What will the Weekly Standard do when "facts, logic, and reason" contradict the White House and Trump? That will be the true test of their commitment. Should they go with "facts, logic, and reason" instead of Trump's spin, they will prove that there are no Republicans in their newsroom, however conservative they may be.
2
Another important factor to consider; facts, logic and reason are absent across the AM/FM radio dial. An exception in my neighborhood is one lone PBS station, whose signal is intermittent at best. Despite the flight to cyber space in the Silicon Valleys of the Country a large portion of Americans still tune in almost exclusively to Terrestrial Radio for their information. The discourse to be found there is primarily hate infected rants mixed with anti democrat vitriol, or fundamentalist christian preachers, late night UFO conspiracists laced, lately, with a dash of Russian influence is A OKAY now. It's no wonder we have a brain dead, fact free, faction in our electorate….They've been fermenting in this Radio environment for years.
2
The NYT, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN provide patently biased reporting that undermines their claims that they report "facts". Unless the liberal media purges its ranks of liberal journalists, claims that they report "facts" will be baseless and their subscribers and viewers will continue to decline.
3
You're correct, RVG, however, you left out FAUX or FOX news which is just as bad.
Philip Anschutz is the conservative Christian who founded Qwest Communications & built his fortune in part through tax avoidance. He's in bed with the anarchist Koch brothers & like them, uses the government as his private bank. With Anschutz as the owner, I expect no quality journalism to come out of the Weekly Standard.
5
Republicans know no facts.
2
The competition of free enterprise contains the threat of price wars, where consumers benefit and all the businesses do not make very much. So they conspire to get rid of most competition and to limit it to areas and ways that do not hurt the margins of all. For example, banks do not compete by lowering the interest rates they charge and raising the rates they pay. Instead, they flood customers with offers of fancy credit cards -- offers that are designed to look better than they turn out to be for most takers; banks have the proprietary data to design these based on their past experience with similar offers.
Few pay list price (when there even is one) for health care. Most get special deals, which are kept private. This is a souk, not a free market.
Adam Smith knew that businesses hated free enterprise, and had good reason to do so (and good reason to pretend they loved it, because they needed the pure theory, untouched by everyday reality, for their propaganda and their delusional self-image). Hayek and Friedman also know this, but never mention it because they are intellectually dishonest.
Good luck applying facts, logic, and reason. Your conservative readers will not like it. They want you to make oligarchy look like free enterprise, and you will wind up giving them what they want. If you make free enterprise look like what it in fact is, you will find yourselves defending the mixed system you call socialism.
Few pay list price (when there even is one) for health care. Most get special deals, which are kept private. This is a souk, not a free market.
Adam Smith knew that businesses hated free enterprise, and had good reason to do so (and good reason to pretend they loved it, because they needed the pure theory, untouched by everyday reality, for their propaganda and their delusional self-image). Hayek and Friedman also know this, but never mention it because they are intellectually dishonest.
Good luck applying facts, logic, and reason. Your conservative readers will not like it. They want you to make oligarchy look like free enterprise, and you will wind up giving them what they want. If you make free enterprise look like what it in fact is, you will find yourselves defending the mixed system you call socialism.
4
Facts, logic, and reason. Good luck, guys.
Guns dont kill people. People kill people. The only answer to a bad guy with a gun . . . You will have to evaluate the logic of the gun lobby, if you dare.
Both scientists (statistics,a form of reason) and disappearing glaciers (a fact) indicate that something is up with climate. No one knows when or whether California gets its next major earthquake, but a lot of money is spent making things quake-resistant, just in case. Just more stupid wasteful regulations?
Nixon committed treason in 1968. Fact.
Dubya and Reagan both ran up huge deficits without a financial meltdown to justify them. Pappy Bush bailed on voodoo economics when the economy needed him to, and you kicked him out.
Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi was a play for the segregationist vote and a betrayal of Lincoln.
Workers at Wal-Mart who make little enough to qualify for food stamps are takers; they dont make enough to be makers. The Wal-Mart heirs are makers.
Banks invested in junk mortgages because the big bad government made them. They were also making tons of money, but that is not why they did it.
St. Ron was in Lebanon until a barracks was bombed, and then pulled out. What message did that send to terrorists?
Free enterprise health care means that poor people with health problems suffer and die. Without real restrictions, free enterprise becomes oligarchy. Bernie might be wrong, but he has facts, logic and reason.
Guns dont kill people. People kill people. The only answer to a bad guy with a gun . . . You will have to evaluate the logic of the gun lobby, if you dare.
Both scientists (statistics,a form of reason) and disappearing glaciers (a fact) indicate that something is up with climate. No one knows when or whether California gets its next major earthquake, but a lot of money is spent making things quake-resistant, just in case. Just more stupid wasteful regulations?
Nixon committed treason in 1968. Fact.
Dubya and Reagan both ran up huge deficits without a financial meltdown to justify them. Pappy Bush bailed on voodoo economics when the economy needed him to, and you kicked him out.
Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi was a play for the segregationist vote and a betrayal of Lincoln.
Workers at Wal-Mart who make little enough to qualify for food stamps are takers; they dont make enough to be makers. The Wal-Mart heirs are makers.
Banks invested in junk mortgages because the big bad government made them. They were also making tons of money, but that is not why they did it.
St. Ron was in Lebanon until a barracks was bombed, and then pulled out. What message did that send to terrorists?
Free enterprise health care means that poor people with health problems suffer and die. Without real restrictions, free enterprise becomes oligarchy. Bernie might be wrong, but he has facts, logic and reason.
3
In yet another marker of endless conservative white guy hubris and arrogance, Stephen Hayes thought the tiger would never eat him.
Race has nothing to do with it. By the way, I wasn't aware that white people were not supposed to have thoughts and ideas and to publicly express them.
4
Prediction: if he holds true to these values, he'll be branded a "liberal" and largely ignored by conservative readers; if he abandons his values even a little bit, he'll accomplish nothing (there are already reputable "right leaning" papers), but keep his readers.
2
Maybe the perceived bias of conventional journalism led conservatives to seek out their own media sources, but it doesn't follow that the base of the Republican Party had to abandon the truth. They did that on their own. It doesn't require a PhD to figure out why.
2
This (lack of truth in conservative reporting and the resulting lack of factual consensus) is the single biggest threat to the long term viability of our country.
Especially because so many ill intentioned organizations are experts at using it to their advantage.
It keeps me up at night.
The "Information Age" has turned into the "Misinformation Age".
Unparalleled potential... flushed down the gutter.
Especially because so many ill intentioned organizations are experts at using it to their advantage.
It keeps me up at night.
The "Information Age" has turned into the "Misinformation Age".
Unparalleled potential... flushed down the gutter.
3
The fact of the matter is that the US media does not have a liberal political bias, apart from the fact that the increased levels of education necessary to work as a credentialed journalist tend to correlate with having a more "liberal" (ie "informed") worldview. Compared to newspapers in Europe, particularly the UK, and even Japan, there is no major daily in the US that can be accurately called "liberal" in the sense that the Guardian, the Asahi, LeMonde, let alone Neues Deutschland can. The myth of a liberal bias in the US media is fake news that has been foist on a credulous public since Buckley & Co started publishing their rag, and which has led to the rise of FOX, Drudge, Breitbart, InfoWars and other right-wing media outlets that belie the very idea of a leftwing bias. Compared to Conservative publications abroad like the Telegraph,The Yomiuri, La Figaro, Die Welt, these US outlets have no credibility whatsoever because they are not primarily about delivering facts, but about selective exposure and confirmation bias. They traffic in conspiracy theories that can't be conclusively disproven with facts (you can't disporove a negative being the MO), and avoid (or decontextualize) facts because they disprove the articles that appear on their pages.
3
Breitbart and Fox were created for right-wing nut case readers and viewers. Little if anything on them is true. They aren't much different than The Onion, except that right-wing gullible believe Fox and Breitbart to be honest and truthful, when in reality they should be treated as propaganda.
