stream media reports he will not believe, unless he already agrees. My brother hates democrats. He hates liberals and he has distanced himself from me, and I miss him.
After decades of listening to conservative radio and watching Fox News, he is convinced that liberals are in collusion to destroy the US. He is genuinely beside himself because he cares about America and deeply fears the nation is on the verge of liberal conspiracy induced collapse. He is extremely sad and very very angry. It hurts to see him in such heartfelt pain.
My brother is not unlike millions of other Americans who seem incapable of critical thinking.
It feels as if our country is pulling apart not just politically, but even at the family level as the concept of a fact has now become impossible to define. There is no truth.
While the Vietnam War also divided families, our nation's recent inability to have a rational discussion feel as if the divide cannot be bridged.
After decades of listening to conservative radio and watching Fox News, he is convinced that liberals are in collusion to destroy the US. He is genuinely beside himself because he cares about America and deeply fears the nation is on the verge of liberal conspiracy induced collapse. He is extremely sad and very very angry. It hurts to see him in such heartfelt pain.
My brother is not unlike millions of other Americans who seem incapable of critical thinking.
It feels as if our country is pulling apart not just politically, but even at the family level as the concept of a fact has now become impossible to define. There is no truth.
While the Vietnam War also divided families, our nation's recent inability to have a rational discussion feel as if the divide cannot be bridged.
467
I have a very similar experience with my brothers. It is very difficult, and one of my brothers is a college graduate with an engineering degree who denies climate change, thinks all Muslims refugees should be banned from entry to the US, and gets all of his news from FOX, and the Drudge report.
The other is an architect who listens to Rush.
I feel your pain
The other is an architect who listens to Rush.
I feel your pain
5
My recollection is that the divide in the Vietnam War was worse, it wasn't so much about imagined consequences as constant death. The only time the country was more divided is likely to be the Civil War. (Some might call these times the "Un-Civil" War.
4
Don -- your brother doesn't care about "america." America is my immigrant family, and my children, born here. Your brother is a racist, who cares about the welfare of white people.
3
For the non-Facebook set (older folks), talk radio is the medium of influence.
In the New York metropolitan region, one would think that right-wing talk radio is a small player. But it is actually a huge player, thanks to 77 WABC, the station which broadcasts Michael Savage from 3 PM to 5 PM.
No one in the country can match the hate-filled invective of Mr. Savage. He is the paramount hate-monger. He epitomizes all that is wrong with the FCC. Savage is in a different category than the folks who are normally subjected to fact-checking. He is the dominant player in the lunatic-sphere.
In the New York metropolitan region, one would think that right-wing talk radio is a small player. But it is actually a huge player, thanks to 77 WABC, the station which broadcasts Michael Savage from 3 PM to 5 PM.
No one in the country can match the hate-filled invective of Mr. Savage. He is the paramount hate-monger. He epitomizes all that is wrong with the FCC. Savage is in a different category than the folks who are normally subjected to fact-checking. He is the dominant player in the lunatic-sphere.
11
Do you really mean to include Rush Limbaugh when you say that "No one in the country can match the hate-filled invective of Mr. Savage"?
1
Timothy Bal, Totally true, re Savage. His rants tickle around the edges of "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater." WABC's Bob Grant (deceased) set the low bar for racist invective and dog whistling; Michael Savage is pushing down the bar for outrageous, lying generalities: "Liberals are raping America," etc. It's tricky legalistics, but Savage seems to violate incite-to-violence law. IMHO.
2
The saddest thing about this editorial was the casual use of the term "Normal Political Liar". @EmmaRoller suggests that a certain foundational level of lying is the cost of doing business. Sadly, with the likes of Trump, Clinton, and Obama, our "fact checking" proves that she's spot on.
1
Is the media biased?
Read on the web on any given news dat the contrast between Fox News and the NYT or Washington Post. The first decision each news organization makes is to decide which story to give headline prominence. Any story which could be perceived as negative to Hillary will get full blown bold faced headlines on the Fox news page and any tweet or comment by Trump perceived as negative will get the similar treatment at the NYT or Post.
Watch Fox or MSNBC and identical alternate universes play out. Here armies of commentators on opposite sides of the fence lend their voices to the cause and the latest outrage of either Trump or Clinton.
My personal favorite this election season was Benghazi. Investigated by multiple Congressional Committees dominated by Republicans, Clinton was cleared of any wrong doing, yet Fox made a goal mine in distorting and inflating this non-existent story.
The other day I met a friend I had not seen in a long time. Highly educated and a staunch Republican, our conversation turned political. He hates Hillary. I asked why. Well he exclaimed "one big example her handling of Benghazi".
Ah truthiness.
Read on the web on any given news dat the contrast between Fox News and the NYT or Washington Post. The first decision each news organization makes is to decide which story to give headline prominence. Any story which could be perceived as negative to Hillary will get full blown bold faced headlines on the Fox news page and any tweet or comment by Trump perceived as negative will get the similar treatment at the NYT or Post.
Watch Fox or MSNBC and identical alternate universes play out. Here armies of commentators on opposite sides of the fence lend their voices to the cause and the latest outrage of either Trump or Clinton.
My personal favorite this election season was Benghazi. Investigated by multiple Congressional Committees dominated by Republicans, Clinton was cleared of any wrong doing, yet Fox made a goal mine in distorting and inflating this non-existent story.
The other day I met a friend I had not seen in a long time. Highly educated and a staunch Republican, our conversation turned political. He hates Hillary. I asked why. Well he exclaimed "one big example her handling of Benghazi".
Ah truthiness.
18
I read a wide range of reporting, including the NYTimes, the Washington Post, NPR, Fox News, the National Review, InfoWars, The New American, the Christian Science Monitor, BBC. I don't like having to commit so much time to maintain some basic awareness of world events, but I find I have no choice. Bias is evident in the selection of stories deemed "newsworthy" and in the facts (yes, facts) reported in those stories. But when those facts are so often merely quotes from one biased or unreliable source or another, what do I learn of the underlying truth? I feel that the media (across the spectrum) has failed because it so often has reported only or primarily what amounts to hearsay rather than helping educate its readership. Just because the hearsay is spouted by a presidential candidate and other prominent people doesn't make it any less hearsay.
13
Reporting a candidate's hearsay or lies is factual reporting of what the candidate said. It is not the Newspaper's job to suppress (non report) the false statements of public officials... that would be bias. However, Journalists, at least those in the real investigative reporting papers (NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wash Post etc.) will call out the candidates when they contradict know or verifiable facts. It takes work to get and stay educated on news. You get that way with real, verifiable investigative newspapers, not TV, not radio, not Op-ed sections of newspapers.
JP: you cant read Fox news, its TV.
If you want to be informed, stick to real investigative new sources: NYT, WSJ, Wash Post, and the truly non partisan/non commercially influenced TV news NPR and BBC. all else is a total, unmitigated waste of time, or worse (disinformation)
If you want to be informed, stick to real investigative new sources: NYT, WSJ, Wash Post, and the truly non partisan/non commercially influenced TV news NPR and BBC. all else is a total, unmitigated waste of time, or worse (disinformation)
Stage 12: You can read many of their stories as articles on Foxnews.com.
Emma, accoring to a WAPO study 11% of Republicans are anti-vaxxers, 13% of Dems are and these numbers decrease by race and education, so if the non- whites were removed from the equation the number of Dems who are anti vaxxers would statistically be less than the number of republicans since minorities tend to vote democrat. 54% of a survey of representative Republicans believe that Obama is Muslim. 33% of Republicans believed that the military exercise Jade Helm was an attempt by Obama to institute marshal law.. "there are these Wal-Marts in West Texas that supposedly closed for six months for "renovation." That's what they want you to believe. The truth is these Wal-Marts are going to be military guerrilla-warfare staging areas and FEMA processing camps for political prisoners. The prisoners are going to be transported by train cars that have already been equipped with shackles....The next day Abbott decided he had to take action. He announced that he was going to ask the Texas State Guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm from start to finish.
"It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed upon," Abbott said."
According to a poll done by the Guardian 20% of republicans believe Obama is Anti-Christ. 58% believe there is a "war in Christmas", believe in HARP, Agenda 21, believe climate change is a hoax and more.
Fair and balanced doesn't work here. R's take the prize for crazy! Sorry.
"It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed upon," Abbott said."
According to a poll done by the Guardian 20% of republicans believe Obama is Anti-Christ. 58% believe there is a "war in Christmas", believe in HARP, Agenda 21, believe climate change is a hoax and more.
Fair and balanced doesn't work here. R's take the prize for crazy! Sorry.
31
Where is Clinton's truthfulness in the intentional deletion of 33,000 emails?
Where was her truthfulness about the Islamic video that caused the spontaneous deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens?
Where was her truthfulness about the snipers whose bullets had her running for cover in Sarajevo?
Answer: Exactly where all power-hungry fascists keep their truthfulness - Dead and Buried.
Where was her truthfulness about the Islamic video that caused the spontaneous deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens?
Where was her truthfulness about the snipers whose bullets had her running for cover in Sarajevo?
Answer: Exactly where all power-hungry fascists keep their truthfulness - Dead and Buried.
9
I agree that Hillary is not 100% perfect.
Americans should only elect people who are 100% perfect.
Americans should only elect people who are 100% perfect.
6
Question 2 is hyped up crap from the right.
Questions 1 and 3 are legitimate complaints. But all the right had to do was nominated a candidate that was only a little crazy. What happened?
Questions 1 and 3 are legitimate complaints. But all the right had to do was nominated a candidate that was only a little crazy. What happened?
1
@circle: HRC condemned the video, and HRC condemned the attack. It doesn't take much education or maturity to conflate the two. Susan Rice is the one who blamed the YouTube video - and HRC made no attempt to deny the allegation. But feel free to blame a "vast right wing conspiracy" for everything bad that is ever said about HRC, because you're right: They Are All Out To Get You. It cannot possibly be that HRC is as bad as everyone sees her being.
HRC's real culpability in Benghazi:
A. She approved of Obama's decision to bomb Libya in an effort to aid the Arab Springers, thus turning a stable African nation into a hellhole of anarchy.
B. She approved of sending a US ambassador to a territory with no government (the aforementioned hellhole of anarchy) which resulted in his death.
C. Her response to Congress amounted to "It's in the past, let's move on."
Democrats had an opportunity to nominate a candidate that wasn't this depraved - oh, no, wait, the DNC had already made up its mind in January. Democracy in Action.
HRC's real culpability in Benghazi:
A. She approved of Obama's decision to bomb Libya in an effort to aid the Arab Springers, thus turning a stable African nation into a hellhole of anarchy.
B. She approved of sending a US ambassador to a territory with no government (the aforementioned hellhole of anarchy) which resulted in his death.
C. Her response to Congress amounted to "It's in the past, let's move on."
Democrats had an opportunity to nominate a candidate that wasn't this depraved - oh, no, wait, the DNC had already made up its mind in January. Democracy in Action.
1
Why does Trump love the poorly educated? This article explains why. The lack of critical thinking on the right is dangerous in the extreme.
40
Considering how the major "news" outlets are so in the tank for the democrats, it's difficult to get real, true news from any source. Lately the NYT has been one of the worst offenders, it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a front page story and an opinion piece.
5
well this is just a silly pottman reference. i have been given another reason validating my refusal to join facebook. lol
5
The press doesn't help either. I see the press often questions Hillary's trustworthiness, never mind most of the flak at Hillary has shown to be without merit. When the press repeats this daily without the disclaimer, no wonder those who do not like her call her a "criminal", and believe it. The press just does not challenge this idea on a regular basis.
39
The demise of facts got ramped up by Limbaugh and his ditto heads a quarter of a century ago and now we've been treated to a diet of this garbage for a quarter century. People are voting today based on this intellectual manure heap.
3
Thank mainstream politicians of both parties, and collaborative big media, including NYT and nice, mild-mannered columnists, for the rise of "truthiness".
Lie to the public long enough about fundamentals -- the nature of U.S. foreign policy, the goals of domestic policy -- and you not only destroy faith in institutions, you make *any* lie possible. Even Trump's.
When the currency of discourse is systematically debased by elites for their own convenience (it's so much easier to govern in your own interests, when people believe convenient nonsense), what other result they could decently expect?
Lie to the public long enough about fundamentals -- the nature of U.S. foreign policy, the goals of domestic policy -- and you not only destroy faith in institutions, you make *any* lie possible. Even Trump's.
When the currency of discourse is systematically debased by elites for their own convenience (it's so much easier to govern in your own interests, when people believe convenient nonsense), what other result they could decently expect?
4
Since American political campaigns resemble a sporting event anyway maybe being caught in a lie ought to be called what it really is: a intentional delay of game. Moreover the offender ought to be temporarily removed from the field of play until a stiff fine has been paid and the disgraced candidate has retracted the falsehood he or she so cynically attempted to foist upon the public for personal gain.
14
Great point!
Someone should give out yellow cards and red cards.
Someone should give out yellow cards and red cards.
1
I am reminded of the last line of a poem by Wallace Stevens "The Man on the Dump"
"Where was it one first heard of the truth? The the."
The truth is simply what it is, the truth.
"Where was it one first heard of the truth? The the."
The truth is simply what it is, the truth.
4
"This automatic distrust of the press, long a bastion of conservative thought, took on a darker tone this year."
I've never heard the press called a "bastion of conservative thought."
And I've never heard "bastion" used to refer to a quality, such as "distrust."
I've never heard the press called a "bastion of conservative thought."
And I've never heard "bastion" used to refer to a quality, such as "distrust."
1
Of all we teach in primary school, I have always wondered why skepticism and the desire to dig for truth is not rigorously taught. Why is "thinking" not on the curricula? It is one of the foundations for all other learning.
5
I'm glad to see someone else noticed Trump's "criticism" of Obama's deportation policy. I was a little surprised that didn't garner more headlines. The writer is absolutely correct in her statement that "confirmation bias" is a problem on both the left and right and also absolutely correct in her (unstated) assessment that it is a deliberate strategy of the right's elites. To paraphrase the old saying, it's hard to let go of the wolve's ears, once you grab them. The ultra right is getting the ride they bargained for and I'm pretty sure it's headed for a cliff.
1
Facts, bias and lies. Capital Markets could keep everyone in line and honest here. Market makers in dull times often call people out for their bias or lies by making a monetary bet. Say a paper has a poll with Hillary winning by 5 points. Another paper has Trump up by 1. Wow what a freaking spread! We all could make millions. Forece the papers to offer a market that people can trade on. Ditto on false statistics being thrown around. At a pub, force Congressional leaders, Presidents, and all talking heads put money on the lies they spread. Loss of money makes people honest...works every time.
Are these the same capital markets run by Bear Stern and Lehman bros? No? Are they the markets run by Country Wide, Indy Mac and Wells Fargo???
Somehow journalists need to be licensed to practice, like doctors, attorneys, psychologists, etc., and held to ethical standards regarding what they print or say in the public media.We are being fed a steady diet of nonsense and sadly, too many believe it.
3
dont have such a problem if you stick to mainstream investigative reporting news like NYT, WSJ, Wash Post, LA Time, etc. Every now & then some bias or false info slips thru, but its rare. But turn your TV and Radio off and you'll do just fine. NPR and BBC is quite commendable also.
Nowhere is confirmation bias more prevalent than in people's responses to climate change information. I recommend the book "Don't Even Think About It--Why our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change" by British connotative analyst author George Marshall.
It is highly readable, and many of us will recognize ourselves as well as our neighbors in it. He proposes solutions--these can start with his readers; they can start today.
It is highly readable, and many of us will recognize ourselves as well as our neighbors in it. He proposes solutions--these can start with his readers; they can start today.
1
The first thing abusers do to their intended victims is to isolate them, so they can control the victims' reality. Isn't that what the right wing has been doing for the last couple of decades to their followers?
9
Trump tells people what he believes they want to hear.
Clinton tells people what she wants them to believe.
Both are lying, but Clinton is the greater liar of the two, as has been proven many times over.
Clinton tells people what she wants them to believe.
Both are lying, but Clinton is the greater liar of the two, as has been proven many times over.
5
"as has been proven many times over."
And so you confirm the article's point, even ignoring the comparison IN the article of the number of lies in the debate.
And so you confirm the article's point, even ignoring the comparison IN the article of the number of lies in the debate.
5
RE: "but Clinton is the greater liar of the two, as has been proven many times over."
Which would seem to be a lie in the face of results like Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star who found that "in the debates, Mr. Trump made 104 false claims, while Mrs. Clinton made 13 false claims."
A major problem with Trump is that he often doesn't know the truth well enough to lie about it. He simply makes up the truth that serves him.
Which would seem to be a lie in the face of results like Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star who found that "in the debates, Mr. Trump made 104 false claims, while Mrs. Clinton made 13 false claims."
A major problem with Trump is that he often doesn't know the truth well enough to lie about it. He simply makes up the truth that serves him.
1
Marie Gunnerson - the so-called fact checking by Daniel Dale is falsified.
1
Just note... By reading the NYT comments section, we also have self-segregated.
Let's be honest with each other. While there are some consistent insightful participants, there is also a lot unchallenged truthiness and strawmen and jingoism and wishful thinking here as well. I will often see comments that tell progressives what they want to hear pop right to the top of the recommended list, even when there are clear falsehoods or clearly dubious logic (especially when the comments are poking at some Republican soft spot).
We can rail all we want about Fox News (which no doubt is pretty bad), but should really take a look at our house before throwing too many stones.
Let's be honest with each other. While there are some consistent insightful participants, there is also a lot unchallenged truthiness and strawmen and jingoism and wishful thinking here as well. I will often see comments that tell progressives what they want to hear pop right to the top of the recommended list, even when there are clear falsehoods or clearly dubious logic (especially when the comments are poking at some Republican soft spot).
We can rail all we want about Fox News (which no doubt is pretty bad), but should really take a look at our house before throwing too many stones.
4
Confirmation bias is bipartisan. While we are all aware of Donald Trump's lies, Hillary Clinton and President Obama benefit from many lies of omission. Liberal Democrats like to think of their party as compassionate, but how does that square with the president's refusal to prosecute Bush administration torturers? Or his failure to expand political capital to close Guantánamo? Or his widespread use of drones to murder countless thousands of innocent civilians in places like Pakistan? Or her hideous bragging and laughter about the extrajudicial assassination of Osama bin Laden and her involvement in it?
What we really need it something we are not going to get: early childhood education that emphasizes the importance of the truth and how to determine the truth while setting aside one's personal and political biases. Americans aren't taught how to reason. Is it any wonder that no one knows how to apply logic to politics?
What we really need it something we are not going to get: early childhood education that emphasizes the importance of the truth and how to determine the truth while setting aside one's personal and political biases. Americans aren't taught how to reason. Is it any wonder that no one knows how to apply logic to politics?