The problem isn't Breitbart and Fox spilling hate and lies; the First Amendment protects them. The problem lies with so many people believing in them.
The problem isn't Breitbart and Fox spilling hate and lies; the First Amendment protects them. The problem lies with so many people believing in them.
2
The Weekly Standard holds foreign policy views much closer to Hillary Clinton. Those folks do love war. They were big Iraq War pumper. By the way your kids do the fighting. Theirs do the good fight at the Ivy League college of their choice.
1
Hayes wrote a clownish, circularly sourced book connecting bin Laden and Saddam/9-11to gin up support for the foolish Iraq invasion of 2003. He is not to be trusted.
2
I can't figure out to whom the editor is trying to talk. There is no one
in our version of the Duma on the Potomac who belongs to our
version of the People's Party, that is, an entity whose sole
purpose is to carry out the wishes of the so-called president, in as
servile a manner as possible,
who could possibly at all be interested in arguments that use facts, logic,
and reason.
In particular, consider a single big subject of climate change, global warming, the contribution of carbon based energy to global warming and its
effects on ocean temperatures, acidification, and food chains. What exactly
is the editor's position and is he willing to attack systematically and
thoroughly the complete lunacy of the administration's policy? Is
he willing to give ample space to science evidence based contributors
who would dismantle the denialist BIG LIE in a publication that
aspires to be read by the sane component of what used to be
the republican party. Would he take on as principal adversary
the alt right and faux news propaganda machines whose
repeated nonsense has made it impossible for this
society to talk intelligently about addressing global warming?
When the answers to such questions help begin the process by
which free market principles help contribute
to the fair pricing of carbon, then and only then can this
editor feel he has helped transform his publication into
something that merits serious attention by those who
favor evidence over ideology.
in our version of the Duma on the Potomac who belongs to our
version of the People's Party, that is, an entity whose sole
purpose is to carry out the wishes of the so-called president, in as
servile a manner as possible,
who could possibly at all be interested in arguments that use facts, logic,
and reason.
In particular, consider a single big subject of climate change, global warming, the contribution of carbon based energy to global warming and its
effects on ocean temperatures, acidification, and food chains. What exactly
is the editor's position and is he willing to attack systematically and
thoroughly the complete lunacy of the administration's policy? Is
he willing to give ample space to science evidence based contributors
who would dismantle the denialist BIG LIE in a publication that
aspires to be read by the sane component of what used to be
the republican party. Would he take on as principal adversary
the alt right and faux news propaganda machines whose
repeated nonsense has made it impossible for this
society to talk intelligently about addressing global warming?
When the answers to such questions help begin the process by
which free market principles help contribute
to the fair pricing of carbon, then and only then can this
editor feel he has helped transform his publication into
something that merits serious attention by those who
favor evidence over ideology.
1
A conservative voice using facts not fantasy would be a true asset to American discourse. As a liberal, I cannot imagine what that would look like. I tend to see the conservative view as erroneous, but I would like to hear factual based arguments for the conservative philosophy. I am more interested in the truth than in being a liberal, but during my lifetime all conservative argument has been either based on lies or misconceptions or prejudice.
But I am dubious that the conservatives could ever convince me that all human beings, no matter race, creed or color, are not created equal. I consider this a fact. I am not sure how many conservatives believe that all human beings are created equal in those regards.
But I am dubious that the conservatives could ever convince me that all human beings, no matter race, creed or color, are not created equal. I consider this a fact. I am not sure how many conservatives believe that all human beings are created equal in those regards.
1
Conservatives believe it. That's why they want all individuals treated as if they are equals and all laws applied equally to all.
Talking points, half truths, and just plain ignoring facts and logic are Conservative Truths.
Republicans lied. America died.
1
Puh-leeze. Facts don't have a viewpoint or an agenda. The job of any journalist is to interview all the people involved in a situation and tell the reader who is lying.
2
It is important to note that it was none other than the William Krystol mentioned in this article who, back in Jan. 2009, advised the badly beaten Republican congress to oppose EVERYTHING that the newly elected President Obama proposed, not necessarily because of ideological opposition, but to deny him any accomplishments so the party could claim in 2 years that he was ineffective. In light of that, the mere moving him to an "at large" role is not nearly enough for me to take this rag seriously as anything but Breitbart Lite.
1
Wow
Because a conservative media outlet honors facts it gets fromt page coverage.
Because a conservative media outlet honors facts it gets fromt page coverage.
3
Truth doesn't generate enough income to sustain a journalistic enterprise in the world today; delirium now fills the vacuum.
I know where I'd assign the blame for that perversion, but let's just say that the status quo in American politics proves my point.
I know where I'd assign the blame for that perversion, but let's just say that the status quo in American politics proves my point.
2
Our country is finished. The "problem for our democracy", the loss of "any universal sense of truth" has sounded its death knell.
Half the country refuses to believe the "main stream media." The other half of the country refuses to believe the "alternative media." Each half considers the other half the victim of falsehoods.
Where do we go from here? If no one can come together on the issue of what is true and what is false, then we are finished as a society, a culture and a country.
All we can do now is prepare to defend ourselves and our families when the place starts falling apart and the violence begins.
Two things; liberals need to arm themselves, or consider leaving for other shores, never to return.
Half the country refuses to believe the "main stream media." The other half of the country refuses to believe the "alternative media." Each half considers the other half the victim of falsehoods.
Where do we go from here? If no one can come together on the issue of what is true and what is false, then we are finished as a society, a culture and a country.
All we can do now is prepare to defend ourselves and our families when the place starts falling apart and the violence begins.
Two things; liberals need to arm themselves, or consider leaving for other shores, never to return.
4
Mr Hayes, Mr Sykes, Breitbart, the Weekly Standard and their ilk to the extent they pledge to go straight, are in the inextricable position of all witnesses who try to back-track on being confronted with an unanticipated prior statement, clearly inconsistent with their current testimony. They've raised for all observers for all time the question which the cross examiner doesn't even have to ask: were you lying then or are you lying now.
3
It's never too late, I guess.
Let's all hope he succeeds. Let's also hope the Times filters out its own biases.
2
I have to ask this in all seriousness:
Whaddaya want - a medal?
Do you realize, Mr. Hayes, that you are getting a front page article merely for attempting what this and many other news organizations do daily as a matter of course, with no fanfare at all?
Let us know when the training wheels come off. Until then, enjoy your new bike.
Whaddaya want - a medal?
Do you realize, Mr. Hayes, that you are getting a front page article merely for attempting what this and many other news organizations do daily as a matter of course, with no fanfare at all?
Let us know when the training wheels come off. Until then, enjoy your new bike.
8
I almost always disagree with " The Weekly Standard". However, I intend to become a subscriber, if only to support fact based journalism, and to support the idea that " good people" can disagree with civility.
I will keep my subscription as long as they follow the dictum that " everyone is entitled to a ethical opinion, but not their own facts!!
(Kelly Ann!). I think it was Socrates that said (and my quote might be a little off) " Stories without distinction take men that which way we wish they do not to go"
I will keep my subscription as long as they follow the dictum that " everyone is entitled to a ethical opinion, but not their own facts!!
(Kelly Ann!). I think it was Socrates that said (and my quote might be a little off) " Stories without distinction take men that which way we wish they do not to go"
1
The fact is that we are fighting another undeclared war on the Moslem establishment.. We are not fighting a war on Moslem extremism. That is just or show. The real Moslem war against us being fought by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the other Moslem elites as they support and spread violent Moslem activists around the world who do the actual dirty work of running trucks and cars into innocent people. How can we face our citizens with the delusion we are fighting terrorism when we daily extol our friendship and our sending our latest war equipment to these ostensible friends to pass along to the killers to augment their truck and car murders? It's time to call our "friends" to account for what they are doing to us. Trying to fight the small extremists while overlooking the major harm our elite friends are doing to us as they support the extremists is a short-sighted strategy. Mr. Trump does not appear to be aware of the error of what he has signed onto with his idea of wasting more billions on military expansion while starving the country's social essentials It's only three weeks for Trump and his snarled Cabinet but we have already had enough. It's time for recall and replacement.
2
The right-wing media has brainwashed a good portion of the country with incendiary lies. Their lies have severely damaged our country, and given us the disastrous Trump and the current Republican party, and they simply want to put the lies back in the bottle and sing kumbaya? Seems like they're still delusional to me.
3
Wasn't Sean Hannity told today that he is bad for America.
These guys are cancer not just to America, but to whole world.
If you agree on facts than I welcome you to debate. I can't have debate when you have alternative facts.
These guys are cancer not just to America, but to whole world.
If you agree on facts than I welcome you to debate. I can't have debate when you have alternative facts.
1
Any chance they can show "shiny" headlines to grab Trump's attention while couching the truth in short sentences and articles fit for an 8 year old? Sway his thinking with real facts that sound fantastic! amazing! terrible! incredible! unbelievable! Good Luck!
Conservatism and logic, and conservatism and reason, are fundamentally contradictory ideas. A Conservative is someone who sticks with beliefs despite any collisions with logic and despite any conflicts with reason. Donald Trump is the ultimate proof that you cannot be a logical person, guided by reason, and at the same time be a conservative. There are practically no scientists who are conservative, and there is a basic reason why that is, like oil and water, logic and reason do not mix with conservatism. If the Weekly Standard wants to adopt logic and reason beyond a public relations veneer, it should start with shedding its conservative core - they cannot have it both ways.
1
Right Wing Media reporting facts, reason and logic would be a salutary change. Seeing is believing. And separating fact from opinion and/or fiction, a good thing. It may require new 'blood' however, as old habits are reluctant to change for the better. Just listen to Fox Noise, the official loudspeaker for crooked lying Trump, where credulity and gullibility are pre-requisites in believing so much nonsense.
I hope the Weekly Standard will thrive in the months and years ahead. Facts, logic, and reason in a conservative journal are most welcome as a bulwark against the 24/7 cycle of falsehoods being spread by this administration.
2
A voice of reason prevails, but I will let the results speak for themselves. Is there a bias in the media? Of course there is, one merely needs to step back and look at what is covered and what is not, regardless of how much of an effort is spent in 'straight reporting' individual stories. Unbiased media sources will cover any important story regardless of whether it supports the bias of the editors or not. So why the bias? That is the result of values, so as previously noted be prepared to continue using multiple sources of information to paint a picture of what is going on, hopefully one that is more complete than you will find from a liberal or conservative media source.
The right wing truly is the revolutionary force of our time. Here the intrepid Weekly Standard, seeking to make its mark and drive our times ever forward, leaps beyond post fact, beyond alternative facts, beyond mere ideology, to champion...facts. Where is the great Tom Wolfe when we dearly need him most?
1
the trouble is, reason and logic and facts don't favor conservatives. their instinct is for the overarching idea, the all-encompassing worldview. they want to know one thing and thereby know all things. it's a plato thing.
1
Like rats deserting a sinking ship, the Weekly Standard and other "real" conservative media outlets seek the dry ground of contextual facts. After riding the alt-right trash barge until it ran aground, it's every man for himself
6
I am very grateful to the Weekly Standard's new wisdom moving forward. Someone in this crazy camp needed to fold their tent and move on. The longer Fox News rules the paranoid landscape of our nation, the faster we will continue to lose our collective mind.
7
Unless the Weekly Standard gets a cable TV spot, it will have little or no impact on the views of the vast majority of those on the right, who get their information not from text, but from video.
Other than reading The Times religiously, I'll read almost anything, but don't confuse me with Sarah "I read everything" Palin. I read the backs of cereal boxes at the breakfast table, nutritional ingredients on containers while shopping in the supermarket, where products are made, and even where their headquarters are located. That being said, though an voracious consumer of the printed word, I place value in only the most reputable tried and true few. A lifelong liberal I do spend more time with NY liberal mags than conservative reviews. Bill Buckley was always a hoot though I never took his general outlook seriously. I know conservatives like to note that if one is still a liberal past a certain age they are immature, but I just can't help myself. For the life of me, I can't see how anybody can win any argument proposing conservative values for the whole of America. I believe we are slinking back to the days of the Gilded Age where most of the wealth was concentrated in a select and privileged few. That has never been my vision of this nation no matter how much wealth my wife and I have accumulated over generations. We are fortunate folks of good fortune. I wish others such as ourselves would realize that fortune is the root of fortunate.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
7
Amazingly, there was no mention of how the assault on the mainstream media and traditional fact based and verified press opened the door for one facet of the Russian "hack" of the 2016 election. they were able to throw out all kinds of true sounding falsehoods because of the current state of affairs.
I welcome any news source that actually will do the work to validate stories before printing them. A retraction of a falsehood will barely move off the starting blocks after a damaging falsehood has rocketed around the globe.
I welcome any news source that actually will do the work to validate stories before printing them. A retraction of a falsehood will barely move off the starting blocks after a damaging falsehood has rocketed around the globe.
3
The problem for Mr. Hayes was summarized best by John Kenneth Galbraith:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." Facts concerning climate change, tax cuts, health care, regulation and almost all other issues are inconsistent with this search. Therefore, I am not optimistic the Weekly Standard will either (a) present facts inconsistent with this search; or (b) if it does, attract substantial conservative readership.
(Note -- Galbraith wrote in the time of "reasonable" conservatives like Buckley.)
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." Facts concerning climate change, tax cuts, health care, regulation and almost all other issues are inconsistent with this search. Therefore, I am not optimistic the Weekly Standard will either (a) present facts inconsistent with this search; or (b) if it does, attract substantial conservative readership.
(Note -- Galbraith wrote in the time of "reasonable" conservatives like Buckley.)
3
GOP use of Lies, Hate, and Fear to erode peoples trust in government, the media and our elections has severely compromised our Democracy.
GOP has become completely irrational and self serving. This is not good for anyone - It may win them some votes from the radical right in the short term, but it very well could collapse our Democracy.
We need rational ideas coming from both sides, and compromise on important issues. Liberals don't have a monopoly on good ideas, but they sure seem to have a monopoly on rational thought right now.
GOP has become completely irrational and self serving. This is not good for anyone - It may win them some votes from the radical right in the short term, but it very well could collapse our Democracy.
We need rational ideas coming from both sides, and compromise on important issues. Liberals don't have a monopoly on good ideas, but they sure seem to have a monopoly on rational thought right now.
5
Well, let's look at the facts.
Here's their web site http://www.weeklystandard.com/ .
Here's an article on climate change, by conservative academic Steven F. Hayward, which profiles Jay Faison, a conservative Republican who believes that climate change is a serious threat and his party should make it a priority http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-conservative-takes-on-climate-change/art...
It's not a NYT story. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/jay-faison-republicans-el...
It's not a news story, it's a conversation between two guys who slightly disagree with each other.
Faison believes that it's possible to burn coal and capture the carbon dioxide. I don't think it can be done. I'd like to hear from some experts who could evaluate that claim.
Hayward himself believes that the free market will solve the problem (like it solves all problems).
Science magazine and New Scientist have done many interviews with scientists who disagree with the global warming consensus. They give far more scientific details than this profile. Since Hayward himself is a "senior resident scholar", I'd expect him to have a better command of the science.
I'd give them a B for effort. I'd give them a C for organization and clarity. The Weekly Standard needs a good copy editor. Maybe they could get one who was recently downsized from the WSJ.
Here's their web site http://www.weeklystandard.com/ .
Here's an article on climate change, by conservative academic Steven F. Hayward, which profiles Jay Faison, a conservative Republican who believes that climate change is a serious threat and his party should make it a priority http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-conservative-takes-on-climate-change/art...
It's not a NYT story. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/jay-faison-republicans-el...