4
Your comment is a perfect example of the tendency you warning about: confusing opinions with facts. Whether Guantanamo should be closed is not a fact. It is an opinion. I happen to think that the assassination of Bin Laden was a good thing; prove me wrong (incidentally, it was not extrajudicial but in keeping with laws of warfare, since Al Qaeda declared war on the US). Hillary's laughter is "hideous"? This is not a fact but your own prejudiced opinion. You are entitled to your judgments. You are not entitled to pass them off as facts.
Dear Emma,
You wrote this at the end of a paragraph: "The implication seems to be that Americans like the concept of fact-checking, as long as those facts confirm their point of view." I would also say that this applies to those making policy in government well outside the social media realm. The more the facts eschew neo-liberalistic doctrine, the more entrenched it has become. It does not work. Here, take that. Oh, it is not working. Wham! Take this. This proves it is not working. Shut up and take this. When is it going to stop?
You wrote this at the end of a paragraph: "The implication seems to be that Americans like the concept of fact-checking, as long as those facts confirm their point of view." I would also say that this applies to those making policy in government well outside the social media realm. The more the facts eschew neo-liberalistic doctrine, the more entrenched it has become. It does not work. Here, take that. Oh, it is not working. Wham! Take this. This proves it is not working. Shut up and take this. When is it going to stop?
In 30th St. station in Philly a stranger sitting beside me showed me that picture of thew Trump plane parked beside a tiny blue "Hillary plane." "See," he said, "Trump is better because his plane is bigger." The man was serious.
This election isn't.
This election isn't.
6
Lonne:
Unfortunate, but even penniliess peasants in Somalia know better.
Unfortunate, but even penniliess peasants in Somalia know better.
After reading this article, it's hard to be optimistic about the future of American politics or even America in general. Yesterday, as I was waiting in the checkout line at a large grocery store, I took a look at the magazines & tabloids available. Nearly all were filled with articles about celebrities, sex, dieting or fashion - certainly nothing cerebral in any way. These magazines & tabloids wouldn't exist if people didn't buy them. They are concrete evidence of the dumbing down of the American public.
No wonder people believe Donald Trump. A good friend has been saying for years that what America desperately needs is for the CDC to develop a vaccine for Willful Ignorance. I'm afraid she's right.
No wonder people believe Donald Trump. A good friend has been saying for years that what America desperately needs is for the CDC to develop a vaccine for Willful Ignorance. I'm afraid she's right.
10
I thought I was the only person to see what's going on with the mind of America. The Illuminatics, one world government, open borders, Hillary will appoint liberal judges to take away our guns, Benghazi--a endless list of crazy, no real hard evidence beliefs held by the average Hillary hating true believers to somehow make America Great Again following a con man like Donald Trump's empty promises. What's more frightening is what will his supporters do when he loses the election to another false claim that the election is rigged because Trump wasn't foolishly elected as our president?
'The strongest bias in American politics is not a liberal bias or a conservative bias; it is a confirmation bias, or the urge to believe only things that confirm what you already believe to be true.'
No kidding! Stop the presses.
To see that confirmation bias and skewing the news is a bipartisan fault, you need only read the NYT coverage of Obamacare. (It took a long time, and a lot of articles documenting its cascading failures, for the NYT to admit that maybe not everyone who opposed this law and warned it wouldn't work as advertised was racist.) Or its Orwellian swap-out of 'undocumented' for 'illegal'. You don't have to be in favour of rounding up 11 million people at gunpoint to say every other nation exercises the right to defend its borders, and that the difference between 'illegal' and 'undocumented' is like the difference between driving without a license and driving without proof of license - they didn't just leave their citizenship in their other pants.
Seeing what you want to see runs both ways, folks.
And BTW, I'm 110% With Her and have never voted for a Republican above the county level in my entire life. (I did vote three times for Republicans. Once in 1980, I switched parties to vote for Anderson in the GOP primary. I also voted for a state senator who was good on LGBT rights before it was fashionable, and for a county freeholder who supported mental health causes.)
No kidding! Stop the presses.
To see that confirmation bias and skewing the news is a bipartisan fault, you need only read the NYT coverage of Obamacare. (It took a long time, and a lot of articles documenting its cascading failures, for the NYT to admit that maybe not everyone who opposed this law and warned it wouldn't work as advertised was racist.) Or its Orwellian swap-out of 'undocumented' for 'illegal'. You don't have to be in favour of rounding up 11 million people at gunpoint to say every other nation exercises the right to defend its borders, and that the difference between 'illegal' and 'undocumented' is like the difference between driving without a license and driving without proof of license - they didn't just leave their citizenship in their other pants.
Seeing what you want to see runs both ways, folks.
And BTW, I'm 110% With Her and have never voted for a Republican above the county level in my entire life. (I did vote three times for Republicans. Once in 1980, I switched parties to vote for Anderson in the GOP primary. I also voted for a state senator who was good on LGBT rights before it was fashionable, and for a county freeholder who supported mental health causes.)
2
"“The best way to attract and grow an audience for political content on the world’s biggest social network is to eschew factual reporting and instead play to partisan biases using false or misleading information that simply tells people what they want to hear.”"
Sounds an awful lot like The New York Times this election season.
Sounds an awful lot like The New York Times this election season.
3
The media must take the largest part of the blame for the dumbing down of America. Let me give you one example - gun violence. While I am about as anti gun as it can get, I also believe the media is directly responsible for the fact that an overwhelming percentage of Americans on all sides of the gun issue believe that the murder rate with and without guns is on a rampage. The facts are that per capita gun death homicides have plummeted over the decades, and we are at all time lows. Further, if you take into account all violence, we are living at the safest time in all of American history. Check the facts - at no time in American history is a person less likely to be assaulted, raped or murdered than right now. But, Americans believe the opposite. Why? Could the media be to blame for this ignorance?
5
Lefty liberals cannot credibly call for gun control, without wiping up rage and self-righteous anger about shootings and gun accidents.
So they ignore actual STATISTICS, because their IDEOLOGY wants something specific that facts do not support.
Gee, golly, gosh! just like "conservatives" do on THEIR pet issues!
So they ignore actual STATISTICS, because their IDEOLOGY wants something specific that facts do not support.
Gee, golly, gosh! just like "conservatives" do on THEIR pet issues!
Trump’s mention of President Obama’s deportation performance during the last debate wasn’t a criticism of Obama but an attempt to point out that his own plans for deportation were simply an extension of what Obama already had done.
We need to fact-check opinion writers, too.
We need to fact-check opinion writers, too.
2
I don't believe Ms. Roller was maligning Trump with that observation. She was maligning his supporters for believing that Obama has been opening the boarders and allowing illegal immigration.
6
Toy:
Your response makes no sense whatsoever.
Your response makes no sense whatsoever.
1
Richard we got that. But the notice comes from the fact that conservatives have saying for quite some time that Obama and Clinton are soft on immigration, want "open borders", and allow illegal immigration for more votes. When it was pointed out that Obama has actually deported more people in refute the conservatives either denied it, explained it away, or simply ignored it as not supporting their beliefs.
Now however, when it suits the conservative point of view suddenly they recognize what has been in evidence all along and Obama's deportation is not only real but can be used to bolster their arguments.
This is a repeated pattern where conservatives demonstrate an opportunism for the truth.
Now however, when it suits the conservative point of view suddenly they recognize what has been in evidence all along and Obama's deportation is not only real but can be used to bolster their arguments.
This is a repeated pattern where conservatives demonstrate an opportunism for the truth.
1
RE: "This automatic distrust of the press, long a bastion of conservative thought"
It is fairly easy to understand why. More often than not the press deals closer to reality which is all too often in conflict with conservative thought stemming from a scary made up world where things like Obama will declare martial law or Hillary will come take your guns are spoken. Or a world where giving the rich more money won't make them richer because they will use the money to make more jobs and to pay people more in wages not stash in off-shore accounts or fatten their bonuses.
It is fairly easy to understand why. More often than not the press deals closer to reality which is all too often in conflict with conservative thought stemming from a scary made up world where things like Obama will declare martial law or Hillary will come take your guns are spoken. Or a world where giving the rich more money won't make them richer because they will use the money to make more jobs and to pay people more in wages not stash in off-shore accounts or fatten their bonuses.
6
The press is also partly responsible for the nastiness in this country. The 23 hours news cycle, the endless repeating of the same opinions (not news) of the talking heads, the 24 hours breaking news, which are no breaking news at all; the instant publication of headlines without waiting for proof because some other network could publish it first. Best example the emails from WikiLeaks: grab a headline out and look for the rest later. Just enough to dominate the moment out in the news war. Now Trump lays the foundation for another network that instead of news will spill the lies and going in competition to Murdock. We all need a break, and it would fit us well if we not engage in endless election right after one has finished. Instead, reporting on the country, the progress we make and the efforts we need and inform these Trumpists that the world out here is not the Armageddon which Trumps portraits and that out here, democrats, republicans and independents need to earn their daily bread and make America great again by becoming kinder with another again.
5
People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
Unfortunately the two are oft conflated.
We should be teaching children about cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, amongst other basic logical rules, from middle school age and upwards. We'd be a more perfect union for it.
Unfortunately the two are oft conflated.
We should be teaching children about cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, amongst other basic logical rules, from middle school age and upwards. We'd be a more perfect union for it.
9
"People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. Unfortunately the two are oft conflated."
You didn't explain how to distinguish "opinions" and "facts".
You didn't explain how to distinguish "opinions" and "facts".
1
This article supports the idea that the way forward is to improve our collective way of seeking truth. It seems to me, this must be based on a respect for science, reason, empathy, and judgement of human nature - qualities associated with education.
7
I'm a very firm believer in the First Amendment.
That said, where does that leave us in choosing our President and other elected officials when it seems as though it boils down to who is more 'convincing'? And with all the baggage that is associated with 'convincing'. This type of 'convincing' becomes insulting and revolting to our democratic process. This type of 'convincing' is nothing more than lying to the electorate. We have a 'news' show that spouts their own political agenda. Again, to 'convince' us to vote a particular way, for a particular candidate or party.
If the candidates want our vote, than let us be convinced based on facts on not based on lies or half truths.
Somehow there should be a system in place to make them tell the truth. Not their version of the truth, but the truth. We spent all this time and effort to hold the debates, and the fact-checking occurs after-the-fact, no pun intended. What about real-time?
How do we deal with falsehoods at campaign rallies and in television commercials? We have had statements made at rallies that can incite riots and worse.
I don't know what the answer is, and I know it seems as though I have just fallen 'off the turnip truck'. But don't the American voters deserve better than this? Doesn't our country deserve better than this?
If a candidate wants our vote, then state honestly what their plans are and why they believe that is better than their opponents.
That said, where does that leave us in choosing our President and other elected officials when it seems as though it boils down to who is more 'convincing'? And with all the baggage that is associated with 'convincing'. This type of 'convincing' becomes insulting and revolting to our democratic process. This type of 'convincing' is nothing more than lying to the electorate. We have a 'news' show that spouts their own political agenda. Again, to 'convince' us to vote a particular way, for a particular candidate or party.
If the candidates want our vote, than let us be convinced based on facts on not based on lies or half truths.
Somehow there should be a system in place to make them tell the truth. Not their version of the truth, but the truth. We spent all this time and effort to hold the debates, and the fact-checking occurs after-the-fact, no pun intended. What about real-time?
How do we deal with falsehoods at campaign rallies and in television commercials? We have had statements made at rallies that can incite riots and worse.
I don't know what the answer is, and I know it seems as though I have just fallen 'off the turnip truck'. But don't the American voters deserve better than this? Doesn't our country deserve better than this?
If a candidate wants our vote, then state honestly what their plans are and why they believe that is better than their opponents.
3
Liberals are just as closed minded as conservatives. They belong to a secular religion with its unassailable beliefs. In his book, "The Righteous Mind," Jonathan Haidt describes how liberals reacted to biologist E.O.Wilson when he suggested (from his study of ants) that natural selection might also influence human behavior. Protesters at one of his talks tried to stop him from speaking, calling him a fascist and a racist. College campuses have become Maoist style re-education camps, with their own definitions of heresy. The liberal may not deny climate change, but he/she will deny anything that may be "hurtful" to selected groups of people.
2
Even more so...the left fawned for years of Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas", because it dovetailed perfectly with existing lefty liberal memes about "stupid low-information voters who vote against their self-interest!"
But the same lefties turn a total blind eye to Mr. Frank's excellent follow-up book "Listen, Liberals" -- because it slams liberal biases. You can hear the crickets!
Reading "Listen, Liberals" should be mandatory for all posters and pundits in these forums.
But the same lefties turn a total blind eye to Mr. Frank's excellent follow-up book "Listen, Liberals" -- because it slams liberal biases. You can hear the crickets!
Reading "Listen, Liberals" should be mandatory for all posters and pundits in these forums.
The puppet masters of the GOP don't actually believe the lies of the party- they are motivated by a fear of a populist democracy that when given nothing but the facts, its citizens would tax them out of their wealth and, in "fact" destroy our great nation. They don't believe they could win with their actual agenda if spoken openly, even though they feel certain they are on the side of truth.
Donald Trump has cut their strings and their puppets are proving their worst fears to be true. They now have a candidate who is promising free stuff to everybody by means of massive tax cuts for everyone. It isn't the lie that bothers them so much as the fact that Trump seems to actually believe his lies. He scares most people with any stake in rational governance, whether conservative or liberal.
Donald Trump has cut their strings and their puppets are proving their worst fears to be true. They now have a candidate who is promising free stuff to everybody by means of massive tax cuts for everyone. It isn't the lie that bothers them so much as the fact that Trump seems to actually believe his lies. He scares most people with any stake in rational governance, whether conservative or liberal.
5
Hmm, the problem in your fact-free analysis is that not all conservatives are rich -- certainly not those $70K a Trump supporters at rallies! -- and not all Democrats are poor. Indeed, Democrats are much richer on average than Republicans, and blue states (we are so often told here) are much richer than red states. Most billionaires are....Democrats. Rich people give far more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Democratic Party is pretty well ruled by as cabal of very, very rich ... liberal Democrats.
Hello! George Soros....Bill Gates....Tom Steyer....Jeff Bezos...Mark Zuckerberg....Michael Bloomberg....and that's just a handful off the top of my head.
Democrats have pretty well cornered the market on promising "free stuff" to people -- free day care, free college, free health care -- the list is endless.
Hello! George Soros....Bill Gates....Tom Steyer....Jeff Bezos...Mark Zuckerberg....Michael Bloomberg....and that's just a handful off the top of my head.
Democrats have pretty well cornered the market on promising "free stuff" to people -- free day care, free college, free health care -- the list is endless.
1
If confronted by a person like the one depicted in this story, I am outta there pronto. But, if I see a Trump supporter is semi-approachable, not foaming at the mouth spouting bumper stickers slogans, and parroting FOX "News" talking points, I may have a go of it.
Being a political junkie, I look forward to engaging someone in a lively conversation. The greater the challenge, the better the discussion. Preaching to the choir gets you nowhere, except in an echo chamber. I prefer a good debate where hopefully each side can both buttress their argument and learn something from the other.
As for your facts or mine, I have found that those who have an opposing viewpoint, and in possession of the same facts, will come to different conclusions. It's much like a Rorschach test, one sees what they want to see. I recall something Woody Allen wrote into one of his films. Woody and his wife seek marriage counseling. When asked by the analyst about their sex life, his wife says they have sex all the time, three or four times a week. When Woody is asked the same question, he replies they rarely have sex, only three or four times a week. Thus, this is what I've noticed in my more elucidating encounters with folks who have an opposing political view than I. The eye of the beholder.
People lately are fond of citing Senator Moynihan's quote: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". What happens when they have the same facts?
DD
Manhattan
Being a political junkie, I look forward to engaging someone in a lively conversation. The greater the challenge, the better the discussion. Preaching to the choir gets you nowhere, except in an echo chamber. I prefer a good debate where hopefully each side can both buttress their argument and learn something from the other.
As for your facts or mine, I have found that those who have an opposing viewpoint, and in possession of the same facts, will come to different conclusions. It's much like a Rorschach test, one sees what they want to see. I recall something Woody Allen wrote into one of his films. Woody and his wife seek marriage counseling. When asked by the analyst about their sex life, his wife says they have sex all the time, three or four times a week. When Woody is asked the same question, he replies they rarely have sex, only three or four times a week. Thus, this is what I've noticed in my more elucidating encounters with folks who have an opposing political view than I. The eye of the beholder.
People lately are fond of citing Senator Moynihan's quote: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". What happens when they have the same facts?
DD
Manhattan
6
The problem with the whole "facts" meme is that facts just sit there. Nobody disputes there are 12-30 million illegal aliens in the US, for example. You might go with the higher or lower figure, but nobody says "there are NO illegal aliens here" or that "there are 100 million illegal aliens".
The disagreement comes as to whether this is good or bad. Democrats ADORE illegals, and want their votes (legal or not). They see a future with a huge permanent majority based on illegal immigration....one where our largest population group is hispanic, and white people (their sworn enemies!) are winnowed out, and powerless to stop social engineering.
Republicans may or may not see illegal immigration as bad. A rich business owner may see thousands of low wage workers, with whom he can undercut US minimum wage laws. But the "average Joe Republican" sees his city and his country overwhelmed with illegals, who take the jobs he might have gotten -- driving down HIS wages -- and he sees illegals getting welfare and other benefits he is denied. He also sees laws about borders and immigration flouted and even ridiculed ("no more important than getting a parking ticket!").
The facts are the same in each case, but interpreted VERY VERY DIFFERENTLY by different people with different beliefs, goals, feelings, values.
The disagreement comes as to whether this is good or bad. Democrats ADORE illegals, and want their votes (legal or not). They see a future with a huge permanent majority based on illegal immigration....one where our largest population group is hispanic, and white people (their sworn enemies!) are winnowed out, and powerless to stop social engineering.
Republicans may or may not see illegal immigration as bad. A rich business owner may see thousands of low wage workers, with whom he can undercut US minimum wage laws. But the "average Joe Republican" sees his city and his country overwhelmed with illegals, who take the jobs he might have gotten -- driving down HIS wages -- and he sees illegals getting welfare and other benefits he is denied. He also sees laws about borders and immigration flouted and even ridiculed ("no more important than getting a parking ticket!").
The facts are the same in each case, but interpreted VERY VERY DIFFERENTLY by different people with different beliefs, goals, feelings, values.
No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top along with all the other so called innovations to rescue our failing public education system have failed to teach people how to think, how to interact with the world around us in a curious manner, how to ask good questions and be open to answers that challenge and expand our understanding, and to never swallow someone else's pat answers to the problems that confront us. There's no easy fix for a culture that has largely rejected reason and science in favor of myth and superstition.
4
Most of the children from the educational programs of "no child left behind" GW Bush 2002 or "race to the top" Obama 2009 aren't old enough to vote yet! Stop blaming the idiocy of the electorate on the public education we have today. The screaming man in the photo looks to be in his 50's, hardly an uneducated casualty from "no child left behind" or "race to the top"!
1
An interesting problem indeed. One of the reasons my daily read includes english language press from various countries -- things don't always look the same from there. Problem is that while some facts are deterministic -- Trump can or cannot walk on water, for example, some are much less so. Cultural relativism makes this a mess -- so truth moved from being a matter of physics to one of resonance with personal beliefs. Most of what we read and observe lies in the grey gulf between physics and philosophy. Objective actions are easy to verify -- something did or did not happen. The beliefs and intents behind them very much less so -- inferring what is in someone's head an impossibility, although issues of security believe otherwise. But the more focused someone is on their daily lives and concerns than the world around them them more likely they seem to accept the alternate realities being presented -- and that allows the unqualified to gain toeholds. There is no cure for this other than universal literacy and awareness -- so the fog of existence continues.
2
Ms. Roller has done us all a great service with this article. Most of Mr. Trump's voters are angry because they haven't gotten what they need from government and society. Unfortunately, they have been listening to right wing radio, for some time an arm of the GOP, where they have been told that all of their problems are with Democrats and if they elect Republicans their problems will be solved. Having elected Republicans and not having any of their problems solved, they are righteously angry.
On the contrary, some of us on the left are fully aware of the number of people deported under the Obama Administration. Further, we are unhappy with his frequent attempts to get a "grand bargain" that would likely have included cuts to the remnants of the social safety net. We also know the record of the William Jefferson Clinton administration on banking, welfare and justice and the role Hillary Clinton likely played in that record.
Most of us will vote for her anyway. I did. And, we will cheer when she wins, after trying through our votes that to give her a Congress that wants to govern. Having done that, we will hopefully spring into action to make sure she doesn't make this a redo of the first Clinton years.
Knowing and facing the truth about the ideas and actions of our politicians gives us power. The people who support Trump feel powerless because they surrendered up their agency when they stopped seeking the truth.
On the contrary, some of us on the left are fully aware of the number of people deported under the Obama Administration. Further, we are unhappy with his frequent attempts to get a "grand bargain" that would likely have included cuts to the remnants of the social safety net. We also know the record of the William Jefferson Clinton administration on banking, welfare and justice and the role Hillary Clinton likely played in that record.
Most of us will vote for her anyway. I did. And, we will cheer when she wins, after trying through our votes that to give her a Congress that wants to govern. Having done that, we will hopefully spring into action to make sure she doesn't make this a redo of the first Clinton years.
Knowing and facing the truth about the ideas and actions of our politicians gives us power. The people who support Trump feel powerless because they surrendered up their agency when they stopped seeking the truth.
6
It is awfully convenient to blame "everyone you disagree with!" on ... talk radio.
I have myself never listened to talk radio. I don't get cable, and have never seen Fox News. I get my news from here, to some degree, and on the radio from BBC America, on a local classical music station.
Gee, probably not what you thought...is it?
You could have been clearer than Mr. Obama -- your black savior/messiah -- is on tape, provably calling to raise the ages for SS AND MEDICARE to 70, from the current 67(SS) and 65(Medicare). Not Trump. Not McConnell or even Ryan -- OBAMA!!!
And you know Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and started much of this mess (including causing direct economic harm to poor Mexicans in Mexico). Yet you will ... double down and vote for the very people who broke the system.
Please tell me in WHAT WAY does this prove that "liberals always listen to the FACTS". You clearly do not. You have said as much. You are voting on personality and ideology....not on facts.
I have myself never listened to talk radio. I don't get cable, and have never seen Fox News. I get my news from here, to some degree, and on the radio from BBC America, on a local classical music station.
Gee, probably not what you thought...is it?
You could have been clearer than Mr. Obama -- your black savior/messiah -- is on tape, provably calling to raise the ages for SS AND MEDICARE to 70, from the current 67(SS) and 65(Medicare). Not Trump. Not McConnell or even Ryan -- OBAMA!!!
And you know Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and started much of this mess (including causing direct economic harm to poor Mexicans in Mexico). Yet you will ... double down and vote for the very people who broke the system.
Please tell me in WHAT WAY does this prove that "liberals always listen to the FACTS". You clearly do not. You have said as much. You are voting on personality and ideology....not on facts.
1
"I wasn’t able to find the evidence that President Obama would declare martial law if Donald J. Trump won the presidential election."
On the other hand, it is frightening to see evidence for it in the case of Donald Trump losing the election. Look at history in other countries when elections are called "rigged" or "stolen" by populist leaders exciting angry people. Donald ignores the lessons of the past but, fortunately, this country is different. (It is!)
On the other hand, it is frightening to see evidence for it in the case of Donald Trump losing the election. Look at history in other countries when elections are called "rigged" or "stolen" by populist leaders exciting angry people. Donald ignores the lessons of the past but, fortunately, this country is different. (It is!)
3
Do you mean....that President Obama can and SHOULD call for martial law, to arrest Trump supporters in the wake of the election?
Or do you mean Trump supporters will riot if Trump loses?
Which is it? They are two contradictory positions.
Or do you mean Trump supporters will riot if Trump loses?
Which is it? They are two contradictory positions.
There is more than ample evidence that President Obama respects and defends the democratic process. Obviously, he has no intention of calling for martial law or of arresting Donald Trump. Any suggestion of the contrary is nonsense.
Donald Trump's plans if he loses the election are a conundrum. However, in weak democracies, the patterns matching Trump’s current actions are correlated to the possible occurrence of civil unrest. The USA is a stable, mature democracy but the parallelism is nevertheless hard to miss. Frankly, I cannot imagine that President Obama would ever have to resort to martial law, as only a few lunatics amongst Trump’s supporters might be tempted to act illegally (they at least brag about it in conservative forums). However, I’d prefer to have hard evidence for that rather than my beliefs. Intellectual rigor reminds me that historical evidence is either lacking (this turn of events is a first in the USA), or points to potential troubles after the election.
Donald Trump's plans if he loses the election are a conundrum. However, in weak democracies, the patterns matching Trump’s current actions are correlated to the possible occurrence of civil unrest. The USA is a stable, mature democracy but the parallelism is nevertheless hard to miss. Frankly, I cannot imagine that President Obama would ever have to resort to martial law, as only a few lunatics amongst Trump’s supporters might be tempted to act illegally (they at least brag about it in conservative forums). However, I’d prefer to have hard evidence for that rather than my beliefs. Intellectual rigor reminds me that historical evidence is either lacking (this turn of events is a first in the USA), or points to potential troubles after the election.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
In the last quarter of the last century, blatant attempts to upend solid science has been a corporate standard, with the way blazed by the tobacco industry. We saw a stream of CEOs SWEAR to Congress that they believed cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful, while their in-house scientists were seeking to make them MORE addictive and paid "think tanks" were releasing propaganda to challenge the real studies.
The fossil fuel industry, lead by the Kochs, has followed the tobacco industry's model, challenging human-induced climate change because it threatens the basis of their vast empire. I pity the poor coal miner and oil derrick worker, who to feed his/her family, becomes the Upton Sinclair victim.
Since they are up to their...waists...in alligators, they have no interest in draining the swamp. If my choice was a little more pollution (my personal contribution) or my family homeless, I, too, would have to think first of my family. And that was EXACTLY the point of the corporations' challenge to AGW--to frighten people more of the immediate threat to their income vs the death of most of our cities (Can you say "Miami"?)
Then there has been the religious challenges to Evolution, using the false equivalents of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design".
Is it any wonder so many Americans are fact-free?
In the last quarter of the last century, blatant attempts to upend solid science has been a corporate standard, with the way blazed by the tobacco industry. We saw a stream of CEOs SWEAR to Congress that they believed cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful, while their in-house scientists were seeking to make them MORE addictive and paid "think tanks" were releasing propaganda to challenge the real studies.
The fossil fuel industry, lead by the Kochs, has followed the tobacco industry's model, challenging human-induced climate change because it threatens the basis of their vast empire. I pity the poor coal miner and oil derrick worker, who to feed his/her family, becomes the Upton Sinclair victim.
Since they are up to their...waists...in alligators, they have no interest in draining the swamp. If my choice was a little more pollution (my personal contribution) or my family homeless, I, too, would have to think first of my family. And that was EXACTLY the point of the corporations' challenge to AGW--to frighten people more of the immediate threat to their income vs the death of most of our cities (Can you say "Miami"?)
Then there has been the religious challenges to Evolution, using the false equivalents of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design".
Is it any wonder so many Americans are fact-free?
8
My suspicion is that if asked to define "truth" answers would not have much depth or would disagree on the details: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ . A fact may be true (for the moment), but obscure a larger truth. Truth and faith get confused. Truth and faith get confused, depending on the observer.
Trying to understand whether a fact is causative of a truth, or just along for the ride (epiphenomenon) is a problem. Given that large portions of our populace (now more on the Republican side) do not believe the findings of science creates more difficulty. Facts can change; the truth as we know it can change. Just ask any physician who has been in medical practice for several decades. Ask any scientist whose life is devoted to finding new truths (some would call this expanding ignorance about things we never knew).
Like any word we toss around in the public sphere, meanings may not be shared. The same is true for other political favorites: constitutional, common sense, etc.
I would conclude (not unique; we've been arguing about the nature of truth for millennia) that we are hard wired for features like backfire effect and cognitive dissonance. There is little likelihood this will disappear from or be suppressed within our genes. What is remarkable is that science has come as far as it has in the last five centuries, that our nation has marched to a more inclusive society (in spite of blips) over the past 300 years.
Trying to understand whether a fact is causative of a truth, or just along for the ride (epiphenomenon) is a problem. Given that large portions of our populace (now more on the Republican side) do not believe the findings of science creates more difficulty. Facts can change; the truth as we know it can change. Just ask any physician who has been in medical practice for several decades. Ask any scientist whose life is devoted to finding new truths (some would call this expanding ignorance about things we never knew).
Like any word we toss around in the public sphere, meanings may not be shared. The same is true for other political favorites: constitutional, common sense, etc.
I would conclude (not unique; we've been arguing about the nature of truth for millennia) that we are hard wired for features like backfire effect and cognitive dissonance. There is little likelihood this will disappear from or be suppressed within our genes. What is remarkable is that science has come as far as it has in the last five centuries, that our nation has marched to a more inclusive society (in spite of blips) over the past 300 years.
1
the photo over this article, "a trump supporter taunting members of the press" could well be my neighbor who wants to know why his home delivery of the times is always late, (usually after he has to go to his train), or...he could be a member of H(R)C's special forces unit, protecting democracy from russian kibitzers.
though "inflamed" is, as ms roller says, the tone of our sad campaign, "rhetoric" is way too classy for the septic effluent that passes for debate in this arena (ok, not teddy roosevelt's "arena," rather a pit).
what's clear from her rehearsal of the trump- dump tropes is that the exercise has gone past its "use by" date and has become stale, "so over," as the kids say about justin and miley.
we've already begin the "pivot" (!) toward framing an H(R)C presidency we can survive, (the bared fangs of elizabeth warren making her the leading candidate for guard dog and wrangler in chief of the chief), now that tump is done in and we have to face all the character issues, (again, too gentle for the litany, sAnders swindle to bengaZi bungle, of bad faith and ineptitude that most of the people most of the time repressed out of trumped up anxiety).
eventually DJT will rise from the ashes of his burnt effigies, especially when the weather cools and the rabid mob takes its kids skating at his gift to the city, wolman rink in central park...all talk of "facts" will fade as the bilgewater tide recedes and the realities of a divided debtor nation emerge.
though "inflamed" is, as ms roller says, the tone of our sad campaign, "rhetoric" is way too classy for the septic effluent that passes for debate in this arena (ok, not teddy roosevelt's "arena," rather a pit).
what's clear from her rehearsal of the trump- dump tropes is that the exercise has gone past its "use by" date and has become stale, "so over," as the kids say about justin and miley.
we've already begin the "pivot" (!) toward framing an H(R)C presidency we can survive, (the bared fangs of elizabeth warren making her the leading candidate for guard dog and wrangler in chief of the chief), now that tump is done in and we have to face all the character issues, (again, too gentle for the litany, sAnders swindle to bengaZi bungle, of bad faith and ineptitude that most of the people most of the time repressed out of trumped up anxiety).
eventually DJT will rise from the ashes of his burnt effigies, especially when the weather cools and the rabid mob takes its kids skating at his gift to the city, wolman rink in central park...all talk of "facts" will fade as the bilgewater tide recedes and the realities of a divided debtor nation emerge.
3
The takeaway in November will be on both sides, a sense of despair that change is so difficult to enact. The liberals saw Bernie steamroller by the Wasserman Schultz "machine" (and she to escape ALL punishment and put ASAP on Hillary's campaign team!)....and conservatives to see their hopes of change dashed if Trump does indeed lose.
And worst of all, the installation of a dictator and Empress in the form of Hillary The Anointed One. Even some of my liberal friends are troubled that she rose to power in such an obviously corrupt way, and with the collusion with Wall Street and "friends" of her "foundation".
And that there is seemingly no way to control the power of very wealthy Democratic Party, in its Sherman-like march of total destruction in the pursuit of a one party system.
And worst of all, the installation of a dictator and Empress in the form of Hillary The Anointed One. Even some of my liberal friends are troubled that she rose to power in such an obviously corrupt way, and with the collusion with Wall Street and "friends" of her "foundation".
And that there is seemingly no way to control the power of very wealthy Democratic Party, in its Sherman-like march of total destruction in the pursuit of a one party system.
When politicians and government continually lie to everyone, combined with the death of journalism do they really care about truth, facts and being an informed public? This is the most ignorant America has ever been. News flash, we stole this country Trump likes to call his through genocide and have now destroyed the planet with our ignorance. No one cares as americans have completely lost touch with reality and what really matters in life, blinded by a corrupt political, and banking system along with the death of journalism, the people of america have been trained like a dog to eat, drink and believe anything and above all hate each other.
30
Looks like Reaper has reached anger in his five stages. He (or she) has a way to go. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance frame our learning to live loss, and make progress towards life.
Yes we 'murricans have done a passel of harm, and humans have a bad tendency to let ourselves be taken over by people who like exploiting other people. It's a big bad ole mess.
But despair and apathy are forms of laziness. Time to get to work.
There is no other life. This is it.
Yes we 'murricans have done a passel of harm, and humans have a bad tendency to let ourselves be taken over by people who like exploiting other people. It's a big bad ole mess.
But despair and apathy are forms of laziness. Time to get to work.
There is no other life. This is it.
"we have now...destroyed the planet" Last time I looked out the window, it was still there. Astronauts agree.
Ms. Roller, thanks for taking on this frightening issue. It used to be a lie here or there, and now it's as if the entire country has created several fictional universes. Some people move between them, but most stay in their bubbles, consumed by falsehoods that somehow have become truth due to repetition.
Yes, that spread between Trump lies and Clinton lies during the debate was masterful. I followed along with my smart phone to get the latest verifications from the Times, because I love the way they read "true, partly true, mixed, or--simply, flat-out wrong."
Because of the proliferation of "media" outlets if you include "social 'media, which I don't follow except for joking poster type things, the average citizen is faced with a) learning how to fact check, or at least search for reputable sources; or b) accept at face value something that sounds plausible except for the fact it isn't. And yes, we seek to confirm our preconceptions by searching until we can find what we think is a reputable source.
Problem is, there's reputable and reputable now. Just as you quote Trump essentially presenting the truth about deportations but in such a tone as if to make it sound like a lie, or worse, a horrific action--even though it's what Trump himself is advocating.
Maybe everybody should stop searching for confirmation bias factoids, and study history. Because a culture based on lies and suppression of fact checks can easily turn into dictatorship.
Yes, that spread between Trump lies and Clinton lies during the debate was masterful. I followed along with my smart phone to get the latest verifications from the Times, because I love the way they read "true, partly true, mixed, or--simply, flat-out wrong."
Because of the proliferation of "media" outlets if you include "social 'media, which I don't follow except for joking poster type things, the average citizen is faced with a) learning how to fact check, or at least search for reputable sources; or b) accept at face value something that sounds plausible except for the fact it isn't. And yes, we seek to confirm our preconceptions by searching until we can find what we think is a reputable source.
Problem is, there's reputable and reputable now. Just as you quote Trump essentially presenting the truth about deportations but in such a tone as if to make it sound like a lie, or worse, a horrific action--even though it's what Trump himself is advocating.
Maybe everybody should stop searching for confirmation bias factoids, and study history. Because a culture based on lies and suppression of fact checks can easily turn into dictatorship.
5
You missed the point about Trump's comment -- and ON PURPOSE, Christine -- which is why simply saying "who is lying more" gets you nowhere.
Trump was saying that EVEN OBAMA has deported millions of people, so when Trump suggests deporting millions of people, why is TRUMP then called "a xenophobic racist"? Nobody called Obama a xenophobic racist for ENFORCING existing laws (*written in the Clinton Administration)!
Trump was pointing out the vicious, hypocritical double standard of lefty liberal politics.
Trump was saying that EVEN OBAMA has deported millions of people, so when Trump suggests deporting millions of people, why is TRUMP then called "a xenophobic racist"? Nobody called Obama a xenophobic racist for ENFORCING existing laws (*written in the Clinton Administration)!
Trump was pointing out the vicious, hypocritical double standard of lefty liberal politics.
@Concerned Citizen: you missed my point, which I was quoting from the article as follows:
"“President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported,” Mr. Trump said at the third and final debate.
This criticism was bizarre — after building his campaign on a southern border wall and a “deportation force” that would round up undocumented immigrants by the millions — but it was true all the same."
Concerned, Emma Roller was taking Trump's comments as a criticism of the President, not a "even though" statement. I suggest you read the article, and my comment very thoroughly before you go off on a tear to attack me.
"“President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They’ve been deported,” Mr. Trump said at the third and final debate.
This criticism was bizarre — after building his campaign on a southern border wall and a “deportation force” that would round up undocumented immigrants by the millions — but it was true all the same."
Concerned, Emma Roller was taking Trump's comments as a criticism of the President, not a "even though" statement. I suggest you read the article, and my comment very thoroughly before you go off on a tear to attack me.
1
Let's not forget that highly-paid campaign consultants and marketing experts parse and slash every comment a candidate makes into a statement they can play on TV, radio and social media, saying what the opponent wants it to say.
There have been blatant examples of this - the infamous Hillary laughing at the rape case one, as an example. When you see the full film clip, the laughing was completely appropriate; when you see the truncated version (perhaps I should say "Trump-cated???) it makes her look crass and insensitive.
Although I abhor Mr. Trump as a candidate, I believe that some of his statements and asides have been handled in the same deliberately biased way. Things that might be somewhat awkwardly worded but not automatically offensive, have been cut down, re-packaged, or blown up as incorrigible. On the other hand, he has said so many truly offensive things, live, that it is hard to remember the things for which I think he was unfairly treated.
I hate to think that the only way to proceed is to treat all media - TV, newspapers, internet sources, radio - as propaganda. The First Amendment right to a free press is an awesome freedom, one which, like most freedoms, carries with it an awesome responsibility. In this age of instant communication everyone, from Rush and Sean, to Anderson, to the editorial page of the NYT, must start taking their jobs more seriously, and treat reality as something more than a playground.