It's not a news story, it's a conversation between two guys who slightly disagree with each other.
Faison believes that it's possible to burn coal and capture the carbon dioxide. I don't think it can be done. I'd like to hear from some experts who could evaluate that claim.
Hayward himself believes that the free market will solve the problem (like it solves all problems).
Science magazine and New Scientist have done many interviews with scientists who disagree with the global warming consensus. They give far more scientific details than this profile. Since Hayward himself is a "senior resident scholar", I'd expect him to have a better command of the science.
I'd give them a B for effort. I'd give them a C for organization and clarity. The Weekly Standard needs a good copy editor. Maybe they could get one who was recently downsized from the WSJ.
1
I was a big fan of Buckleys. Of course I disagreed with everything he said, but it was fun to figure out where he was wrong. The conservative message then was always wrong because what they did was dig through the minutia of policy and find very obscure inconsistencies or random absurdities, often made only absurd because they took the meaning a certain way when in fact the intent was clearly something else. They still drew from the same grumpy and rather cruel crowd but their message was usually easily countered by someone with a good grasp of the English language. This is why it is not surprising that the right decided to go the route of lying again. This is nothing new, yellow journalism has been around a long time (Hearst and others). We had a period during and after WWII when reason was more necessary because of the real peril that existed. This truth in media persisted for some time since we were used to it, but it was inevitable that the use of media to brainwash people would return. We just need a real event that threatens to eliminate us as a species for truth to come back to media, and I'll bet we get that too.
2
Sorry. Not impressed. They are culpable in creating the foundation for Fox News, Breitbart, and their ilk. They are part of the massive scream demonizing President Obama. When every bit of evidence makes clear that Trump almost never bloviates from fact, why on earth *wouldn't* we first assume he made up the charge about being "tapped?"
Conservative press is dead. They committed hara kiri. They will continue to present opinion as fact, rather than just report the facts. They will continue to charge MSM with liberal bias, failing to recognize that their real charge is facts clearly have a liberal bias. Thus, they'll continue the grand tradition of claiming fair and balanced while spewing out clearly slanted offal.
Conservative press is dead. They committed hara kiri. They will continue to present opinion as fact, rather than just report the facts. They will continue to charge MSM with liberal bias, failing to recognize that their real charge is facts clearly have a liberal bias. Thus, they'll continue the grand tradition of claiming fair and balanced while spewing out clearly slanted offal.
6
I agree with other posts on here. Though I am a progressive, I am an American first. No serious and fair-minded person could be anything but horrified by what has happened to right-wing media and the national discourse. A focus on facts reagrdless of whom they may benefit is good for everyone. It is remarkable to me even now, that this is a point of debate.
I do, however, want to highlight a miscinception that Mr. Hayes has about new media. Mr. Hayes contends that "no commitment to the truth is required." While true it is incomplete. In fact, a commitment to the truth is DISCOURAGED by new media.
How so? Media outlets make money based on the size of their viewership. Let's assume for a moment, that someone starting a new media outlet has limited funds. Given these financial constraints, a media company cannot go out and do real reporting. The most they can do is somehow take second hand facts and analyze them in an interesting way. Still, that is the long, hard path to success and requires work.
The obvious alternative? Make outlandish and shocking things up. Spin conspiracy theories out of thin. THe crazier your "reporting" the more viewers you attract. THe more viewers you attract, the more money you make.
Example: Fairly early in the Obama presidency, Glenn Beck "reported" that Obama had created government run concentration camps on Long Island. Obviously a total lie. Did it cost him a cent? No. But he rang the register.
An unvirtuous circle.
I do, however, want to highlight a miscinception that Mr. Hayes has about new media. Mr. Hayes contends that "no commitment to the truth is required." While true it is incomplete. In fact, a commitment to the truth is DISCOURAGED by new media.
How so? Media outlets make money based on the size of their viewership. Let's assume for a moment, that someone starting a new media outlet has limited funds. Given these financial constraints, a media company cannot go out and do real reporting. The most they can do is somehow take second hand facts and analyze them in an interesting way. Still, that is the long, hard path to success and requires work.
The obvious alternative? Make outlandish and shocking things up. Spin conspiracy theories out of thin. THe crazier your "reporting" the more viewers you attract. THe more viewers you attract, the more money you make.
Example: Fairly early in the Obama presidency, Glenn Beck "reported" that Obama had created government run concentration camps on Long Island. Obviously a total lie. Did it cost him a cent? No. But he rang the register.
An unvirtuous circle.
5
The yellow journalism practices that you describe work equally well with the liberal media. The temptation to write "clickbait" exists for all practitioners of the journalistic "arts" or, have you not viewed MSNBC or read Slate and the Huffington Post? Even the regal New York Times plays around the edges of such behavior at times in their softer articles. At least, for the moment, it is still possible to gain hard news that is "just the facts," but that grows more difficult day by day. Breitbart was on to something when he noted that liberal dominance of news media allowed them the option of printing truth, but only sharing the part of the story that appealed to their readers or themselves. That insight alone was enough to make his contributions to the debate worthwhile.
1
You are correct, Sir. This is an equal opportunity crime.
However, I am not referring to clickbait. Clickbait in my mind refers to presenting interesting ortantalizing headlines in the hopes that it will grab readers.
I am referring more the epic lies fashioned by the likes of Limbaugh, a man who has amassed a billion-dollar fortune through lying. Now you can suggest there is equivalency on the right and left, but other than the rest of the alt-right folks in your bubble, I do not think you are going to be taken seriously. But good luck!
However, I am not referring to clickbait. Clickbait in my mind refers to presenting interesting ortantalizing headlines in the hopes that it will grab readers.
I am referring more the epic lies fashioned by the likes of Limbaugh, a man who has amassed a billion-dollar fortune through lying. Now you can suggest there is equivalency on the right and left, but other than the rest of the alt-right folks in your bubble, I do not think you are going to be taken seriously. But good luck!
As a LibDem, this is just what I want, a rational presentation of the other side. Please, convince me.
5
JD, you'll have to decide if you belong in the "some of the people all of the time" or the "all of the people some of the time" category. How many shades of gray can you process, and where is the dividing line drawn?
1
The Weekly Standard news a series of aartciles exploring what "conservative" means npawadays. I ask myself the question almost daily and answer: conservative = greed.
5
Is it against the law to lie to Congress under oath? Seems like it. Does that mean it is OK to not tell the truth in a court of law. Why not? Is it a crime to put forth fake news? Apparently not. How does one hold oneself accountable? It comes deep from within.
2
To me this puffery report is insulting in assuming I know nothing about the falseness of the Weekly Standard through the years, but I do know and I will not forget. Puff, puff, puffery, I know the falseness.
1
The more that's talked about this subject, the more the case is proven. Talk is talk and nothing else. Truth is like beauty, strictly in the eye of the beholder, no matter what anybody says and no matter how much makeup is applied. The more of either only makes things look cheap.
Let the editors start with some empirical evidence for the reality of gods. You know, evidence consisting of facts, logic, and reason, something I can test for myself.
Unfortunately, such an approach will rule out the fantasies not only of religious believers, but also of the so-called President and his men. It's not going to happen.
Unfortunately, such an approach will rule out the fantasies not only of religious believers, but also of the so-called President and his men. It's not going to happen.
1
I hope this works. I wish The Weekly Standard well. I am a staunch liberal but I would really like to read a reliable conservative news source on a regular basis. It's important that we read widely to retain our perspective and sanity.
10
The main thing Mr. Hayes needs to do is earn trust. News isn't inherently liberal or conservative, though it can skew either way. Fox and Breitbart skew it so far to the right that their product is laughable, and thus, untrustworthy. The reason even President Trump and Steve Bannon read the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal? Because they are trusted news sources, even if they employ some liberal reporters and editors, and occasionally run stories that make me cringe. I would welcome a new site that can see both sides of an issue, and clearly separates its opinion pieces from their reporting.