There have been blatant examples of this - the infamous Hillary laughing at the rape case one, as an example. When you see the full film clip, the laughing was completely appropriate; when you see the truncated version (perhaps I should say "Trump-cated???) it makes her look crass and insensitive.
Although I abhor Mr. Trump as a candidate, I believe that some of his statements and asides have been handled in the same deliberately biased way. Things that might be somewhat awkwardly worded but not automatically offensive, have been cut down, re-packaged, or blown up as incorrigible. On the other hand, he has said so many truly offensive things, live, that it is hard to remember the things for which I think he was unfairly treated.
I hate to think that the only way to proceed is to treat all media - TV, newspapers, internet sources, radio - as propaganda. The First Amendment right to a free press is an awesome freedom, one which, like most freedoms, carries with it an awesome responsibility. In this age of instant communication everyone, from Rush and Sean, to Anderson, to the editorial page of the NYT, must start taking their jobs more seriously, and treat reality as something more than a playground.
109
Well said. Thank you. Journalists must refuse to bow to the temptation to do easy and to pander to fear based reporting.
1
How about the Trump PROVABLY (via analysis from speech experts) said "big league" in speeches -- and the left turned that in to "bigly", and ridiculed him now for months for "saying stupid, ungrammatical stuff"?
This cuts both ways. It's ugly, but it is a reality of politics.
This cuts both ways. It's ugly, but it is a reality of politics.
Rush is not a journalist of any sort. He's a cynical entertainer who's made millions pandering to unhappy people.
2
There is a difference between "observed truth" and "revealed truth." Fact checkers live in the world of "observed truth," the sine qua non being science and the scientist. Many of the conservative base live in the world of the "revealed truth," the sina qua non being religion and the prophet. With the help of Reagan's evangelicals, the line between worldly "truths" and revealed spiritual "truths" has become blurred. It doesn't take wide strides to move from Billy Graham to Jerry Falwell to Rush Limbaugh, the latter having positioned themselves as and adopted the rhetoric of the "prophet." When worldly truths collide with revealed truths -- think evolution and the book of genesis -- because the latter is the revealed truth of God, revealed through his word, it just MUST be true and the worldly truth at best a simple illusion, at worst a lie cooked up to serve an "ungodly" purpose. It is there, in "revealing" the "ungodly purpose," that the "prophets" of talk radio excel. Although the left isn't immune to conspiratorial thinking, of course, it nevertheless shouldn't surprise us that the right is more "attuned" to it, more susceptible to "confirmation bias," and more likely to believe -- really believe! -- the word from its prophets. Although I suspect some of the prophets are simply cynical manipulators, we on the left should not dismiss the people who fall for it so lightly. Their naiveté has been patterned and manipulated by their sincere moral convictions.
178
A very astute observation. Thank you. Now, what do we do to bring rational thoughts and actions back to the republican table?
To Christopher: Exactly right! That is why I disagree with those well-meaning folks who declare that a person's religion shouldn't matter when they are running for office. It does matter! Deeply held religious beliefs do affect one's decisions, especially, as you say, when it is "their sincere moral convictions." That is why it was so imperative that President Kennedy addressed the nation and re-assured us his commitment was to America and not the Vatican.
1
Re: "... their sincere moral convictions."
Of course - those same 'conservatives' have abandoned their 'moral convictions' which led them to 'convict' Bill Clinton. One might have given them some credit for their religion-bias prior to this election cycle. Biblical arguments 'could' have been made about homosexuals and abortion - though both were a stretch. Now we can see what a sham their arguments have been with their support for Trump.
The delusional evangelicals have wrapped Trump in a cloak of goodness he does not recognize, nor would he agree to share. It's sickening to me that these religious people would ignore all of his faults - many of which are easily verified in videos - while at the same time believe H.R. Clinton has murdered dozens of people. All because enough people on the 'right,' who they consider to be on 'their' side have made such claims - and many others.
These 'Christians' clearly would vote for the vilest of people if 'their people' said they should.
Of course - those same 'conservatives' have abandoned their 'moral convictions' which led them to 'convict' Bill Clinton. One might have given them some credit for their religion-bias prior to this election cycle. Biblical arguments 'could' have been made about homosexuals and abortion - though both were a stretch. Now we can see what a sham their arguments have been with their support for Trump.
The delusional evangelicals have wrapped Trump in a cloak of goodness he does not recognize, nor would he agree to share. It's sickening to me that these religious people would ignore all of his faults - many of which are easily verified in videos - while at the same time believe H.R. Clinton has murdered dozens of people. All because enough people on the 'right,' who they consider to be on 'their' side have made such claims - and many others.
These 'Christians' clearly would vote for the vilest of people if 'their people' said they should.
The reality is that truth is complicated. For years, conservatives took kernels of truth and made them into lies. Karl Rove reportedly said that Republicans create their own reality. Today, there is nothing to restrain a public figure from telling outright lies.
The news media find it hard to deal with complexity. They are under-resourced and have to try to entertain as well as inform. It's hard to distinguish between reporters and pundits, so pure opinion seeps into the straight news stories.
Wikileaks is just one outlet that exploits the press. Reporters feel they have to browse those stolen emails to find something that may be newsworthy. After making the effort, reporters seem to feel that they must report something. The partisans described in this piece find that pretty easy, but even people who aspire to be serious journalists fall into the trap.
If we see that alt-right universe for what it is, sensational distortions and outright lies, maybe we can find some way to counteract it. I think the Republican establishment will have to take the lead, but they seem crippled by the need for the right-wing voters, the Trump supporters, in order to win elections.
The news media find it hard to deal with complexity. They are under-resourced and have to try to entertain as well as inform. It's hard to distinguish between reporters and pundits, so pure opinion seeps into the straight news stories.
Wikileaks is just one outlet that exploits the press. Reporters feel they have to browse those stolen emails to find something that may be newsworthy. After making the effort, reporters seem to feel that they must report something. The partisans described in this piece find that pretty easy, but even people who aspire to be serious journalists fall into the trap.
If we see that alt-right universe for what it is, sensational distortions and outright lies, maybe we can find some way to counteract it. I think the Republican establishment will have to take the lead, but they seem crippled by the need for the right-wing voters, the Trump supporters, in order to win elections.
122
There is nothing complicated about truth. It may be hard to determine at times but it is not complicated.
3
The reality is that truth is not complicated. The problem is that when lies are not corrected and when lies are repeated over and over, many people begin to think they are true. That is the way Republicans have created large crowds of followers who never get to hear the truth.
1
It's at least encouraging to see that the Trumpkins have discredited the postmodernists. The political left, in contrast to the literary left, is remorselessly empiricist. After all, facts have a liberal bias.
"The best way to attract and grow an audience for political content on the world’s biggest social network is to eschew factual reporting and instead play to partisan biases using false or misleading information that simply tells people what they want to hear.”
I'm sorry NY Times, but I can't hear you over all this irony...
I'm sorry NY Times, but I can't hear you over all this irony...
12
If you do not hear what they are saying, you are not listening. Or as this article says, you do not want to listen.
1
Well, Squerulous, have you any data at all to back up your insinuation?
The only way we can get out of this mess is if we, the adults (I assume you're an adult) must shoulder the burden of truth whether the truth is pleasant or unpleasant and then we must be true to it. That means automatically disavowing whatever you hear or read until more data emerges, and that from different sources. For starters, you can read English or French newspapers and even Al Jazeera (spelling?) if you can find it any more. Then you must weigh all the disparate stuff, try to smell out nonsense, check for balance--and possibly all that work will take you nowhere in which case you must throw up you hands and REFUSE TO TAKE ANY POSITION AT ALL. If you do that you are becoming the desperately needed brakes on this crazy careening situation. You do agree that brakes are essential, don't you?
"And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies class by night."
--Matthew Arnold
The only way we can get out of this mess is if we, the adults (I assume you're an adult) must shoulder the burden of truth whether the truth is pleasant or unpleasant and then we must be true to it. That means automatically disavowing whatever you hear or read until more data emerges, and that from different sources. For starters, you can read English or French newspapers and even Al Jazeera (spelling?) if you can find it any more. Then you must weigh all the disparate stuff, try to smell out nonsense, check for balance--and possibly all that work will take you nowhere in which case you must throw up you hands and REFUSE TO TAKE ANY POSITION AT ALL. If you do that you are becoming the desperately needed brakes on this crazy careening situation. You do agree that brakes are essential, don't you?
"And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies class by night."
--Matthew Arnold
2
This hyper-factual chaos is the insidious side of instantaneous communications. I sometimes long for days when events evolved more slowly and life was more suspenseful, with telegrams, expensive long-distance phone calls and telex............
15
@Squerulous
Typo: "Where ignorant armies clash by night" not class by night.
Typo: "Where ignorant armies clash by night" not class by night.
I suspect facts have the same impact on people's belief that they always have had, but now the flow of communication is so much higher that people can transmit their perceived truths much more easily. People who believed in falsehoods used to have to communicate their misconceptions personally because there wasn't sufficient bandwidth in the media for each person to communicate falsehoods to large groups of people. Historically such falsehoods would still be communicated, but only by word of mouth. We now have sufficient bandwidth for each and every wacky idea out there to be available to anyone who wants to read it. We also are able to know - again because of increased bandwidth - just how many people think wacky thoughts. This raises the stakes on information verification enormously.
What we have seen during this last election cycle is that the main stream media is also willing to let falsehoods go unchallenged in order to sell advertising. To me this is the frightening reality. Wacky ideas go unchallenged - or are at least only weakly challenged - as long as there is traffic on the website.
There is some reason for optimism though. Once the republicans chose Trump, the media started to more earnestly check his statements - albeit somewhat reservedly. However, I for one am not very solaced by a system that enables a character like Trump to be the candidate for a major party - he's just a little too close to the presidency for comfort.
What we have seen during this last election cycle is that the main stream media is also willing to let falsehoods go unchallenged in order to sell advertising. To me this is the frightening reality. Wacky ideas go unchallenged - or are at least only weakly challenged - as long as there is traffic on the website.
There is some reason for optimism though. Once the republicans chose Trump, the media started to more earnestly check his statements - albeit somewhat reservedly. However, I for one am not very solaced by a system that enables a character like Trump to be the candidate for a major party - he's just a little too close to the presidency for comfort.
20
Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus "What is truth?" It is a good question. If a PAC runs an ad with a recording of an opposition candidate speaking, it is broadcasting "truth." The candidate said that. However, if what is aired is only a couple of sentences which, out of context, give a false impression (the desired result) is it the truth? Is it simply not the WHOLE truth?
GOP PACs run an ad in which Hillary says, "We're going to put lots of coal miners out of work." The ad is crafted to portray her as wickedly enjoying that idea - hee, hee, hee. Yet, the full statement she made was a beautiful piece. She expressed concern for these miners, talked at length about the need to help them adjust to the changing energy world & even expressed gratitude for the sacrifices that they and their ancestors had made to provide light & heat for the rest of us... far different from the right-wing insinuation. Yet, their ad airs the "truth" of what she said... just not all of it.
WGN-TV yesterday led into a story with a statement that another troubling connection had come up for Hillary. Then they told how a group run by an ally of hers, the gov of Virginia, had given money to the wife of an FBI Ass't director who was running for office in VA (Dems doing what is both legal and politically reasonable). The connection is tenuous, if at all existent, to Clinton, i.e., a friend in the same party raising money for another Dem... yet that lead-in couched it as something sinister...
GOP PACs run an ad in which Hillary says, "We're going to put lots of coal miners out of work." The ad is crafted to portray her as wickedly enjoying that idea - hee, hee, hee. Yet, the full statement she made was a beautiful piece. She expressed concern for these miners, talked at length about the need to help them adjust to the changing energy world & even expressed gratitude for the sacrifices that they and their ancestors had made to provide light & heat for the rest of us... far different from the right-wing insinuation. Yet, their ad airs the "truth" of what she said... just not all of it.
WGN-TV yesterday led into a story with a statement that another troubling connection had come up for Hillary. Then they told how a group run by an ally of hers, the gov of Virginia, had given money to the wife of an FBI Ass't director who was running for office in VA (Dems doing what is both legal and politically reasonable). The connection is tenuous, if at all existent, to Clinton, i.e., a friend in the same party raising money for another Dem... yet that lead-in couched it as something sinister...
94
Same with the famous Al Gore myths of Love Canal and Inventing the Internet. In fact, about the Love Canal speech, a group of students at the local high school where that speech was made brought this up with the New York Times writer that reported the out-of-context quote. She wasn't interested in what was really said - the piece had been written, she said.
And so a myth was not only born but nurtured...
And so a myth was not only born but nurtured...
It's been a scramble for the republicans to find scandal to try to "balance" the consistent life long scandals, still on going, with Donald.
As Jack Nicholson put it, "The truth? The truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"
People much prefer to live in the certainty of their own beliefs, no matter how misguided, than to be upset by contrary information.
People much prefer to live in the certainty of their own beliefs, no matter how misguided, than to be upset by contrary information.
17
You misquoted the movie. Check the clip on Youtube -- search for "you can't handle the truth".
For the record, the movie is "A Few Good Men" (1992).
For the record, the movie is "A Few Good Men" (1992).
Hillary is a slick liar, Trump is a dumb one. Part of the difference is that she has has aspects of herself that she's felt obliged to hide for years while Trump let's it all hang out on the premise that he can bulldoze his way to what he wants by the mere pressure of his money.
Truth is not in them and that's the level to which all American politics has sunk. It also is why so many people followed Sanders; he seemed to be telling the truths.
Jill Stein still is.
Truth is not in them and that's the level to which all American politics has sunk. It also is why so many people followed Sanders; he seemed to be telling the truths.
Jill Stein still is.
7
The truth that Jill Stein and her supporters should be telling is quite simple - she has zero chance of winning. Neither does Mr Johnson. Unless they say that, they are also lying.
Only Trump or Clinton will be our President. If you want to change that, you have to work between elections to create a viable third party. In this election you have to take a grown-up pill and vote between the possibles. Clinton IS a politician, with all the good and bad that means. I don't know what Trump is - mostly, as far as I can see is that he is an embarrassment - if you have a chance to speak with people in other lands - (I have with folks in Canada and Italy) you wil, see what I mean. He's also a pig - there are years of his appearances on the Howard Stern program that prove that. Also years of his adamant birtherism. His wife and daughter claim to 'know' another Donald Trump. Good for them, the only the Donald Trump the rest of us know (very well) is a self-serving 'pig'. Not fit to be President.
Only Trump or Clinton will be our President. If you want to change that, you have to work between elections to create a viable third party. In this election you have to take a grown-up pill and vote between the possibles. Clinton IS a politician, with all the good and bad that means. I don't know what Trump is - mostly, as far as I can see is that he is an embarrassment - if you have a chance to speak with people in other lands - (I have with folks in Canada and Italy) you wil, see what I mean. He's also a pig - there are years of his appearances on the Howard Stern program that prove that. Also years of his adamant birtherism. His wife and daughter claim to 'know' another Donald Trump. Good for them, the only the Donald Trump the rest of us know (very well) is a self-serving 'pig'. Not fit to be President.
1
Do you have any data to back up your assertions or are you just practicing truthiness? We're in trouble here, where ignorant armies clash by night, and can't carry any more self-indulgence masquerading as truthful incite.
Excuse me but there is a lot of information that Trump has hidden including his tax returns. But the dumb part I agree with.
Before we all canonize Charlie Sykes as the next Saint Augustine, "too late have I loved thee," character, we might want to read Dan Murphy's article about Mr. Sykes's conversion. http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2016/09/06/murphys-law-the-new-charlie-sykes/
I think it is less likely that Mr. Sykes will be doing penance for his sins over the next few years, and more likely that he will be seeking new opportunities on a larger stage. Did you know he has a book coming out?
I think it is less likely that Mr. Sykes will be doing penance for his sins over the next few years, and more likely that he will be seeking new opportunities on a larger stage. Did you know he has a book coming out?
8
Trump voters are not interested in the truth, and they are not stupid. THEY HATE YOU. It really is that simple.
Because they hate you, like children, what you say they instinctively say the opposite.
I know good people don't like to believe someone could hate them. Trust me--they do. Stop overcomplicating this.
Because they hate you, like children, what you say they instinctively say the opposite.
I know good people don't like to believe someone could hate them. Trust me--they do. Stop overcomplicating this.
89
Do you know any Trump supporters? I'm not one, but I know several. They're not stupid, nor are they hate-filled. I know two of them very well. One is a small business owner feeling the pressure of over-regulation. The other is a professional and graduate degree holder who feels crushed by his $800/month medical premium. They are certainly angry and frustrated, but not hate-filled. You should go meet some Trump supporters, you might find it peaceful to let go of your own hatred, ignorance, and prejudice.
4
My neighbor's dad supporte Donald Trump. And she says it's becasuse he's a racist. Donald Trump has made a safe place for the racists, bigots and anti-Semites.
2
Hmmmm. That hate IS stupid in my opinion.
1
In a country where people desire to only live with like minded people, where the comfort zone extends about 1 mm beyond their sphere, where reading rather than ranting is friend upon, what do we expect?
I eschew Facebook, and Donnie boy will never see me on his Twitter feed.
I use my time you think rationally. And I fir one, am happiest when not in the public shout fest.
I eschew Facebook, and Donnie boy will never see me on his Twitter feed.
I use my time you think rationally. And I fir one, am happiest when not in the public shout fest.
8
The Trump followers will believe in any lie whatsoeverif they think it might possibly be used to justify their hatred, fear and prejudice.
12
It is bizarre to categorize people who reject vaccines as "left." There is nothing at all left-wing about denying the scientific basis and public health benefits of vaccines; it's simply rigid, ignorant and anti-social. "Left," IMHO, means being concerned with issues like social justice, expanding democracy, and empowering the currently disempowered. Denying vaccines hardly meets that definition.
So they interviewed a woman "who segued from talking about climate change … to chemtrails and the Illuminati." How is that evidence that she's "left"? Nor is her attendance at a Bernie rally evidence that she's left. Many people who supported Bernie are now Trump supporters; they're just looking for an alternative to standard, beige politics. I'd love to see an article about such people (did I miss one?).
So they interviewed a woman "who segued from talking about climate change … to chemtrails and the Illuminati." How is that evidence that she's "left"? Nor is her attendance at a Bernie rally evidence that she's left. Many people who supported Bernie are now Trump supporters; they're just looking for an alternative to standard, beige politics. I'd love to see an article about such people (did I miss one?).
21
i agree with your first paragraph wholeheartedly. but your suggestion that "many" people who supported Bernie Sanders are now supporting Trump is so off base, to the point of absurdity. I supported Bernie as did many of my friends. Not one can even stand the thought of Trump. Any Bernie supporters who did throw their support to Trump (if such a monster actually even exists) never understood what Bernie stands for, in the first place.
1
Mugs- several regular commenters in these NY Times opinion columns have gone from being rabid supporters of Bernie to rabid supporters of Trump. They may not be a large amount but they are definitely out there.
Long ago and metaphorically in a galaxy far away, D. P. Moynihan, a US senator from New York reputedly said "Everyone, is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." The statement seemed banal at the time. But we've collectively taken it up as a challenge.
Now, in many political and social circles, the opposite has become true: We are all entitled to our own facts, but not to our own opinions.
We have people taken seriously by large audiences claiming that fact-checking is a form of opinion journalism. We have all kinds of media outlets, not just newspapers sold on the street, engaging in the modern equivalent of screaming headlines. They're called clickbait now.
We have the technology of collaborative filtering. It's a scheme for guessing what I might like based on what my friends like. Of course, this technology has redefined the meanings of the words "friend" and "like."
And we have this newspaper loosening its style guide to permit journalists, not just columnists, to say "thus-and-such a person lied yesterday." But that's about as effective as King Knute ordering the tide to turn.
One small ray of hope. The inventors of the 140-character news story -- Twitter -- find themselves unable to find anybody to pay them a fortune for their company.
It is time for honest news outlets to change their style guides to require multiple sourcing of information found on social media. Let me make that more succinct.
Tweets are not news.
Now, in many political and social circles, the opposite has become true: We are all entitled to our own facts, but not to our own opinions.
We have people taken seriously by large audiences claiming that fact-checking is a form of opinion journalism. We have all kinds of media outlets, not just newspapers sold on the street, engaging in the modern equivalent of screaming headlines. They're called clickbait now.
We have the technology of collaborative filtering. It's a scheme for guessing what I might like based on what my friends like. Of course, this technology has redefined the meanings of the words "friend" and "like."
And we have this newspaper loosening its style guide to permit journalists, not just columnists, to say "thus-and-such a person lied yesterday." But that's about as effective as King Knute ordering the tide to turn.
One small ray of hope. The inventors of the 140-character news story -- Twitter -- find themselves unable to find anybody to pay them a fortune for their company.
It is time for honest news outlets to change their style guides to require multiple sourcing of information found on social media. Let me make that more succinct.
Tweets are not news.
378
Of course, Moynihan took flak from his own party members for some of his own rational positions. We didn't appreciate him until he was gone . . .
Even the NY Times references Twitter feeds because they believe this is what is necessary to attract new readers. They also have - at least online - changed from traditional paragraph construction to bullet presentation - the bullets may not be set off as such, but you see a lot of single sentences.( and 'paragraphs' beginning with but or and) I think this reflects an audience which no longer thinks ( or is capable of thinking) in logic steps: it's ore like bang-bang -bang - - each tweet or sentence (no compound sentences, please) a single fragment of thought. So while the bias towards believing what you already believe is inherent, the media is simplifying to meet the demand of a less literate population.
Even the NY Times references Twitter feeds because they believe this is what is necessary to attract new readers. They also have - at least online - changed from traditional paragraph construction to bullet presentation - the bullets may not be set off as such, but you see a lot of single sentences.( and 'paragraphs' beginning with but or and) I think this reflects an audience which no longer thinks ( or is capable of thinking) in logic steps: it's ore like bang-bang -bang - - each tweet or sentence (no compound sentences, please) a single fragment of thought. So while the bias towards believing what you already believe is inherent, the media is simplifying to meet the demand of a less literate population.
1
I loved Dan Moynihan. I didn't always agree with him, but anyone who could quote large sections of Kipling in response to a reporter's question is OK by me!
And the quotation was relevant to the question!
And the quotation was relevant to the question!
1
The source of that quote was Senator Daniel P. Moynihan. But I could be wrong, and if I am wrong, I will accept correction...
The fragmentation of the media is a major source of confirmation bias. I have a number of friends both left and right who only believe the source that confirms their opinions. The second problem is the failure of media in general to do its job objectively. The third problem is the apparent ignorance of the public. They prefer opinion over facts, belief over facts and don't believe facts if it conflicts with their opinion. The fourth problem is the half truth. I have seen more half truths posted as the full story in this election season than any other.
17
It is possible that "fragmentation of the media", and the subsequent effects it has on the ability of ordinary people to avail themselves of information in order to formulate an informed decision, is deliberate. Or at the very least a happy coincidence for those wishing to change the social order.
1
Most are too insular to look at any other source of information and further, rarely look even at the data and links that make up the source material for an article.
When the conservatives tell us the media is full of lies, they tell us this through their own media sources such as Fox News and Breitbart.com.
If media is biased and we learn this from media sources, why should we accept this view as itself truthful?
Soon someone will tell us the law of gravity has been repealed. And some of us will believe it. If there is no truth, there is no anchor and we will all be listening to the voices in our heads.
If media is biased and we learn this from media sources, why should we accept this view as itself truthful?
Soon someone will tell us the law of gravity has been repealed. And some of us will believe it. If there is no truth, there is no anchor and we will all be listening to the voices in our heads.
11
I have a few questions…
So why do people only listen to what they already believe? Is there no trusted authority out there who can logically and simply explain—in less than four minutes; our current attention span—the truly complex issues of our time?
How much time should we, as want-to-be-informed citizens set aside each day to fact-check what news we read or hear?
How do we make sense out of a world where one inconsistent truth topples our entire belief structure?
Do we have time, energy, or the will in our hectic lives to reconstruct it?
And if we do, what new foundation do we build it on?
I could use some answers.
So why do people only listen to what they already believe? Is there no trusted authority out there who can logically and simply explain—in less than four minutes; our current attention span—the truly complex issues of our time?
How much time should we, as want-to-be-informed citizens set aside each day to fact-check what news we read or hear?
How do we make sense out of a world where one inconsistent truth topples our entire belief structure?
Do we have time, energy, or the will in our hectic lives to reconstruct it?
And if we do, what new foundation do we build it on?
I could use some answers.
5
Cwc ~ Why? Cognitive dissonance is at play ~ "I can't be wrong, I'm a smart (guy, gal)." Fact check? No, because that would disagree with what a person knows they know, creating dissonance. How is sense found when fear permeates the forward movement? Well, we begin with modeling and teaching critical thinking skills at very, very young ages, the antithesis of the authoritarian model where comfort and safety are found in compliance. The younger generations understand this and will change up things again, but that takes time. Meanwhile, e-mails and websites like "Ihavethetruth," "supremepatriot," "Libertywriters," and "Donaldtrumpnews" calm the dissonance with e-mails, altered photos, abject lies, and lots of good psychology aimed at keeping the faithful well fed.
1
One answer is that people don't want to deal with complexity. If you get your news from Twitter or some other social medium, you can live in an echo chamber where you will never be confronted with any inconvenient facts, or indeed any facts at all. If you only talk with like-minded people, your perceptions will never be challenged. Yes, it's lazy and destructive of democracy, but there are major industries out there to reinforce your mistaken beliefs.
Responsible and professional, a gentleman who grew up in dire poverty and started supporting his family when he was 19, in the field of building construction, now having reached 80, this man with little school education is still working because it is not in his way to retire. This American has taken me under his charge and worries about his Country.
His wife, a contemporary of mine in age, holds an honorable position in finance. He is a Republican and watches Glenn Beck on T.V. Yesterday, he was 'with 'the Trump Rally' on the scream.
It is not about the stuff about women, he tells me, but those emails of Hillary Clinton. I know that he would have voted for Cruz and that he does not recognize Trump as a Republican.
His facts or mine? We have a tacit understanding that either way, we are voting for our Country and future Generation. The truth for this supporter of Hillary Clinton is that we cannot afford a Trump Presidency and gamble on the basis that Trump's America is going to save us.
I want a strong, experienced and measured leader who knows the ways of the world on all fronts and Hillary Clinton is more than fit for the highest position in America. She is up-to-date on her facts and figures, not living in a tower somewhere. If there are radical bulldogs among some Americans who will not relinquish the habit of paper-shredding, then we are going to have a show-down and it could be costly.
Thanking the NYTimes for taking a stand.
His wife, a contemporary of mine in age, holds an honorable position in finance. He is a Republican and watches Glenn Beck on T.V. Yesterday, he was 'with 'the Trump Rally' on the scream.
It is not about the stuff about women, he tells me, but those emails of Hillary Clinton. I know that he would have voted for Cruz and that he does not recognize Trump as a Republican.
His facts or mine? We have a tacit understanding that either way, we are voting for our Country and future Generation. The truth for this supporter of Hillary Clinton is that we cannot afford a Trump Presidency and gamble on the basis that Trump's America is going to save us.
I want a strong, experienced and measured leader who knows the ways of the world on all fronts and Hillary Clinton is more than fit for the highest position in America. She is up-to-date on her facts and figures, not living in a tower somewhere. If there are radical bulldogs among some Americans who will not relinquish the habit of paper-shredding, then we are going to have a show-down and it could be costly.
Thanking the NYTimes for taking a stand.
13
One fact I'm certain of is that there is a real difference between Democrats and Republicans. I'm a proud, informed Democrat.
23
The MSM are now trying to tell part of the awful truth about how bad Trump is, but so many people will no longer listen. This is because, as every Sanders supporter well knows, the MSM distort the news in favor of the candidate they favor.
The lying used to be more subtle, but anyone can see how bad it has become. And more knowledgeable people know that ti has gone on for many years. No matter the merits of a person or a position, a MSM article will often subtly sneer at both sides of any controversy, sometimes under the mask of balanced reporting. Often the only "good" thing in the article is how clever and "fair" the writers (really the editors) are to the topic.
If the real facts are to be honored about anything, the owners of the MSM must start by expressing regret of how much they have used public discourse to falsely build themselves up and profit at the expense of everyone else.
If Trump gets elected, the MSM are most to blame.
The lying used to be more subtle, but anyone can see how bad it has become. And more knowledgeable people know that ti has gone on for many years. No matter the merits of a person or a position, a MSM article will often subtly sneer at both sides of any controversy, sometimes under the mask of balanced reporting. Often the only "good" thing in the article is how clever and "fair" the writers (really the editors) are to the topic.
If the real facts are to be honored about anything, the owners of the MSM must start by expressing regret of how much they have used public discourse to falsely build themselves up and profit at the expense of everyone else.
If Trump gets elected, the MSM are most to blame.
4
One thing the MSM has been doing from the beginning is to show you Donald Trump in all his glorious ranting, mocking and insulting of just about everyone. His self centered narcissism and lack of experience, knowledgeable and decency on display for more than a year. His unqualification has been a no brainer. Their fault is in not giving more coverage to other candidates but they are not responsible for the voters who believe the lies of, and are amused by, the insulting and crazy rhetoric of the Donald. I have faith that there are more moderates of both parties who will not abide a Trump presidency.
Moreover, it should concern us all that Don the Con is trying to transmute his acclaimed business ' success ' into the political arena - how is it that this guy is some sort of biz legend in the first place ?
Why is he in any sort of position to gain media attention and expound on his own wonderfulness, with his track record of failed marriages, infidelities, bankruptcies, cheating small business people/suppliers, and at least 3500 lawsuits:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-...
on top of the partial 1995 tax returns showing the apparent $915 million$ in net operating losses for a single year ?
Why has this person ever been held up as someone to emulate in any profession, much less as a business icon ?
Too bad we can't force a time-out on the media so it can examine itself.
Why is he in any sort of position to gain media attention and expound on his own wonderfulness, with his track record of failed marriages, infidelities, bankruptcies, cheating small business people/suppliers, and at least 3500 lawsuits:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-...
on top of the partial 1995 tax returns showing the apparent $915 million$ in net operating losses for a single year ?
Why has this person ever been held up as someone to emulate in any profession, much less as a business icon ?
Too bad we can't force a time-out on the media so it can examine itself.
66
Trump reaches into the psyche of every racist/sexist/homophobe in this country and says exactly what they think. When I drive through rural areas of the Mid Atlantic I see Trump signs in yards along with Hang Hillary and Confederate flags. The media continues to say the Trump supporters are the "left behind white blue collar men" but really these man and some women are the same folks who have always been racists, KKK, NRA, Confederates. And they have been marginalized in an increasingly liberal world. They have been left behind because of their hatred, now they have found a voice, they can speak, yell and be heard without shame with Trump. Frightening!
1
People are not interested in facts as they manipulate what they hear into what they believe in. For example: Hillary Clinton claims she will only tax those earning over $250,000 per year. Yet with all of the social programs she would like to implement, there are not enough people in the U.S. earning $250,000 per year. You can figure it out.
2
Please do some reading up on that. She has never said she wouldn't tax those earning less than 250k (that would, as you've said not add up). She has, however, said she would not raise taxes for those earning less than 250k.
16
Janis -- she didn't say "she will only tax those earning over $250,000 per year."
She said she would only RAISE TAXES on those earning ... etc.
And yes, there are enough filers with incomes over $250,000, it does work out.
She said she would only RAISE TAXES on those earning ... etc.
And yes, there are enough filers with incomes over $250,000, it does work out.
23
But there have been fact checks on this, and independent analyses that show the impact of her proposals on the debt. I might be wrong, but I am not aware that any of Clinton's statements contradict these studies. Her proposed programs will add $200 B to the debt---and more importantly, they would not slow the projected growth of the existing debt (Compared to Trump's proposals, which would add trillions.) I don't think Clinton claims that tax increases alone will make S.S. solvent...just that they will help. Her proposed spending increases are largely self financed.
The point is, that overall, Clinton's claims are supported by the numbers.
The point is, that overall, Clinton's claims are supported by the numbers.
3
"Fact-free thinking isn’t just for the right. The anti-vaccine movement is a perfect example of far-right paranoia wrapping around to the far-left fringe."
Yet again; striving for balance when there is none. The leaders of the Republican party spout extremist nonsense on a daily basis. Comparing this travesty to the goofy rant of some random Democrat is no comparison at all.
Yet again; striving for balance when there is none. The leaders of the Republican party spout extremist nonsense on a daily basis. Comparing this travesty to the goofy rant of some random Democrat is no comparison at all.
361
I disagree. In this context, it's important to note that there isn't anything inherent in a person's party affiliation that would lead them to fact-free thinking. People across the political spectrum are susceptible. (The fact that one presidential candidate seems disinterested in facts regularly is not a statement about a political philosophy.) To my mind, we are all especially susceptible when we surround ourselves only with like-minded people and read or listen to like-minded media. We get lazy.
2
Yes and the anti-vaxxers I know are all right wing types
But there is a connection. The connection is their feeling of betrayal and the condecention of elites. With anti vaxxers, what you have is a lot of women who are sick of being talked down to by (male) doctors that have been wrong about so so SO many things.
And they arent totally wrong about vaccins, really. There IS INDIVIDUAL RISK. The thing is, that individual risk is more than offset by the benefit we all (including the indiciduals) derive from herd protection. So once again, instead of sayyng it straight, doctors and elites lie; assuming that non-elites will do as told without question.
This is similar to trade and immigration: yes on acerage, the country benefits. But average is not median--the median benifit is almost nothing. All of the benefit goes to the poor and the extremely rich. The middle and working class DO NOT benefit.
And they arent totally wrong about vaccins, really. There IS INDIVIDUAL RISK. The thing is, that individual risk is more than offset by the benefit we all (including the indiciduals) derive from herd protection. So once again, instead of sayyng it straight, doctors and elites lie; assuming that non-elites will do as told without question.
This is similar to trade and immigration: yes on acerage, the country benefits. But average is not median--the median benifit is almost nothing. All of the benefit goes to the poor and the extremely rich. The middle and working class DO NOT benefit.
This unfortunately is a two way street. It's not just right wingers. Both ends of the political spectrum have their own views of the "correct" facts. With its recent changes in news reporting standards, the Times has joined this movement by taking a shifting, fluid view of "facts." Our political discourse has become ever more toxic as it degenerates to my facts are right, your facts are wrong, therefore you're evil and delusional. Heaven help us all.
8
Sadly, the final two paragraphs most demonstrate this problem does go both ways (albeit not to equal degrees).
When Trump made the accurate claim that President Obama had deported millions of immigrants (perhaps his only truthful statement of the evening), I was shouting at the screen for Clinton to say, "yes Donald, so you admit your earlier statement and all your previous ones about the President being weak on immigration is ridiculous. You have exposed your own lies."
But she said nothing. Trump said it a second time, and Clinton still let it go. As the author points out, even liberals do not want their beliefs tarnished with facts that would upset them.
The level of dishonesty is not even close. But it does still exist.
When Trump made the accurate claim that President Obama had deported millions of immigrants (perhaps his only truthful statement of the evening), I was shouting at the screen for Clinton to say, "yes Donald, so you admit your earlier statement and all your previous ones about the President being weak on immigration is ridiculous. You have exposed your own lies."
But she said nothing. Trump said it a second time, and Clinton still let it go. As the author points out, even liberals do not want their beliefs tarnished with facts that would upset them.
The level of dishonesty is not even close. But it does still exist.
19
Why is it dishonest if Clinton chose to say something other than what you wanted to hear?
1
I do not judge or begrudge the NYT for devoting so much ink on Trump over the last year. He has been the one driving the conversation in his party. He has been the one absolutely in need of being examined since the Republican base became so enamored with him. And the majority of the Times reporting has been dedicated to calling him out on his atrocious and sinister words and behaviors.
Yes, I wish they had been more forthright in their condemnations sooner. I have been suggesting in comments for a long time that narcissism is way too understated a label for him by many of your great writers. I have been referring to him being evil for quite some time. Still, they have turned up the heat as Trump has evermore proven himself to be lost in destructive delusion. The Times has provided a great service to America and the world.
Yes, I wish they had been more forthright in their condemnations sooner. I have been suggesting in comments for a long time that narcissism is way too understated a label for him by many of your great writers. I have been referring to him being evil for quite some time. Still, they have turned up the heat as Trump has evermore proven himself to be lost in destructive delusion. The Times has provided a great service to America and the world.
24
Have you ever tried to talk a loved one into leaving a relationship? Facts will get you nowhere.
Mr. Trump fills a deep-seated emotional need in his supporters. I don't understand it. I don't agree with it. But I believe that there's nothing I can say or do that will change their minds.
I ardently hope that one day Mr. Trump's supporters will see him as the fraud that I believe him to be. But in the meantime, all I can do is vote for Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Trump fills a deep-seated emotional need in his supporters. I don't understand it. I don't agree with it. But I believe that there's nothing I can say or do that will change their minds.
I ardently hope that one day Mr. Trump's supporters will see him as the fraud that I believe him to be. But in the meantime, all I can do is vote for Mrs. Clinton.
220
We don't know what the distribution of Trump supporters is, wrt various facts and realities. We may start to find out after his defeat, as the GOP becomes ... whatever it becomes.
In my mind the big question is how many of Trump's supporters are "dumb white guys on top" revanchists/"nativists"? How many see Trump's bad-boy behavior as something they want too? Those are the real "deplorables" -- no party advocating democratic rule can have them.
The truth of it is that perhaps as much as 50% of the GOP base appears to deny the basic premises of our constitution: majority rule, equal rights (and opportunities) for all, protections of a bill of rights. But we'll see what happens after Trump loses.