5
Try weaponizing truth. If you want to be the adult in the room, set the rules. Call out the liars and apologists. Make a hall of fame for the imbeciles and publish it on your website. This goes for left and the right. But go hard at them. But base everything on truth. Comment on the ramification of lies and how it can open one up to expensive lawsuits (including Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, the US Government). Better yet, have a weekly section dedicated to how to sue, who to sue and how to win from advice by legal experts. This will shut the nonsense down. Once you have achieved that, everyone will listen. I certainly will.
The field is wide open for a fact-based, conservative outlet.... Welcome!
Our Democracy relies on the fair and honest airing of difference....
... though I think we can ALL agree that trump is a MASSIVE black hole on the world....
Our Democracy relies on the fair and honest airing of difference....
... though I think we can ALL agree that trump is a MASSIVE black hole on the world....
5
"News" should NOT be liberal or conservative. It's simply "news". If the article is written in a fact-based and logical way, whether you think that "news" is good, bad, liberal or conservative is actually based on YOUR perspective and belief system as a reader and has nothing to do with the media outlet/story having a bias. This is what any "news" outlet should be striving for. When a news outlet declares its reporting leanings as "conservative" or "liberal" up front, this undermines their credibility with me as a reader. It tells me they are committed to their ideology first and foremost and the news second. I might still watch or read to get their slant, but I definitely wouldn't think of them as an unbiased org which is what I look for in news.
2
I'm about as liberal as it gets, but I am constantly challenged to re-think my positions by my conservative friends. Alas, far, far too much "conservative" journalism is neither conservative (what does it conserve?) or journalism (dealing in facts which have been checked and verified). A house built on sand cannot last; a politics based on lies is just as flawed. Conservative journalists can help save the country, or continue to encourage the sand to erode under our foundations.
4
The Freedom Caucus is comprised of punishing individuals who have no true understanding whatever of the loving gentle Christ who spoke of kindness, forgiveness and generosity in the New Testament. They instead would cruelly force their political might on Christians and other minorities including Christ himself who, after all, was in fact, a Jew!
1
He is not the one who's gonna do it gonna take more charm than trump not rote adherence to the myths of the important of facts
If you have to make up conservative facts to counter the "liberal media," maybe that media wasn't so liberal after all.
By the way, you don't have to tell us that Mr. Breitbart advocated something 'before he died.' We'd be more surprised if he continued to advocate it afterwards.
By the way, you don't have to tell us that Mr. Breitbart advocated something 'before he died.' We'd be more surprised if he continued to advocate it afterwards.
4
Sounds hopeful, but I'll be a resident of Missouri -- "Show me!" -- on this for now.
1
I, too, have worked for conservative newspapers owners and editors. Always, their conservative beliefs cropped up in news decisions. Like the time the editor made a reporter find another "first baby of the new year" because the editor did not like it that the first one was a single mother.
10
Too little, and far too late.
9
It is easy for us liberals to forget, after almost four decades of Republican intellectual dishonesty that, while conservatives may have no valid argument, there is always a valid conservative argument.
In any situation. It is a philosophical certainty. The choice of whether to hold back and be prudent or to go forward and try change in the hope of progress is eternal.
In a subtle way, even we progressive liberals have been short changed by not having had someone honest and objective on the other side to hold up, to our faces,the opposite side of the coin to our plans and programs, and make us test them in the fire of genuine intellectual debate.
If it is sincere,Weekly Standard is to be commended.
It would be performing a much needed public service, and not just to conservatives.
In any situation. It is a philosophical certainty. The choice of whether to hold back and be prudent or to go forward and try change in the hope of progress is eternal.
In a subtle way, even we progressive liberals have been short changed by not having had someone honest and objective on the other side to hold up, to our faces,the opposite side of the coin to our plans and programs, and make us test them in the fire of genuine intellectual debate.
If it is sincere,Weekly Standard is to be commended.
It would be performing a much needed public service, and not just to conservatives.
8
Noble idea, likely to further invite wrath of Limbaugh, Hannity, Breitbart and any site/station that isn't all-in pro Trump.
I'll read it, I read NRO but it's far from the Buckley days (we all are) and I have to wonder if The Weekly Standard won't end up with a more liberal audience in this polarized world? It's good to get the conservative viewpoint w/o the shouting and outrageous claims, plus healthy for the country. Good luck Mr Hayes.
I'll read it, I read NRO but it's far from the Buckley days (we all are) and I have to wonder if The Weekly Standard won't end up with a more liberal audience in this polarized world? It's good to get the conservative viewpoint w/o the shouting and outrageous claims, plus healthy for the country. Good luck Mr Hayes.
6
So Hayes is obviously a humanist. That puts him at odds with most of the Republican party.
Or do you suppose 'facts, logic and Reason' does not extend to the supernatural with him?
Or do you suppose 'facts, logic and Reason' does not extend to the supernatural with him?
2
Not lying. A shocking turn of events.
2
The problem is stated quite clearly here: "...with money from Rupert Murdoch..." No terrorist has done half as much damage the the US as this man, and his sole agenda is to do more damage. As a consequence, there won't be any rational weighing of pros and cons. Until he is declared persona non grata and deported as a foreign agitator, his empire confiscated, and Fox shut down as a spigot of hate speech, the right will have no valid proponent of their opinions.
8
In the 70’s and 80’s The National Review was a wonderful magazine, with insightful articles of carefully considered thought by some of the best writers in the world. Now, dulled by ideological myopia the Mad magazine has more insightful articles than NR. So many ways to address possible problems, but limiting to one ideology limits only possibilities.
Hopefully The Weekly Standard will take up where Buckley’s NR began, but I don’t see that yet. Governing all may take an ideology to help provide direction, but left/right news outlets are blindingly taking one side or another. For example, Trump promised better healthcare for all at a lower price, but the House bill was an exact opposite presentation. Skip left/right ways to address (or not) health care, but did every news site miss this elephant sized problem for the Republican Party?
Or consider Rep. Nunes being signed into the White House grounds by a WH staffer (they only way he may enter) to look at information supporting Trump allegations of Obama wiretapping. Skip any discussion about wiretapping, but consider the laughable credibility of Trump’s White House. Presidents have had approval rating in the 30's, like Reagan when at more than 10% unemployment or Bush after the 2007 market crash, but Trump has inherited a very strong economy with low unemployment. Conservative or not, does this look right?
Trump sells emotion and knows reality is optional. It all comes down to selling it. What about consensus governing?
Hopefully The Weekly Standard will take up where Buckley’s NR began, but I don’t see that yet. Governing all may take an ideology to help provide direction, but left/right news outlets are blindingly taking one side or another. For example, Trump promised better healthcare for all at a lower price, but the House bill was an exact opposite presentation. Skip left/right ways to address (or not) health care, but did every news site miss this elephant sized problem for the Republican Party?
Or consider Rep. Nunes being signed into the White House grounds by a WH staffer (they only way he may enter) to look at information supporting Trump allegations of Obama wiretapping. Skip any discussion about wiretapping, but consider the laughable credibility of Trump’s White House. Presidents have had approval rating in the 30's, like Reagan when at more than 10% unemployment or Bush after the 2007 market crash, but Trump has inherited a very strong economy with low unemployment. Conservative or not, does this look right?
Trump sells emotion and knows reality is optional. It all comes down to selling it. What about consensus governing?
1
Conservatism is at its base not concerned about pragmatic solutions to problems but to abstract ideas. For example, we spend twice as much as other advanced nations on health care with less beneficial outcomes. The solution for conservatives is not single payer where administrative costs are drastically reduced but the free market where those cost are increased.
Conservatives also love war and waving the flag while defense spending eviscerates the nation and tempts Presidents to go to war unnecessarily. George W, Bush's hundred year war in the Middle East was a conservative idea right? Export democracy and capitalism and gain some friends with oil and other minerals.
I find Conservatism to be dishonest, immoral and intellectually bankrupt. It is also never pragmatic.