In my mind the big question is how many of Trump's supporters are "dumb white guys on top" revanchists/"nativists"? How many see Trump's bad-boy behavior as something they want too? Those are the real "deplorables" -- no party advocating democratic rule can have them.
The truth of it is that perhaps as much as 50% of the GOP base appears to deny the basic premises of our constitution: majority rule, equal rights (and opportunities) for all, protections of a bill of rights. But we'll see what happens after Trump loses.
2
What is sad, is that Trump's followers are being conned by him and don't even know it.
As someone who recently left an abusive relationship, I couldn't agree more with this analogy.
DJT employs all the manipulative tactics of a bully. From Wikipedia, "Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity. Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim."
Indeed, the voters are being manipulated by a sociopath who exploits their deep-seated emotional needs. Facts get in the way of an agenda that relies on emotion rather than truth.
DJT employs all the manipulative tactics of a bully. From Wikipedia, "Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity. Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim."
Indeed, the voters are being manipulated by a sociopath who exploits their deep-seated emotional needs. Facts get in the way of an agenda that relies on emotion rather than truth.
1
Sadly our perspectives can drive what we want to believe. Snopes is aggressively non-partisan, thank goodness, but many, usually on the right, despise it when it disproves a favored belief. Politi-fact, founded by friends of Hilllary and funded by Soros, is another matter. They often get it right but too often their political preference gets in the way. Even fact checkers can be swayed by their politics.
330 million people in the land, and Trump, Clinton , Johnson or Stein are the best we can come up with?
330 million people in the land, and Trump, Clinton , Johnson or Stein are the best we can come up with?
5
You continue the bias in your statement.
Emma: isn't this another aspect of the human condition? It isn't uniquely American. Hitler conned Germans with stories about Jews, stories they were content to believe. Many Irish still think the English are the spawn of the devil, and that the descendants of the "other side" in the Irish Civil War are worse. English (and Welsh)(as opposed to Northern Irish and Scots) voted for Brexit because of the hordes of immigrants who are taking their jobs.
Ignorance was always a comfortable, if flea-ridden, blanket. But we might ask about humans if we've always been radioactive but are now reaching critical mass in the Western reactor.
Ignorance was always a comfortable, if flea-ridden, blanket. But we might ask about humans if we've always been radioactive but are now reaching critical mass in the Western reactor.
11
The writer is really struggling to decide if "confirmation bias" is a truly bipartisan issue or whether it is mostly an issue on the political right. You can see how the pressure for "fair and balanced" reporting (and even opinionating) leads to the "both sides do it" assertion when the evidence suggests that even if the left also does it the impact from the left is much less (e.g. "no Democratic office holder is holding hearings about chemtrails"; and the anti-vaccine movement is NOT widely popular on the left). The bottom line is that, while there's plenty of misinformation coming from the left, misinformation and outright lying is a deliberate strategy on the right. It's also more effective on the right in the sense that more conservatives are inclined to accept claims that are clearly untrue (and clearly politically motivated: e.g. President Obama is a Muslim). I'll be curious to see whether Fox News evolves towards a more traditional (if right-leaning) news source in the wake of Trumpian truthiness-on-steroids. At some point you'd think the Chris Wallace's of the world would get disgusted with their complicity in the destruction of a key democratic institution.
61
And the right needs to be held to account for their lying. Its downright traitorous.
You are quite wrong about anti-vaxing. The very liberal, educated Jill Stein is a dedicated anti-vaxer.
I've been buttonholed at parties, by suburban soccer moms (all with college educations! and all Democrats!) who tell me how awful vaccines are, and all the deadly stuff in them, and how they are unproven, etc.
I do not hear much, if any, anti-vax talk from conservatives.
It is wrong to define anti-vaccine beliefs as being solely conservative. They are not. If anything, anti-vaxing has its greatest hold on suburban white educated mothers in upscale zip codes.
I've been buttonholed at parties, by suburban soccer moms (all with college educations! and all Democrats!) who tell me how awful vaccines are, and all the deadly stuff in them, and how they are unproven, etc.
I do not hear much, if any, anti-vax talk from conservatives.
It is wrong to define anti-vaccine beliefs as being solely conservative. They are not. If anything, anti-vaxing has its greatest hold on suburban white educated mothers in upscale zip codes.
1
CC, your comments provide considerable head scratching as to how you arrive at your conclusions. In a previous post you stated, "I pay the highest taxes in my state for education in my suburb...."
Are you personally paying the highest taxes in your state, or is everyone in your suburb paying the highest taxes which means that each homeowner in your suburb pays exactly the same amount or do you mean that the average taxes paid in your suburb is the highest in the state.
Another gem, "and yet 90% of third graders just flunked the state reading exam" does it mean 90% of the third graders in your state flunked the exam, which is indeed astonishing and newsworthy or is the 90% confined to your suburb which speaks volumes to the quality of parenting, especially in what according to you is the wealthiest suburb in the state.
Next, "Obama changed the way deportations are counted, precisely to hornswoggle folks like you'. do you have any details as to how this was computed in the past and the changes that Obama nefariously implemented. Some sources would be good too.
Finally, I am just awe-struck with your deductive reasoning. From this, "I've been buttonholed at parties, by suburban soccer moms who tell me how awful vaccines are, and all the deadly stuff in them, and how they are unproven, etc.".
You conclude, "If anything, anti-vaxing has its greatest hold on suburban white educated mothers in upscale zip codes".
Wow, just wow.
Are you personally paying the highest taxes in your state, or is everyone in your suburb paying the highest taxes which means that each homeowner in your suburb pays exactly the same amount or do you mean that the average taxes paid in your suburb is the highest in the state.
Another gem, "and yet 90% of third graders just flunked the state reading exam" does it mean 90% of the third graders in your state flunked the exam, which is indeed astonishing and newsworthy or is the 90% confined to your suburb which speaks volumes to the quality of parenting, especially in what according to you is the wealthiest suburb in the state.
Next, "Obama changed the way deportations are counted, precisely to hornswoggle folks like you'. do you have any details as to how this was computed in the past and the changes that Obama nefariously implemented. Some sources would be good too.
Finally, I am just awe-struck with your deductive reasoning. From this, "I've been buttonholed at parties, by suburban soccer moms who tell me how awful vaccines are, and all the deadly stuff in them, and how they are unproven, etc.".
You conclude, "If anything, anti-vaxing has its greatest hold on suburban white educated mothers in upscale zip codes".
Wow, just wow.
Obama and Ben Rhodes have been so successful with their fiction. Leftists eat it up and spin with it.
We haven't had truth within our politicians in a long time. Everything is spin and the lies/fiction are easy to spread with our unethical media. It feeds on itself. We are going to have to fail even more in this great democracy before things turn around, if ever. The new immigrants, blacks and Latinos want government to take care of them and it's not working in their favor because this country was built on the premise of each and every citizen to take care of themselves and to contribute to taking care of those with cannot take care of themselves.
We haven't had truth within our politicians in a long time. Everything is spin and the lies/fiction are easy to spread with our unethical media. It feeds on itself. We are going to have to fail even more in this great democracy before things turn around, if ever. The new immigrants, blacks and Latinos want government to take care of them and it's not working in their favor because this country was built on the premise of each and every citizen to take care of themselves and to contribute to taking care of those with cannot take care of themselves.
3
"The new immigrants, blacks and Latinos want government to take care of them"
Got a link for that? One from a reputable source? In short,your assertion needs a factcheck. Badly.
Got a link for that? One from a reputable source? In short,your assertion needs a factcheck. Badly.
13
Sounds an awful lot like needing a private face and a public one.
To a politician, much less a lawyer, parsing and triangulating what is said and perceived allows one to construe a truth yet deny ever saying such.
I'm for TTP, just not as written.
I'm for fracking, but we need to cut gas 'n oil.
American't have single payer, but maybe a public option.
I told the bankers to "cut it out", but it wasn't their fault.
I'll end CU right after I use it to collect the most $$$ ever in a campaign.
I'm supporting down ticket candidates, but my Victory Fund takes the money away in the same day.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman... HA! Define "is"!!!
Both sides do it.
Maybe it is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, in an updated format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
To a politician, much less a lawyer, parsing and triangulating what is said and perceived allows one to construe a truth yet deny ever saying such.
I'm for TTP, just not as written.
I'm for fracking, but we need to cut gas 'n oil.
American't have single payer, but maybe a public option.
I told the bankers to "cut it out", but it wasn't their fault.
I'll end CU right after I use it to collect the most $$$ ever in a campaign.
I'm supporting down ticket candidates, but my Victory Fund takes the money away in the same day.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman... HA! Define "is"!!!
Both sides do it.
Maybe it is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, in an updated format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
6
Your reference to Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman..." is ridiculous.
It is Hillary Clinton, NOT Bill Clinton, who is running for president.
Trump has been accused of sexual assault, even beyond the 12-14 women who recently came out. Ivan Trump accused him UNDER OATH in divorce depositions, of rape. Trump is also accused of raping a 13 year old -- a case that goes to trial in December. You have to stop comparing Bill CLinton who is NOT running with Trump who IS running.
And by the way, Melania Trump has said that all the women are lying, something that Hillary did when her husband was exposed--- a natural reaction, but certainly not criminal.
It is Hillary Clinton, NOT Bill Clinton, who is running for president.
Trump has been accused of sexual assault, even beyond the 12-14 women who recently came out. Ivan Trump accused him UNDER OATH in divorce depositions, of rape. Trump is also accused of raping a 13 year old -- a case that goes to trial in December. You have to stop comparing Bill CLinton who is NOT running with Trump who IS running.
And by the way, Melania Trump has said that all the women are lying, something that Hillary did when her husband was exposed--- a natural reaction, but certainly not criminal.
1
Telling people on the far right that thgey are dumb, backward, hateful, etc...won't help matters. There needs to be an outreach. I'm not kidding. In one ear they have the liars who make millions as they brainwash a large swath of red states, and there should be someone else goading them , not to my truth or the left truth as there's only one truth, and from that we each should form our opinions as to who we vote for, how we react. The far right has removed this option. From their mouths to a person's solid belief. It's dangerous stuff. That is why they have demonized the media, it reports facts and allows one to think. Thinking is something the Republicans don't want their constituency to do.
22
There has been a dumbing down of America. It all starts in schools ---No Child Left Behind -- an approach based on memorizing, spewing out information, with little critical thinking. We have to teach children to think critically. We now have a large segment of the population who grew up without skills for fact checking or thinking on their own.
3
You think it is cute?
The right wing paranoia has produced politics as warfare (not by other means, plain warfare), compromise as surrender and treason. Republicans don't t elect politicians, they elect Mafia Dons who promise to crush others and snatch everything for themselves (see the snarling minions around Mitch, all of them wanting to feed first at the government teat). They run a high class protection racket. Let's call it for what it is.
When I find myself agreeing with what someone on the right, I worry I have lost my marbles. The right is plain wrong. About everything.
Wrong about what? Education, global warming, investment in infrastructure, warfare, diplomacy, healthcare, pollution. They have infected the minds of half of Americans on a steady gruel of: liberals will take our guns away, kill our babies, confiscate our savings, have the UN rule us; that non-white and non-Christian hordes will destroy the fabric of the country, that blacks are getting free stuff, that Obama is a Martian fascist destroying America and will declare martial law.
This is their mainstream view, it is mouthed by their mainstream candidates, it is blared by their propagandists 24/7 (Fox, Limbaugh, and a broad spectrum of hate radio, TV and church).
It is spineless moral equivalence in America that regards this as amusing, cute. It is not. It is dangerous, anti-American, and anti-democracy.
Please call it for what it is.
Kalidan
The right wing paranoia has produced politics as warfare (not by other means, plain warfare), compromise as surrender and treason. Republicans don't t elect politicians, they elect Mafia Dons who promise to crush others and snatch everything for themselves (see the snarling minions around Mitch, all of them wanting to feed first at the government teat). They run a high class protection racket. Let's call it for what it is.
When I find myself agreeing with what someone on the right, I worry I have lost my marbles. The right is plain wrong. About everything.
Wrong about what? Education, global warming, investment in infrastructure, warfare, diplomacy, healthcare, pollution. They have infected the minds of half of Americans on a steady gruel of: liberals will take our guns away, kill our babies, confiscate our savings, have the UN rule us; that non-white and non-Christian hordes will destroy the fabric of the country, that blacks are getting free stuff, that Obama is a Martian fascist destroying America and will declare martial law.
This is their mainstream view, it is mouthed by their mainstream candidates, it is blared by their propagandists 24/7 (Fox, Limbaugh, and a broad spectrum of hate radio, TV and church).
It is spineless moral equivalence in America that regards this as amusing, cute. It is not. It is dangerous, anti-American, and anti-democracy.
Please call it for what it is.
Kalidan
112
Well said, thank you.
Good teachers can demonstrate to the students the importance of sources and how to weigh their importance. Good teachers can teach students to analyze critically and come to a reasonable assessment of the truth, supported by reliable information. Good teachers can help see students see their own biases at work, as part of self-development. Really good teachers can even teach their students to hold opposing ideas in their and be intellectually curious about the tension this creates. Students are more capable of learning these skills than our education system would suggest. So where are the good teachers? And why aren't we paying them a fortune?
126
We do this, everyday. The problem isn't with students,it is with adults who, regardless of conflicting facts, refuse to believe those facts.
12
Because good teachers are being hamstrung by states that require performances on standardized tests as requirements for aid.
11
Students arrive at school as products of their families. They return to these families every afternoon, every weekend, every holiday vacation, and every summer. Who do you think exerts the most influence on them? Teachers and their students do not interact in a vacuum; the same people described in this article are the ones who also want teachers to not contradict what the kids hear at home--and believe me, when teachers try to teach kids to think for themselves, there is hell to pay. These parents are very aggressive and there is very little administrative support. The students are witnesses to all of this. We are in very deep trouble in this country.
9
Obama has deported more people than any president before him. He does not sell this accomplishment and the other side does not sell it either. Political reality makes all sides pay attention to images that will appeal to their members while ignoring or denying reality. This sort of corruption has produced the downfall of many empires.
5
sdavidc9,
Let us read what Emma Roller has taken the time to write while I was baking apple pie, i.e., and she quotes Trump "President Obama has moved millions of people out (who are they and where have they gone?). They've been deported,"? Now I know why Mr. Cranshawk is missing from the local shoe store. The children who played in the street across the building from where I live also seem to be MIA.
Trump and me are not particularly interested in facts and figures, but he is the Republican Nominee and still struggling with his homework. Few Americans seem to understand a fact about this rich businessman. He is not very intelligent by the sound of it, and works on emotional fanfare to get a rise out of us. This American here is not budging. If you want to see the Decline of America, by all means vote for this Bottom out of Shakespeare.
Let us read what Emma Roller has taken the time to write while I was baking apple pie, i.e., and she quotes Trump "President Obama has moved millions of people out (who are they and where have they gone?). They've been deported,"? Now I know why Mr. Cranshawk is missing from the local shoe store. The children who played in the street across the building from where I live also seem to be MIA.
Trump and me are not particularly interested in facts and figures, but he is the Republican Nominee and still struggling with his homework. Few Americans seem to understand a fact about this rich businessman. He is not very intelligent by the sound of it, and works on emotional fanfare to get a rise out of us. This American here is not budging. If you want to see the Decline of America, by all means vote for this Bottom out of Shakespeare.
3
Obama changed the way deportations are counted, precisely to hornswoggle folks like you. He is NOT deporting more people. Indeed, he used an executive order to let illegals STAY in the US INDEFINITELY.
1
Thank you, Concerned Citizen, for coming in, and it is a relief to hear that the President is not planning to send my elderly aunt back to Tangiers.
It does appear that Trump has been lost in a cloud somewhere when raising the banner about opening the flood-gates to terminal bus and train stations with mass deportations to Mexico and other parts unknown. After he has built a wall with barbed wire, manned by security guards and 'Cujos', he may start proposing some much needed infrastructure to implement a high way road through our Country, bearing his name. I had no idea that folks like me were being bamboozled and your clarification on the above was of interest, if not enlightening.
It does appear that Trump has been lost in a cloud somewhere when raising the banner about opening the flood-gates to terminal bus and train stations with mass deportations to Mexico and other parts unknown. After he has built a wall with barbed wire, manned by security guards and 'Cujos', he may start proposing some much needed infrastructure to implement a high way road through our Country, bearing his name. I had no idea that folks like me were being bamboozled and your clarification on the above was of interest, if not enlightening.
I just fact checked your column. "Many people will be doing some soul-searching after this election," is PANTS ON FIRE false. Sadly.
98
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"
- Abe Lincoln
- Abe Lincoln
75
Made me smile.
6
Wonderful and Bigly!
3
There is a direct correlation between the conservative religious beliefs of most Republicans and their proclivity for distortion, demonization, and adherence to dogma. Religion is anti-empirical. it's an irrational belief system which relies on faith not facts. The media is fact obsessed which automatically puts it at odds with Conservative Republicans who are not concerned about objective truth. Their primary interest is in validating their dogma, facts get in the way, so if they have to distort the facts to validate dogma they do it. Global warming is a primary example. Evangelical Republicans always have a political paradigm of Satan. They demonize the media, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, PPH, Nancy Pelosi etc. Their serial demonization, distortion, and adherence to dogma is a direct function of their religious orientation.
121
It is not an absolute that conservatives are "religious" (or what religion they profess). And some Democrats are religious themselves.
Mr. Trump is of no religion I can identify -- even if you detest him, it can't be for his RELIGIOUS views. Ronald Reagan; no clear religious beliefs (except maybe "vaguely generic Christian"). On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was an Evangelical -- and a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
Hillary claims to be a practicing Methodist who attends church regularly. That would make her "more religious and more Christian" than Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump is of no religion I can identify -- even if you detest him, it can't be for his RELIGIOUS views. Ronald Reagan; no clear religious beliefs (except maybe "vaguely generic Christian"). On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was an Evangelical -- and a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
Hillary claims to be a practicing Methodist who attends church regularly. That would make her "more religious and more Christian" than Mr. Trump.
1
...and their politicians of choice USE that adherence to dogma to get their power. If people are conditioned to follow designated "thought leaders," this becomes truth to them. Yours is the best explanation of how this happens that I have read!
Democrats, whether religious or not, don't use religion as a sword in their political activities (e.g., trying to ban/limit abortion/contraception/gay marriage). That's the difference.
Emma gets it wrong. Liberals are more information junkies than conservatives. So it isn't surprising that their statements are more factually correct.
But you can lie without being factual incorrect. It just a matter of being selective with information. The reporting in the Times about Aleppo is a good example of this: by reporting every sign of human suffering in east Aleppo while staying silent about the war crimes of the rebels an image is created that stands far from reality.
This is exactly what we see in the Clinton campaign. Clinton prefers to stay vague about her positions and to focus on moral deficiencies of Trump. And it is exactly that vagueness that leads many to question how sincere she is with for example her positions on TPP.
But you can lie without being factual incorrect. It just a matter of being selective with information. The reporting in the Times about Aleppo is a good example of this: by reporting every sign of human suffering in east Aleppo while staying silent about the war crimes of the rebels an image is created that stands far from reality.