Conservatives also love war and waving the flag while defense spending eviscerates the nation and tempts Presidents to go to war unnecessarily. George W, Bush's hundred year war in the Middle East was a conservative idea right? Export democracy and capitalism and gain some friends with oil and other minerals.
I find Conservatism to be dishonest, immoral and intellectually bankrupt. It is also never pragmatic.
4
Good article. Kahneman has written of the human brain's tendency to reach conclusions quickly, then justify them. This is one reason why reporters and analysts with integrity, but different values and preconceptions, might pay attention to different facts or interpret them differently. When civil discourse is possible - one of these days? - reconciling diverse viewpoints can be beneficial. Let's hope that Stephen Hayes is successful in reaching conservatives who prefer to avoid "alternative facts" (and big lies) to support their opinions.
1
Stark contrast with this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/business/media/fox-news.html?hp&a...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
1
We'll see if this is real with their first article on
climate.
climate.
3
There are many ways to be completely 'true' and still be totally on one side.
The NY Times had a big story about an evil racist who came to NYC and killed a black man. I'm sure any conservative news team of good reporters could come up with similar stories about black people who hate whites committing horrible crimes. Or, on the political side, they could spend all their time investigating Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Sid Blumenthal, and point out their numerous improprieties and conflicts of interest, while completely ignoring any defects that Donald Trump might have.
If you are good, you can spin any story any way you like by ignoring some facts and emphasizing others. Scott Adams has an amusing description of this process in his blog:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158709087061/some-fake-news-about-me-from-b...
The NY Times had a big story about an evil racist who came to NYC and killed a black man. I'm sure any conservative news team of good reporters could come up with similar stories about black people who hate whites committing horrible crimes. Or, on the political side, they could spend all their time investigating Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Sid Blumenthal, and point out their numerous improprieties and conflicts of interest, while completely ignoring any defects that Donald Trump might have.
If you are good, you can spin any story any way you like by ignoring some facts and emphasizing others. Scott Adams has an amusing description of this process in his blog:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158709087061/some-fake-news-about-me-from-b...
3
Lawzy- Mr. Adams' problem seems to be being deadly boring! lol. He should be flattered that anyone waded through that interview. He did say he "craved attention" so I guess there is that.
1
@Kay - Since it is well-known that Adams used certain aspects of his own character to create Dilbert, this is not very surprising.
There's lots of problems. Magazines are a dying form factor and the internet has diffused public opinion and upended any sense of factual authority. The constantly shrinking news cycle demands constant streams of attention grabbing information. And our short attention span, always connected society has eliminated a lot of the time many of us have to read and digest more substantive journalism.
1
If the "conservatives" at WS care about our Constitutional Democracy, they'd focus on nothing but Russia's influence on America. If we don't fix that, the First Amendment will be the first thing to go.
2
Stephen Hayes works for the dark money right--the anti-democrats who have colluded for a generation and more to take down constitutional order and democratic governance, and replace them with a kind of high-tech feudalism.
The fact that he doesn't create and prevaricate as extravagantly and audaciously as Andrew Breitbart doesn't exactly make him Joseph Pulitzer.
Hayes, a 9/11 revisionist of note, has over the years made himself available to men like Rupert Murdoch and Philip Anschutz for, no doubt, a handsome paycheck. His notion of "real reporting" is reporting that serves the interests of the reactionary super-rich, but in a posh way.
This is all kind of silly, truth be told. Conservative journalism is just conservatism in black-and-white.
The fact that he doesn't create and prevaricate as extravagantly and audaciously as Andrew Breitbart doesn't exactly make him Joseph Pulitzer.
Hayes, a 9/11 revisionist of note, has over the years made himself available to men like Rupert Murdoch and Philip Anschutz for, no doubt, a handsome paycheck. His notion of "real reporting" is reporting that serves the interests of the reactionary super-rich, but in a posh way.
This is all kind of silly, truth be told. Conservative journalism is just conservatism in black-and-white.
7
It's nice to hear that William Kristol -- who rallied the Republicans to halt healthcare reform during the Clinton administration, causing tens of thousands of deaths, then became the #1 cheerleader for the war in Iraq, causing even more, and finally coaxed John McCain into making Sarah Palin his vice presidential candidate -- is moving on from day-to-day editorial responsibility for The Weekly Standard.
As for Mr. Hayes's attempt to bring ‘Facts, Logic and Reason’ back to conservative media, I say both seriously and snarkily: Good Luck With That.
As for Mr. Hayes's attempt to bring ‘Facts, Logic and Reason’ back to conservative media, I say both seriously and snarkily: Good Luck With That.
12
I wonder how many Trump supporters read publications such as the Weekly Standard. That magazine, and others, requires the reader to think a bit, to reason a bit, to analyze a bit. many people these days are unwilling to do any of those things.
Then , there's Fox News, which cares about sensationalism first, far right viewpoints second, and, truth a distant third. Each and every night Fox news tosses a skunk into your living room. You don't have to read, or think or any of that other boring stuff. You just have to be angry that there's a (liberal or Democratic) skunk in your living room.
Then , there's Fox News, which cares about sensationalism first, far right viewpoints second, and, truth a distant third. Each and every night Fox news tosses a skunk into your living room. You don't have to read, or think or any of that other boring stuff. You just have to be angry that there's a (liberal or Democratic) skunk in your living room.
2
I am center left, and WELCOME this stance from a conservative organization. We don't have to agree re opinions but that disagreement should be based on objective FACTS.
3
Like Teka, I crave strong, rational arguments from the conservative side, based on factual evidence. Right now, I feel we're involved in a lot of asymmetrical arguing, where one side disputes well-regarded facts while the other pleads for recognition of basic science and math. This article is not giving me an indication of what to look forward to, unfortunately. I would like just one example from, say, the healthcare or climate change discussions.
2
Interesting that historically the leftists of the old days (30's 40's 50's 60's) would say that the mainstream media (even though it was not called that at the time) demonized them as Un-American. The arguments of liberals were dismissed as idealistic, too sympathetic to the needy, socialistic, and worse. Although the rhetoric today paints the mainstream media as liberal clearly the mainstream media has one agenda. . .to be profitable. If the mainstream media truly had a liberal agenda, and was as influential as conservatives believe, Donald Trump would not have received an estimated billion dollars worth of free coverage during his campaign, and would not have even come close to the White House. The canard of the mainstream media's liberalism is an urban legend that has become fact for people who don't like liberals.
1
Not necessarily. You could make the argument that a liberal media wanted Trump to win the nomination because they thought he would be the easiest for Hillary to defeat. CNN was probably the biggest offender. They gave him the Royal Treatment until he was nominated, then they instantly turned on him in full Attack Mode. I think they've been feeling the most guilt after his inauguration, which is why they hit him relentlessly
3
Kudos to Mr. Hayes for pursuing fact, logic, and reason for a change.
Hopefully we will get accurate information versus spin.
What strikes me though is that facts, logic and reason should not be either conservative nor liberal domains or perspectives.
Facts are just facts. Why not report them that way?
Let the reader come to his or her own conclusion!
That is the only way a news outlet can be trusted.
Hopefully we will get accurate information versus spin.
What strikes me though is that facts, logic and reason should not be either conservative nor liberal domains or perspectives.
Facts are just facts. Why not report them that way?
Let the reader come to his or her own conclusion!
That is the only way a news outlet can be trusted.
3
Reality and human nature both have a liberal bias. Conservatism is always a forced perspective.
2
you seem to be saying that human beings are basically, intrinsically, inherently good; and that, additionally, any person can -- with 10,000 hours of practice -- become mozart.
this is the essential leftwing fallacy that underlies leftwing malarkey. the evidence, especially gleaned over the past 100 years, is that 'homo novis' is just a leftie dream -- and, like it or not, genetics have a HUGE effect on our personalities, our health, and our intelligence. and, additionally, humans have equal capacity for good and evil, but may very well be influenced by their genetic history in such regard.
this is the essential leftwing fallacy that underlies leftwing malarkey. the evidence, especially gleaned over the past 100 years, is that 'homo novis' is just a leftie dream -- and, like it or not, genetics have a HUGE effect on our personalities, our health, and our intelligence. and, additionally, humans have equal capacity for good and evil, but may very well be influenced by their genetic history in such regard.
2
that is why equality before the law demands that people be judged by their BEHAVIOR, with mitigating weight given to their experience -- and their experience includes the quality of their upbringing as well as the genetic gifts or flaws that they inherited, due to no fault of their own.
2
I am deeply gratified, Stuart, that you agree "that human beings are basically, intrinsically, inherently good," and that being so is a "liberal" condition, not a "conservative" one. I'm proud not to be a client of nastiness.
I do not agree that the "10,000 hours of training" holds. I've easily had 10,000 hours of practice in musical skill, and no, I make no claim to being a Mozart. That's genius, another matter entirely.
I do not agree that the "10,000 hours of training" holds. I've easily had 10,000 hours of practice in musical skill, and no, I make no claim to being a Mozart. That's genius, another matter entirely.
Great and enlightening article. One correction: It started probably already in early nineteen-nineties with Goebbels dictum that if you lie frequently and repeat your lies, people with believe you. Especially if your base is barely literate.
3
Don't know about Mr. Hayes. In lead up to Iraq war he was insistent that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 terrorists. He will deny it.
6
Facts, logic and reason? You're making that up!
6
After years of false facts mere faulty logic would be very welcome.
3
A day late and a (more than) a dollar short. You created Frankenstein by your "win at all costs" mentality and now everyone (including the moderate right) has to live with this monster that cares nothing about the truth other than what FakeNews (& Friends) feeds it.
4
This is simply another falsehood from the right. The right has never argued truth, logic or reason. The right is about dogma be more important than facts, logic or reason. The right has been winning since Socrates drank the Hemlock. It is asymetrical warfare and the right always seems to have the power. This time however chances are that we all will die.
America was the first nation of the enlightenment and the founders Establishment Clause was about dogma and excluding it from America. Your country is on life support because truth has been sacrificed to greed and dogma reigns supreme.
America was the first nation of the enlightenment and the founders Establishment Clause was about dogma and excluding it from America. Your country is on life support because truth has been sacrificed to greed and dogma reigns supreme.
3
Orwell said it best.
"How many fingers do you see?"
"How many fingers do you see?"
1
Super! But I must ask. Why did it take for the rise of Trump, the most incompetent, unqualified, and mentally unstable person to ever get inside the White House for these people to have their come to Jesus moment?
Funny thing about setting fires. If the wind blows the wrong way, you can burn your own house down. Maybe that's what happened.
Funny thing about setting fires. If the wind blows the wrong way, you can burn your own house down. Maybe that's what happened.
9
"In some parts of the conservative news media sphere, winning the intellectual argument has been replaced with winning the war, by any means necessary."
The right wing has long since abandoned objective reality in favor of hysterically peddled any conspiracy theory or race-baiting story to whip their readers and listeners into an enraged frenzy. And no, I will not engage in the false equivalency that 'both sides do it.' Fox News, Breitbart, and conservative talk radio ARE the mainstream. They are so persistent and pernicious at spreading falsehoods they force every other media outlet to spend time debunk every wild claim.
I advise anyone to read former talk radio host Charlie Sykes's column "Why No One Cares That the President is Lying" with the caveat that the title should be, 'Why People Whose Reality is Distorted By Right Wing Media Don't Care That The President is Lying.'
The right wing has long since abandoned objective reality in favor of hysterically peddled any conspiracy theory or race-baiting story to whip their readers and listeners into an enraged frenzy. And no, I will not engage in the false equivalency that 'both sides do it.' Fox News, Breitbart, and conservative talk radio ARE the mainstream. They are so persistent and pernicious at spreading falsehoods they force every other media outlet to spend time debunk every wild claim.
I advise anyone to read former talk radio host Charlie Sykes's column "Why No One Cares That the President is Lying" with the caveat that the title should be, 'Why People Whose Reality is Distorted By Right Wing Media Don't Care That The President is Lying.'
4
Both of my parents are retired newspaper journalists so this issue hits close to home for me. Traditionally, most journalists were liberal simply because that's who tended to find journalism careers appealing. Tradition also held that journalists would strive to report the news without bias. However, journalists are also humans and their good faith efforts sometimes failed and bias crept in. On the whole, the coverage was pretty close to balanced (i.e., in tune with objective facts), though.
The big break from tradition was not so much the National Review as it was Fox News. The Fox News founders dismissed the good faith efforts at preventing journalistic bias as ineffective (a gross exaggeration) and set their right wing news organization loose to be as biased as they liked to function as a counterweight to the "liberal media".
Unfortunately, this turned out to be exactly what many viewers wanted and many other outlets (e.g., Breitbart) have followed suit. It's good to hear mea culpas from conservatives like Sykes and Hayes acknowledging the harm this strategy has done, but liberals can't afford to focus on self-congratulation for not doing this to the same degree. We need to keep working to set a better example by policing left wing ideas (e.g., the dangers of GMOs and nuclear power) that run counter to objective facts. I'm hopeful that outlets like the NY Times can function as platforms for objective reporting and fact-based liberal and conservative Opinion pieces.
The big break from tradition was not so much the National Review as it was Fox News. The Fox News founders dismissed the good faith efforts at preventing journalistic bias as ineffective (a gross exaggeration) and set their right wing news organization loose to be as biased as they liked to function as a counterweight to the "liberal media".
Unfortunately, this turned out to be exactly what many viewers wanted and many other outlets (e.g., Breitbart) have followed suit. It's good to hear mea culpas from conservatives like Sykes and Hayes acknowledging the harm this strategy has done, but liberals can't afford to focus on self-congratulation for not doing this to the same degree. We need to keep working to set a better example by policing left wing ideas (e.g., the dangers of GMOs and nuclear power) that run counter to objective facts. I'm hopeful that outlets like the NY Times can function as platforms for objective reporting and fact-based liberal and conservative Opinion pieces.
57
Fukushima isn't dangerous? What crazy liberals are making up things about nuclear power? I would not want a plant in my back yard. No thanks.
People die by the thousands from emissions caused by burning coal. That's not to mention the devastating effects of global warming. Right now, wind and solar can't come close to meeting our energy demands. The bulk of our energy needs are met by coal, natural gas, and nuclear and will be for decades to come. Of those, nuclear is by far the best for global warming. Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. are small potatoes next to the harmful effects of burning carbon based fuels. If you're not blinded by the emotional fears of nuclear accidents, it's an easy choice.
2
Facts can be viewed through different lenses, but the basics essentially remain. This is what we have lost in the last 15 years.
If a conservative outlet wants to report the facts, then provide opinion on the basis of those facts, consider me a supporter.
If a conservative outlet wants to report the facts, then provide opinion on the basis of those facts, consider me a supporter.
3
Good to see Fox News sidelining Andrew Napolitano. His piece actually didn't say outright that the Brits were the source, just suggested that they could have been. But he did say that the NSA has transcripts of every phone call within the US or originating or terminating in the US.
This whopper didn't get the attention it deserved. The phone carriers indeed have calling number/called number/call duration information to share, but recordings/transcripts are a bridge a bit too far.
This whopper didn't get the attention it deserved. The phone carriers indeed have calling number/called number/call duration information to share, but recordings/transcripts are a bridge a bit too far.
2
What happens when it turns out that the truth and facts don't sell conservative newspapers or generate clicks on their web sites?
8
And what does it say about the intellectual and moral poverty of the conservative movement when one of its most well-known publications is having an existential crisis over whether or not to print the truth?
9
Good grief, I do not begin to understand what this puffery is about. "Weekly Standard," as fighting falsehoods? Say what?