This is exactly what we see in the Clinton campaign. Clinton prefers to stay vague about her positions and to focus on moral deficiencies of Trump. And it is exactly that vagueness that leads many to question how sincere she is with for example her positions on TPP.
10
"The reporting in the Times about Aleppo ..."
AFAICT, the Times does not have any reporters in Aleppo. For example, this article cites "doctors, nurses and activists in the city" and "monitor groups":
Unrelenting Assault on Aleppo Is Called Worst Yet in Syria’s Civil War
By RICK GLADSTONE and SOMINI SENGUPTA
SEPT. 26, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html
AFAICT, the Times does not have any reporters in Aleppo. For example, this article cites "doctors, nurses and activists in the city" and "monitor groups":
Unrelenting Assault on Aleppo Is Called Worst Yet in Syria’s Civil War
By RICK GLADSTONE and SOMINI SENGUPTA
SEPT. 26, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html
4
Talk about “lying without being factually incorrect”: how about comparing the genocidal policies of Assad and his Russian and Iranian enablers with the “war crimes” of Syrian rebels, a motley group comprised of freedom fighters of different affiliations, as well as Al-Nusra and even ISIL elements. But they are “all the same” according to you, just as Russia Today says that America’s human rights violations are equivalent to Putin’s. (You know, Ferguson Missouri is equivalent to the invasion of the Ukraine.) And the NYT is to blame for all the “lies,” just like Trump says.
2
Hoffman If you think that two different types of groups who both massacre freely are not equivalent, you yourself are too bigoted to know what correct, incorrect, true & false even mean.
People like you who live by anti-reason are to blame for all the lies -- including your lie that the NYT is to blame for them -- , both by producing them yourselves & by supporting ferocious performing-liars like Trumpf. Disgusting.
People like you who live by anti-reason are to blame for all the lies -- including your lie that the NYT is to blame for them -- , both by producing them yourselves & by supporting ferocious performing-liars like Trumpf. Disgusting.
This election season has taught us a few things.
There is your truth, my truth, and the truth. And there is no such thing as an independent fact checker.
Great institutions such as the NYT no longer are a reliable source of information. Speculation is not journalism. The fact that Ms. Roller is sourcing her FB page to write a story is proof.
There is your truth, my truth, and the truth. And there is no such thing as an independent fact checker.
Great institutions such as the NYT no longer are a reliable source of information. Speculation is not journalism. The fact that Ms. Roller is sourcing her FB page to write a story is proof.
8
She's an opinion writer, not a reporter. Don't you know the difference?
33
hawk. You don't know what truth means, obviously, or you would realize a fact-checker doesn't need to be 'independent'. Probably you're not interested in truth of any sort. Or even dislike the idea of reality that is not of your own making.
Several years ago, the SAT included an essay topic that questioned fact-checking. It asked, "Does the truth depend upon one's perspective?"
I found the question to be a breathtakingly groovy indictment of people's need to hang on to analog beliefs in an increasingly digital world.
My microwave just dinged, letting me know that my coffee has been reheated. In order for that machine to work day in an day out, doing exactly what it's asked, it needs to be precisely programmed.
My response to the SAT question was and is, "No, the truth is the truth, although perspective can distort perception of the truth."
The fungibility of truth and belief is the issue. We go out of our way to assure those who maintain bizarre beliefs that their reality is just as good as the next fellow's. Why, four years ago we came close to electing a President whose belief system includes little planets out in space primed to host our afterlives.
Now, his beliefs could be true, and the rest of us could be deluded. However, a belief that most of would consider certifiable was not considered material to our Presidential decision.
Why? Do we convince ourselves that even though he embraced that outre philosophy he didn't really believe it?
Then, what's true? Vast ranges of sound waves are outside the range humans can perceive. Shall we deny that they are sound waves just because we can't hear them?
So, a truthful politician lies only about 10% of the time. Clearly, we can't handle the truth.
I found the question to be a breathtakingly groovy indictment of people's need to hang on to analog beliefs in an increasingly digital world.
My microwave just dinged, letting me know that my coffee has been reheated. In order for that machine to work day in an day out, doing exactly what it's asked, it needs to be precisely programmed.
My response to the SAT question was and is, "No, the truth is the truth, although perspective can distort perception of the truth."
The fungibility of truth and belief is the issue. We go out of our way to assure those who maintain bizarre beliefs that their reality is just as good as the next fellow's. Why, four years ago we came close to electing a President whose belief system includes little planets out in space primed to host our afterlives.
Now, his beliefs could be true, and the rest of us could be deluded. However, a belief that most of would consider certifiable was not considered material to our Presidential decision.
Why? Do we convince ourselves that even though he embraced that outre philosophy he didn't really believe it?
Then, what's true? Vast ranges of sound waves are outside the range humans can perceive. Shall we deny that they are sound waves just because we can't hear them?
So, a truthful politician lies only about 10% of the time. Clearly, we can't handle the truth.
252
Is that the "real world" or the "media world"?
I suspect in the modern day world of increased competition for 'eyeballs' and ever increasing cost pressures, the media finds it easier and cheaper to simply put two spokespeople on the air with contrary views and let them toss their scripted lines at each other and pretend that is informing the public.
And, of course, there is also the non-answered question where the answer becomes a vaguely-related talking point.
So each side presents just those facts that support their side. So people are left to choose which 'facts' to believe without necessarily understanding anything.
I suspect in the modern day world of increased competition for 'eyeballs' and ever increasing cost pressures, the media finds it easier and cheaper to simply put two spokespeople on the air with contrary views and let them toss their scripted lines at each other and pretend that is informing the public.
And, of course, there is also the non-answered question where the answer becomes a vaguely-related talking point.
So each side presents just those facts that support their side. So people are left to choose which 'facts' to believe without necessarily understanding anything.
2
Why is his philosophy outre? Why is his belief certifiable? (BTW, we are talking about Mitt Romney's religious belief system, just to be clear for people who don't know about the little planet thing.) Every religious belief system is a fantasy world, yours included if you have one. Most human beings go along with other people's systems because they have something equally self-delusional going on themselves. It's how humanity copes with that pesky problem known as "what is the meaning of life."
There is truth, and then there is fact checking, and then there is perception. When Mr. Romney said that 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes what he said was factually true. But he didn't point out that the vast majority of those folks were either seniors, or worked at minimum wage jobs and made less than $20,000 a year and as such were exempt. He lumped all those folks into a "moocher" category. That was his reality to appease his base. I found his "slant" on that figure despicable, others found it to be an anti-entitlement rallying cry. So what exactly is the "truth" here?
That's why "truth" hardly even matters anymore. People just wait for their favorite politician to tell them what the "truth" is. After a while, politicians will just make stuff up because they know they can get away with it.
And that's where we are now. Sad, but true.
There is truth, and then there is fact checking, and then there is perception. When Mr. Romney said that 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes what he said was factually true. But he didn't point out that the vast majority of those folks were either seniors, or worked at minimum wage jobs and made less than $20,000 a year and as such were exempt. He lumped all those folks into a "moocher" category. That was his reality to appease his base. I found his "slant" on that figure despicable, others found it to be an anti-entitlement rallying cry. So what exactly is the "truth" here?
That's why "truth" hardly even matters anymore. People just wait for their favorite politician to tell them what the "truth" is. After a while, politicians will just make stuff up because they know they can get away with it.
And that's where we are now. Sad, but true.
4
Excellent comments, thank you.
"Clearly, we can't handle the truth." So true. Take Global Warming. I graduated in 1980 with a degree in climatology. My research was "The Greenhouse Effect: Co2 and Global Warming". Even back then many atmospheric scientists came to the conclusion that the planet came to a tipping point (point of no return) on global warming around 1960. The data and modeling since 1960 to today continues to support this position that we are past the point of no return. Yet, most people have been made to believe that we absolutely have within our power the ability to reverse climate change and restore the Earth's natural balance. Why? "Clearly, we can't handle the truth."
"Clearly, we can't handle the truth." So true. Take Global Warming. I graduated in 1980 with a degree in climatology. My research was "The Greenhouse Effect: Co2 and Global Warming". Even back then many atmospheric scientists came to the conclusion that the planet came to a tipping point (point of no return) on global warming around 1960. The data and modeling since 1960 to today continues to support this position that we are past the point of no return. Yet, most people have been made to believe that we absolutely have within our power the ability to reverse climate change and restore the Earth's natural balance. Why? "Clearly, we can't handle the truth."
2
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
20
Good article ! Not looking to pat myself on the back, I've been saying the same things for quite awhile. Simply put, folks are happily yapping away in mirrored echo chambers where their every idiot comment is quickly verifiable to all the others in that echo chamber.
9
I was struck by the photo at the top of this op.ed. Go beyond the obvious to understand what this individual is yelling about. What impulse from Dark Ages judgement has caused this reaction toward the press corp? Certainly I see fear in those eyes, a fear born of superstition of which there is plenty among his kind.
Where I see theories of "confirmation bias" in this lamentable election cycle, I interpret to mean self-entrapment by intellectual sloth.
What is the man in the picture so afraid of? Is he afraid of the truth, lacking the basic strength to shoulder the citizen's responsibility for giving fact and reason and logic fair hearing? Yet he sinks to yelling as instinctively as a cornered animal, excepting that he's a human being, supposedly a post-enlightenment human being, though one who has misplaced the very principles that have saved him and his forebears from the arbitrary nature of a Dark Ages fate.
So why has this man turned his back on the one thing that is more likely to benefit and sustain him and his near ones? Because he's lazy, not for a moment willing to consider the real source of his discomfort with the world around him. As long as he remains estranged from the truth, he will continue to scream and threaten and make sound governance an utter dilemma for us who care to uphold and to understand that post-modern life is well past being a black-or-white proposition where the community's problems are solved by burning heretics at the stake.
Where I see theories of "confirmation bias" in this lamentable election cycle, I interpret to mean self-entrapment by intellectual sloth.
What is the man in the picture so afraid of? Is he afraid of the truth, lacking the basic strength to shoulder the citizen's responsibility for giving fact and reason and logic fair hearing? Yet he sinks to yelling as instinctively as a cornered animal, excepting that he's a human being, supposedly a post-enlightenment human being, though one who has misplaced the very principles that have saved him and his forebears from the arbitrary nature of a Dark Ages fate.
So why has this man turned his back on the one thing that is more likely to benefit and sustain him and his near ones? Because he's lazy, not for a moment willing to consider the real source of his discomfort with the world around him. As long as he remains estranged from the truth, he will continue to scream and threaten and make sound governance an utter dilemma for us who care to uphold and to understand that post-modern life is well past being a black-or-white proposition where the community's problems are solved by burning heretics at the stake.
55
He is running out of time and money. The law-suits against him are mounting and his credit is about to run out, unless he wins the Election and lives on borrowed time.
The lies, I fear, are more about distracting the attention of We-the-People than anything else.
We've just spent almost 18 months on one news topic - Donald Trump. We should have been taking about and reporting on serious policy issues and problems on our planet but everything has been about Trump. Of course Trump has been a ratings bonanza for the electronic news so the coverage continues.
Yet, the real issues that face the nation, and the planet, are brushed aside and any actions taken are given little notice. We are all too fixated on one individual who glorifies himself.
We may well wake up and realize that stuff happened while we were not paying attention.
We've just spent almost 18 months on one news topic - Donald Trump. We should have been taking about and reporting on serious policy issues and problems on our planet but everything has been about Trump. Of course Trump has been a ratings bonanza for the electronic news so the coverage continues.
Yet, the real issues that face the nation, and the planet, are brushed aside and any actions taken are given little notice. We are all too fixated on one individual who glorifies himself.
We may well wake up and realize that stuff happened while we were not paying attention.
199
Donald Trump is talking about issues. Perhaps the issues are not important to you. This is a big country after all. For instance, corruption is one of the real issues for many people, and only a non-politician like him is talking about. Obmamacare is failing many people, but perhaps not you. Many are tired of more wars, but perhaps not you and many others who agree with you. It is a matter of priority. Like comments on this publication often insist, people vote for their self-interests.
1
JY, et al.,
Yes, Trump mentions issues but offers nothing other than condemnations and complaints portraying the USA as a totally corrupt nation that can only be saved by an absolute dictator who can act independently of the Constitution and Laws.
You cited a few of the many problems vexing our nation but none of them will be resolved by a simplistic answer or the dictates of an absolute ruler. Why? Our problems are complex and difficult and will take more than a slogan or two to resolve.
Mr. Trump is willfully ignorant of how our nation, and the rest of the planet, actually works, nor does he seem to care. He thinks of the US Government as a larger-scale Trump business where he can get people to jump through hoops simply on his word.
You are free to support Mr. Trump just as I am free to not support him.
Yes, Trump mentions issues but offers nothing other than condemnations and complaints portraying the USA as a totally corrupt nation that can only be saved by an absolute dictator who can act independently of the Constitution and Laws.
You cited a few of the many problems vexing our nation but none of them will be resolved by a simplistic answer or the dictates of an absolute ruler. Why? Our problems are complex and difficult and will take more than a slogan or two to resolve.
Mr. Trump is willfully ignorant of how our nation, and the rest of the planet, actually works, nor does he seem to care. He thinks of the US Government as a larger-scale Trump business where he can get people to jump through hoops simply on his word.
You are free to support Mr. Trump just as I am free to not support him.
5
Hey, pal, Donald Trump has been in NYC for 40 years.
Why, suddenly, is all this stuff, appearing? Why not five years ago? Two years?
And why not more reporting on what Wikileaks is revealing about HRC?
Why, suddenly, is all this stuff, appearing? Why not five years ago? Two years?
And why not more reporting on what Wikileaks is revealing about HRC?
Good article. We have to stop demonizing each other. People have to believe that most of their opponents are good people who simply have different public policy preferences. Most Trump supporters are good people. They recognize he's a boob and wish they had someone else to vote for, but their disgust with where the establishment has led this country out-weighs that. Similarly, most Democrats would rather someone else was their candidate, but are willing to overlook Hillary's "rules are for little guys" attitude and establishment orthodoxy because Trump is a boob. If we can't work together then we will be condemned to four more years of partisan deadlock.
12
Hillary's "rules are for little guys" attitude? Is your knowledge of that tied to specific things she has actually said or done? Or on things the Republicans and conservative press say about her?
Because every time I try to find out what she's specifically done wrong it devolves into lots of accusations and no facts.
Because every time I try to find out what she's specifically done wrong it devolves into lots of accusations and no facts.
16
Who thinks rules are for little guys? Really.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but she's a solid candidate. Most people who believe that she's something less have been persuaded by the Trump lie machine.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but she's a solid candidate. Most people who believe that she's something less have been persuaded by the Trump lie machine.
11
Care to provide any facts supporting your accusation against Hillary? Be sure to verify them first on snopes.
6
Scholars and intellectuals bear some of the responsibility for the current skepticism concerning our ability to determine the objective truth about the world around us. Historians have observed that social and cultural biases distort their ability to analyze and evaluate alien societies, or even groups of people within our own communities, with the result that some scholars doubt our capacity ever to achieve an objective understanding of the past. Physicists have also conducted experiments that demonstrate our inability to observe the material world with complete accuracy.
These inherent weaknesses in our powers of observation and analysis have encouraged political partisans to deny the existence of objective facts. Any discussion of rightwing disdain for truth must include mention of conservative rejection of empirically verified theories about evolution and climate change. People who believe that humanity sprang fully formed from the mind of God will have no difficulty clinging to the notion of Obama's Muslim faith, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Despite major improvements in the technology we use to collect and analyze data, we have lost some confidence in the conclusions we reach. This healthy modesty, however, has morphed into a weapon used by people who seek to manipulate information, true or false, in order to acquire power for themselves. Donald Trump, in his clumsy and incoherent fashion, represents these champions of intellectual nihilism.
These inherent weaknesses in our powers of observation and analysis have encouraged political partisans to deny the existence of objective facts. Any discussion of rightwing disdain for truth must include mention of conservative rejection of empirically verified theories about evolution and climate change. People who believe that humanity sprang fully formed from the mind of God will have no difficulty clinging to the notion of Obama's Muslim faith, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Despite major improvements in the technology we use to collect and analyze data, we have lost some confidence in the conclusions we reach. This healthy modesty, however, has morphed into a weapon used by people who seek to manipulate information, true or false, in order to acquire power for themselves. Donald Trump, in his clumsy and incoherent fashion, represents these champions of intellectual nihilism.
16
"Despite major improvements in the technology we use to collect and analyze data, we have lost some confidence in the conclusions we reach."
Reliably predicting the future is impossible in most cases, so you need to distinguish the types of "conclusions we reach".
Reliably predicting the future is impossible in most cases, so you need to distinguish the types of "conclusions we reach".
1
The right wing media, talking heads and social media groups have been lying to their supporters. They call objective journalism and media liberal. They despise intellectualism. They believe global warming is a hoax. They think the whole world is against them. They believe they are the true patriots and freedom fighters. It is dangerous!
305
"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious
conspiracy against his common rights and just deserts". HL Mencken
conspiracy against his common rights and just deserts". HL Mencken
5
A case in point, the people who wander by here and yell the opinion writer for not presenting both side of the story. The Right has spent so much time fostering an us and them mentality their rank and file members don't understand the difference between opinion and news.
2
OK, critical thinking --
Define "lying." Contrast and compare with perjury. Would that include double-speak on computer servers in someone's bathroom? Is the latter "excessively careless?"
To paraphrase Woody Allen: "your 'objectivity' is subjective."
Define "lying." Contrast and compare with perjury. Would that include double-speak on computer servers in someone's bathroom? Is the latter "excessively careless?"
To paraphrase Woody Allen: "your 'objectivity' is subjective."
While I do believe there is some truth to the lead-in to this column, I believe that EDUCATED voters want the truth. The difficulty for most voters who wish to base their decisions on facts is that not only do the lies and half-truths grab headlines, but the majority of the news coverage is delivered in biased prose rather than the journalistic 5-Ws that used to be presented by news organizations. The media has become an industry, and since capitalism is based on the "bottom-line", the truth isn't really what seems to matter much any more. Instead, the whole value structure seems to be aiming towards the bottom period. So it isn't whose facts so much as it is WHERE are the facts.
11
"... the lies and half-truths grab headlines ..."
Sometimes they ARE the headlines. A case in point: The column never uses the word "mine" despite the headline: "Your Facts or Mine?".
Sometimes they ARE the headlines. A case in point: The column never uses the word "mine" despite the headline: "Your Facts or Mine?".
Truth is addictive to everyone but professional frauds. Professional frauds have to follow respectable political fashion to pretend they have insights.
I often find false and misleading information in the Times, following my instincts.
1. Yesterday they ran an op ed by a writer who claimed it didn't matter to him that his wife's killer was an illegal. That lacked truthiness and I found that he had sued the killer's employer for hiring illegals.
2. The Times repeatedly states that minorities can't vote because of voter id laws. That is really hard to prove and lacks truthiness. In fact, few studies support the allegation.
3. When Obama announced he would stop deporting hundreds of thousands of illegals, the Times reported that there would be no legal problem. But you can't pass a regulation where a law is required, so that lacked truthiness, and the court later ruled against Obama.
4. In Ferguson, there were no videos. The cop said one thing and Mr. Brown's friends said another. The Times insisted that the cop should be indicted. But you can't convict anyone unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions in he said she said cases are rare, so the Times lacked truthiness, and in fact the grand jury refused to indict.
5. The Times reported that a Rikers inmate and his family were too poor to pay bail. Other facts suggested that wasn't true, and I determined that the family owned its $250,000 home.
Most of the Times' errors reflect a liberal slant. When I reveal the errors by comment, most liberals insist I am wrong and The Times never highlights my proof of their mistakes.
1. Yesterday they ran an op ed by a writer who claimed it didn't matter to him that his wife's killer was an illegal. That lacked truthiness and I found that he had sued the killer's employer for hiring illegals.
2. The Times repeatedly states that minorities can't vote because of voter id laws. That is really hard to prove and lacks truthiness. In fact, few studies support the allegation.
3. When Obama announced he would stop deporting hundreds of thousands of illegals, the Times reported that there would be no legal problem. But you can't pass a regulation where a law is required, so that lacked truthiness, and the court later ruled against Obama.
4. In Ferguson, there were no videos. The cop said one thing and Mr. Brown's friends said another. The Times insisted that the cop should be indicted. But you can't convict anyone unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions in he said she said cases are rare, so the Times lacked truthiness, and in fact the grand jury refused to indict.
5. The Times reported that a Rikers inmate and his family were too poor to pay bail. Other facts suggested that wasn't true, and I determined that the family owned its $250,000 home.
Most of the Times' errors reflect a liberal slant. When I reveal the errors by comment, most liberals insist I am wrong and The Times never highlights my proof of their mistakes.
13
"... I determined that the family owned its $250,000 home."
How did you "determine[] that"?
An ongoing problem with fact-checking is vague or non-existent sourcing. The column mentions Daniel Dale, so I took a look and, sure enough, he fails to cite his sources in many cases:
https://www.thestar.com/authors.dale_daniel.html
How did you "determine[] that"?
An ongoing problem with fact-checking is vague or non-existent sourcing. The column mentions Daniel Dale, so I took a look and, sure enough, he fails to cite his sources in many cases:
https://www.thestar.com/authors.dale_daniel.html
14
I've determined that you're very afraid of anyone unlike yourself. Is there any "truthiness" in that?
17
@GML: I don't even know the Riker's story, but I assume some other (less hard left) source did some research. Home ownership is not private, but a public record that in most areas can be easily searched ONLINE. You can find out what any person paid for their home, the taxes, and how much it appraised for by the county.
3
Dear Ms. Roller,
Alas, when I was a youth, I watched folks like Edward R. Murrow for news coverage on television.
Today, it seems either "Facebook" or "BuzzFeed" are 'viable' news sources with hardly any need for "fact checking" as, well, it's on the Internet so it must be true!
Most "news" programs start with "Trending Now" as if kittens playing with a computer is some kind of international trend. As for this voting thing, it'll probably boil down to the usual numbers, at best:
a. 1/3 will vote for Clinton
b. An amazing 1/3 will vote Republican no matter what is running for president in THAT party
c. 1/3 will stay home staring at the results on "Facebook", "BuzzFeed" or "FaceBuzzBookFeed".
Reality has taken a back seat to this circus but, really, isn't the public just getting what it deserves?
Alas, when I was a youth, I watched folks like Edward R. Murrow for news coverage on television.
Today, it seems either "Facebook" or "BuzzFeed" are 'viable' news sources with hardly any need for "fact checking" as, well, it's on the Internet so it must be true!
Most "news" programs start with "Trending Now" as if kittens playing with a computer is some kind of international trend. As for this voting thing, it'll probably boil down to the usual numbers, at best:
a. 1/3 will vote for Clinton
b. An amazing 1/3 will vote Republican no matter what is running for president in THAT party
c. 1/3 will stay home staring at the results on "Facebook", "BuzzFeed" or "FaceBuzzBookFeed".
Reality has taken a back seat to this circus but, really, isn't the public just getting what it deserves?
13
"isn't the public just getting what it deserves?"
I am a member of the public and I definitely don't deserve this.
I am a member of the public and I definitely don't deserve this.
1
When our politicians and other makers of public policy are corrupt to the core, what do we do?
1. FBI director James Comey has acknowledged that much of what Secretary Clinton told the American people about her email server are not true in a remarkable exchange with Congressman Trey Gowdy.
2.The President made numerous false statements about the Affordable Care Act to encourage its passage through Congress.
3.The IRS and the State Department have numerous employees who have asked for Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.
4. Jonathan Gruber famously called the American people "stupid" regarding the promises of the Affordable Care Act.
Where does it all end?
Is there no one in this country of 300+ million who can tell the truth?
1. FBI director James Comey has acknowledged that much of what Secretary Clinton told the American people about her email server are not true in a remarkable exchange with Congressman Trey Gowdy.
2.The President made numerous false statements about the Affordable Care Act to encourage its passage through Congress.
3.The IRS and the State Department have numerous employees who have asked for Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.
4. Jonathan Gruber famously called the American people "stupid" regarding the promises of the Affordable Care Act.
Where does it all end?
Is there no one in this country of 300+ million who can tell the truth?
9
Corrupt to the core? That is your conclusion. Your examples don't rise to that.
8
But all of that "truthiness" does not apply, when it comes to The Anointed One, the future Empress Hillary -- who has been guaranteed election and the power to rule over us all -- due to her famous last name, money, influential foundation and oh yeah....Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the multi-billion dollar war chest of the Democratic Party.
What Ms. Roller cheerfully ignored is that the liberals and Democrats have PLENTY of examples of lying, cheating, stealing and misleading the public. It is not impressive to shout that "our liar lies slightly less often than your liar lies".
What Ms. Roller cheerfully ignored is that the liberals and Democrats have PLENTY of examples of lying, cheating, stealing and misleading the public. It is not impressive to shout that "our liar lies slightly less often than your liar lies".
3
Kind of cherry-picking your facts aren't you?
7
Please read "Making Up Is Hard to Do" in the November 2016 edition of The Atlantic. We really need sane Republicans and sane Democrats to agree that we are, at the very least, a nation of Americans who still consider that the grand experiment in democracy still has a chance of succeeding.
10
Is it that difficult to separate fact from fiction? Even before the internet, we could go to a library, and research something, if one cared enough.
I read countless opinions in response to countless articles. People have the nasty habit of making assertions without proof.
I believe therefore I am!
Self-delusion is a plague, but it's hardly inevitable. You are only diminishing yourself.
I read countless opinions in response to countless articles. People have the nasty habit of making assertions without proof.
I believe therefore I am!
Self-delusion is a plague, but it's hardly inevitable. You are only diminishing yourself.
18
But researching something is no guarantee that the source you are using is accurate. A co-worker once told me her son, a psychiatrist, had written a book evaluating St. John's Wort (which at the time was the cure-all in the country). He concluded that it probably would do no harm in conjunction with other treatments and might provide some relief of mild temporary depression such as "winter blues" or fatigue, but that it was no substitute for conventional treatments in serious matters. He had to threaten to go to court to keep the publisher from rewriting the book to make extravagant claims about the substance to increase sales.
And in 1991, a book supposedly revealing Edward Kennedy's drug use was, before publication, found to be the work of a former aide of his who had had to resign due to mental health problems. (Among other things, he was sending himself death threats that supposedly threatened him because he "was like a son" to Kennedy.) The publisher withdrew the book after checking some of his facts and finding he couldn't back them up. Another publisher promptly published the book.
And in 1991, a book supposedly revealing Edward Kennedy's drug use was, before publication, found to be the work of a former aide of his who had had to resign due to mental health problems. (Among other things, he was sending himself death threats that supposedly threatened him because he "was like a son" to Kennedy.) The publisher withdrew the book after checking some of his facts and finding he couldn't back them up. Another publisher promptly published the book.
Fox "News" has constructed a successful business model telling their viewers what they want to hear, regardless of the facts.
Rush Limbaugh has spent decades demonstrating that he can take any subject or event and use it to demonstrate liberal media bias.
Facebook "News" is just the latest iteration of this sickness. Trump is the ogre that should be expected to arise from this toxic swamp. Conservative media own him whether they wish to or not.
Rush Limbaugh has spent decades demonstrating that he can take any subject or event and use it to demonstrate liberal media bias.
Facebook "News" is just the latest iteration of this sickness. Trump is the ogre that should be expected to arise from this toxic swamp. Conservative media own him whether they wish to or not.
146
I thought that president Obama deported some, but that the statistics include those who were denied entry...
What Is omitted here is one reason for the popularity of Fox News. It is the liberal bias of mainstream or left news outlets. For instance, in the past two years or so, the influx of illegal migrants in Europe and in America get to be called euphemistically undocumented. These same news proclaim everyone who disagrees with open border a racist. Also, the word islamophobia is thrown in often.
Except for a fraction of the population, most Americans are ready to be swayed with the right argument. It takes time and curiosity to pry some truth out of all we are fed. Considering all the half truths and falsehoods fed by both sides, they they retreat to ideas shared by their peers.
What Is omitted here is one reason for the popularity of Fox News. It is the liberal bias of mainstream or left news outlets. For instance, in the past two years or so, the influx of illegal migrants in Europe and in America get to be called euphemistically undocumented. These same news proclaim everyone who disagrees with open border a racist. Also, the word islamophobia is thrown in often.
Except for a fraction of the population, most Americans are ready to be swayed with the right argument. It takes time and curiosity to pry some truth out of all we are fed. Considering all the half truths and falsehoods fed by both sides, they they retreat to ideas shared by their peers.
6
DD:
"These same news proclaim everyone who disagrees with open border a racist."
I think what happens is that they report that all of the racists disagree with an open border. We are left to conclude that all of the non-racists who feel the same are comfortable with their association with the other group. The company you keep...
"These same news proclaim everyone who disagrees with open border a racist."
I think what happens is that they report that all of the racists disagree with an open border. We are left to conclude that all of the non-racists who feel the same are comfortable with their association with the other group. The company you keep...
4
I believe it was Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel who made the point that activities may be illegal, but the people themselves should never be labeled "illegal." It dehumanizes them, which opens the door to treating them as less than human. It gives permission to our worst impulses. And if anyone should know about such things, it would be Mr. Wiesel.
9
The story goes that in 1787, when the delegates of the 13 colonies finally settled on a nene form of government, a society matron asked Ben Franklin what type of government we now had, a democracy, a monarchy, what?
"We have given you a constitutional republic," said Franklin, "if you can keep it ."
We are not very good keepers and will continue to fail in that duty so long as we continue to seek affirmation over information.
"We have given you a constitutional republic," said Franklin, "if you can keep it ."
We are not very good keepers and will continue to fail in that duty so long as we continue to seek affirmation over information.
36
Give us some truth! Or give us Barabas. Doesn't matter much, not when HRC's chronic fidelity to truth leaves her chronically disabled ... and Donny can't even spell trooth.
Eminently impeachable, no matter who wins. And truth will always be the 1st casualty in war.
Eminently impeachable, no matter who wins. And truth will always be the 1st casualty in war.
8
Did you read the article? Trump won the lies war.
37
Awww chucks, RMG, Trump is only telling a few fibs and sugar-coating the Nation.
3
“Your Facts or Mine?” will be around for eternity. It will never go out of fashion. Journalism is only part of the communication field. As such, what is said is not the same as what is heard. There are noises, selective attentions, perceptions, and biases on the part of the audience. This is natural and human. So, consider the content in the context it is received and influenced by the audiences’ social and psychological characteristics.
7
Reminds me of the mind altering science fiction movie, "Five Million Years to Earth." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062168/
An alien artifact is found in a London station. People begin to be turned into a mob. The only way to save the planet is by grounding the beast...Metaphorically, our own biases.
An alien artifact is found in a London station. People begin to be turned into a mob. The only way to save the planet is by grounding the beast...Metaphorically, our own biases.
2
We can start by not getting our "news" from Facebook. News organizations feeding Zuckerberg's machine is not how to win in the marketplace.
Commercial media- and I include NPR as underwriting is just another form of commercial sponsorship - does not help things when they buy into memes popular among DC Villager Wonks. Why did CBS News reporter Elaine Quijano and Fox "News" anchor Chris Wallace ask questions at the debates that implied Social Security has anything to do with the Deficit? They know full well that Social Security is funded separate from general revenue and does not add to the deficit. When they buy in to the Peter Peterson Foundation memes they do a great disservice to our process and undermine their credibility. Maybe they like the ads the foundation buys on their air.
From my perspective this paper was less than balanced in the way it covered the Democratic Primary.The coverage looked more like a coronation than the real competitive race it was. From out here that looks like bias and not just on the editorial page.
Some blame is on the common people, but the media needs to clean up it's act. Believability starts with staying on facts- not DC Think Tank talking points.
Commercial media- and I include NPR as underwriting is just another form of commercial sponsorship - does not help things when they buy into memes popular among DC Villager Wonks. Why did CBS News reporter Elaine Quijano and Fox "News" anchor Chris Wallace ask questions at the debates that implied Social Security has anything to do with the Deficit? They know full well that Social Security is funded separate from general revenue and does not add to the deficit. When they buy in to the Peter Peterson Foundation memes they do a great disservice to our process and undermine their credibility. Maybe they like the ads the foundation buys on their air.
From my perspective this paper was less than balanced in the way it covered the Democratic Primary.The coverage looked more like a coronation than the real competitive race it was. From out here that looks like bias and not just on the editorial page.
Some blame is on the common people, but the media needs to clean up it's act. Believability starts with staying on facts- not DC Think Tank talking points.
114
so a little clarification is needed. The S S trust fund is part of our debit. Let me explain. We pay more into SS than is used per year. By law the excess is placed into the general fund and in theory is to be paid back into the S S trust fund at a rate of 12% interest. When ever we do not meet the year to year expenses for S S we raise the cut off rate. So that is how even the poorest pay a income tax, because the S S tax is applied to the first dollar you earn.
@oscar jr: the poor PAY the payroll tax...then promptly get it back in the form of a giant EITC windfall check every April, that vastly exceeded what they paid in payroll tax or any other tax.
They are made whole; we are not. And by "we", I don't mean the wealthy or even middle class -- but ordinary working folks, who earn under $50K -- an amount so "lavish" that it disqualifies you for virtually ANY benefits whatsoever.
They are made whole; we are not. And by "we", I don't mean the wealthy or even middle class -- but ordinary working folks, who earn under $50K -- an amount so "lavish" that it disqualifies you for virtually ANY benefits whatsoever.
2
Social Security is an Insurance System & the premium you pay is collected as a tax. Ministers & others are allowed to opt out of the system but are not eligible for payments just as you cannot collect on an insurance policy you cancelled.
Every Dollar that has been paid out in benefits came from Social Security premiums collected as a special tax- not from general revenue. You pay half & your employer matches it. Neither normal taxation or borrowed money from budget deficits are used to pay Social Security Benefits.
Currently, the surplus is carried as government debt essentially no different from the Treasury debt issued into the financial markets. Americans through Social Security are one of the biggest creditors to the Federal Government. Like all government debt, it is scheduled to be repaid.
During the Reagan Administration the President & House Speaker Tip O'Neil worked out a plan to allow for the impact of the Baby Boomers and the following Baby Bust to move through the system. Essentially, Boomers helped pay their parents retirement and prepaid their own. This feature is what has so swelled the surplus which was intended to deplete.
The only problem the Old Age Pension of Social Security has is that politicians have meddled with it such as not indexing the income cap subject to the tax for inflation. Correcting the income cap and indexing it against future inflation would address any actuarial problems.
Every Dollar that has been paid out in benefits came from Social Security premiums collected as a special tax- not from general revenue. You pay half & your employer matches it. Neither normal taxation or borrowed money from budget deficits are used to pay Social Security Benefits.
Currently, the surplus is carried as government debt essentially no different from the Treasury debt issued into the financial markets. Americans through Social Security are one of the biggest creditors to the Federal Government. Like all government debt, it is scheduled to be repaid.
During the Reagan Administration the President & House Speaker Tip O'Neil worked out a plan to allow for the impact of the Baby Boomers and the following Baby Bust to move through the system. Essentially, Boomers helped pay their parents retirement and prepaid their own. This feature is what has so swelled the surplus which was intended to deplete.
The only problem the Old Age Pension of Social Security has is that politicians have meddled with it such as not indexing the income cap subject to the tax for inflation. Correcting the income cap and indexing it against future inflation would address any actuarial problems.
16
How about the fact that we obviously have forgotten how to teach our children critical thinking. Apparently why can teach science and mathematics without coupling rational thought into the mix. Who's fault is that? And why should we be so surprised at the level of thinking of a citizenry who spend most of the waking hours staring at images on screens? Didn't George Orwell show us what happens in the novel 1984?
229
One problem about teaching critical thinking skills in schools is that there can be, and often is, the perception that some heresy or another is being "taught", since you need opposing sets of information to critically think about in a given lesson.
17
Republican controlled school boards (Texas, for one) prohibit teaching critical thinking skills. It conflicts with their religious schooling, can't have kids questioning the Bible...
25
Forgotten how to teach critical thinking? When was it we remembered how to teach critical thinking? I haven't seen it in my lifetime, not in our regular public schools, anyway. I don't know whether critical thinking is taught in private schools, although I have my doubts in many instances. Do you imagine critical thinking is taught in religious schools?
3
The whole opinions as facts mentality has been on the rise for years now - and not just among the rabid Trump people. These days universities are filled with students who claim their opinions as facts and meltdown when contradicted by objective truths. So as much as I would love to confine this to a right wing fringe phenomenon - sadly I think it's a cultural phenomenon. As American media consumption has become increasingly fragmented now to point of almost personalized - our collective, societal experiences are few and rather than marketplaces of ideas, people live in their own private echo chambers. Perhaps I'm just getting older - but I miss the shared social experience of quality evening news, solid journalism and FACTS that good people analyze differently.
469
The fault here lies not with the media but with weak-willed parents who told their children - today's university students - that every thought they had was precious and treated them like little porcelain dolls. Actually, it's worse than that. They think that what they feel is way more important than what they think. How do you debate a feeling? Try talking to a university studen these days. No matter what you ask them they start their answer with: "I feel that..." It's maddening.
4
I've also dealt with it among highly trained researchers and scholars.
6
You should turn on the PBS Newshour - you will get your fix for real news.
5
Your facts or mine? The real problem is when facts no longer matter to a large segment of voters. That kills any possibility of realistic political discourse which is the basis of any democracy.
386
To your point, if there's a significant part of the population operating on a belief-based system rather than provable facts and empirical evidence there are going to be serious problems. Of course, at the end of the day reality is indifferent to faith or beliefs. Time to ramp up those education initiatives.