6
If conservatism were to be anchored in evidence-based reasoning and mediated by an open-minded but nevertheless skeptical approach to addressing the problems we face, I could see myself easily joining their ranks. Regrettably, that sort of transformative self-awareness is likely to be some time in coming. In contrast to liberalism, whose opinions and policy prescriptions tend to be eclectic and variegated, conservative thinkers tend to look to the past where deference to authority and dogmatic reasoning banished ambiguity, unbelief, uncertainty, and more pointedly, averts our eyes from inconvenient facts and suppressed truths that call into question fundamental conservative beliefs. Conservatism's Euro-centricity, particularly with its reliance on ithe doctrines and prerogatives of the Roman Catholic Church, make it difficult to reexamine Conservatism's own belief system. Conservatism should be able to stand alone, and to justify its beliefs on its own terms, and to be able to adjust itself when faced with beliefs held by others that are not tied to a particular ideology or theology. Americans are a diverse people, and a conservative program would need to accommodate itself to policies that share common principles that most people might agree on. Conservation also needs to address extremist views that no society can tolerate over the long term. That means imposing a healthy discipline on the well-off and well-connected. Society’s needs must come first.
6
Well said.
When conservatism became wedded to high school educated demagogues like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh with a message of relentless and indulgent negativity it was a ridiculous substitute for actual thinking, much less "conserving" anything.
When conservatism became wedded to high school educated demagogues like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh with a message of relentless and indulgent negativity it was a ridiculous substitute for actual thinking, much less "conserving" anything.
4
The problem for conservatives who want to base their "arguments on facts, logic and reason" is that they will lose the battle. When was the last time anyone remembers Fred Barnes or Bill Kristol being right about anything they argued. Right-wingers want only to concentrate wealth and power in the wealthy, with no regard for the welfare of other Americans. That's why Ryancare was all about tax cuts for the top 1% and no concern for throwing 24 million Americans off health insurance. Luckily, Ryancare wasn't cruel enough for the "Freedom Caucus." The only way the righties can succeed in their agenda is to keep facts, logic and reason from the American people. They have a great propaganda machine to do just that.
6
The bill did NOT "throw 24 million Americans off health insurance." It repealed the mandate, so that 24 million Americans could choose for themselves whether or not they wanted to purchase it. Please stop perpetuating this liberal lie.
Conservatives using facts, logic and common sense is the biggest oxymoron of all time.
10
The right used to have a daily newspaper that all sides could depend on for facts, logic and reason -- the Wall Street Journal. It was popular on the left and right, because they reported the news as accurately as they could.
I read the WSJ every day for 30 years (along with the NYT). Every time the WSJ wrote about a subject I knew about, they always got their facts right.
Then Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ. Cynically, he wanted to use the WSJ's credibility to advance his own political agenda in the news columns. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html
I stopped reading the WSJ after the news stories started calling inheritance taxes "death taxes."
Ironically, the best reporting on Murdoch himself and his journalistic ethics was in the WSJ's own coverage of Murdoch's takeover attempt. Those stories were not submitted for a Pulitzer prize.
If you want to understand how a great newspaper was created and how it ended, go to the library and look up those stories.
I read the WSJ every day for 30 years (along with the NYT). Every time the WSJ wrote about a subject I knew about, they always got their facts right.
Then Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ. Cynically, he wanted to use the WSJ's credibility to advance his own political agenda in the news columns. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html
I stopped reading the WSJ after the news stories started calling inheritance taxes "death taxes."
Ironically, the best reporting on Murdoch himself and his journalistic ethics was in the WSJ's own coverage of Murdoch's takeover attempt. Those stories were not submitted for a Pulitzer prize.
If you want to understand how a great newspaper was created and how it ended, go to the library and look up those stories.
3
You have to ask what part of conservative think lead to the rejections of facts. Basic fiscal conservative think is a slave to facts. What parts of the conservative agenda are served by ignoring facts and rejecting rational behavior? Can the rational and the irrational conservatives actually work with each other?
A good first stab at the topic. Here's one added thought:
- The academic Left (self-styled) has been preaching that 'there is no truth outside social power' for thirty years, and that Power Creates Truth so let's take power...and suppress the Right. Bannon understands how cynical that is, and that it can be used against the Left even more easily than against the Right. After that, there was Conspiracy Theory followed by the Counter-Facts of the Bannonites.
The Internet delivers fake news and unbalanced interpretation from both extremes. However, the extreme Right knows how to threaten, intimidate, and troll its opponents, especially on the Internet. That's why it won the Internet Fake-News Lottery. However you look at it, the campus aristocracy must share responsibility for the Donald Trump Deviancy.
- The academic Left (self-styled) has been preaching that 'there is no truth outside social power' for thirty years, and that Power Creates Truth so let's take power...and suppress the Right. Bannon understands how cynical that is, and that it can be used against the Left even more easily than against the Right. After that, there was Conspiracy Theory followed by the Counter-Facts of the Bannonites.
The Internet delivers fake news and unbalanced interpretation from both extremes. However, the extreme Right knows how to threaten, intimidate, and troll its opponents, especially on the Internet. That's why it won the Internet Fake-News Lottery. However you look at it, the campus aristocracy must share responsibility for the Donald Trump Deviancy.
1
it is ironic that the welcome reversal of declining revenues to the media has occurred during the campaign, transition and administration of Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump's disregard for veracity and organizational effectiveness has driven demand for news from qualified media who actually do due diligence before running stories.
Another factor that has been a life-savor for print dailies, which are in the decline stage of the product life cycle, has been the purchase of several by
individuals such as Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos.
Bezos' hands off ownership and freedom from quarterly earnings pressure of the legendary investigative journalism icon Washington Post has been of vital importance in curtailing the damage that clueless charismatic Donald Trump can impose upon our nation.
That said, caution should be present in the purchase by Sheldon Adelson of
the dominant Nevada newspaper, which had previously reported on his many flawed actions.
Mr. Trump's disregard for veracity and organizational effectiveness has driven demand for news from qualified media who actually do due diligence before running stories.
Another factor that has been a life-savor for print dailies, which are in the decline stage of the product life cycle, has been the purchase of several by
individuals such as Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos.
Bezos' hands off ownership and freedom from quarterly earnings pressure of the legendary investigative journalism icon Washington Post has been of vital importance in curtailing the damage that clueless charismatic Donald Trump can impose upon our nation.
That said, caution should be present in the purchase by Sheldon Adelson of
the dominant Nevada newspaper, which had previously reported on his many flawed actions.
1
I can respect any point of view if it starts with facts that both parties agree upon and they are willing to address the issue, not as a battle to be won, but a problem to be solved.
These issues address real people with real lives. I want to solve global warming. If that means an aggressive carbon tax, fine. If that means a cap and trade market system, fine. If that means subsidizing significant portion of the renewable energy infrastructure, fine.
But you can't solve a problem until you can a) agree it is a problem, and b) agree on the facts that will bound the scope of your problem solving efforts.
These issues address real people with real lives. I want to solve global warming. If that means an aggressive carbon tax, fine. If that means a cap and trade market system, fine. If that means subsidizing significant portion of the renewable energy infrastructure, fine.
But you can't solve a problem until you can a) agree it is a problem, and b) agree on the facts that will bound the scope of your problem solving efforts.
2
This is all very good and desirable. But it does seem that the growth of openly partisan news is perhaps partly a symptom of political polarization, and polarization is itself largely a symptom of extreme gerrymandering.
If Congressional seats are entirely "safe" in the hands of one party or the other than the two party system, which should drive the parties towards the middle, will no longer have that moderating effect. Rather, politics in each district will move to the center of the two individual parties, not the center between the parties. And it will be natural to have two unrelated, party-affiliated "realities" on television news -- one brought by Fox and company and one by MSNBC.
Some might not like centrist politics, but I will take them any day over the extremism that we have now -- extremism that is much more prevalent on the right, but also found on the left. We're very rapidly becoming a Latin American style polity, though saying so may not be fair to the Latin American states of today.
If Congressional seats are entirely "safe" in the hands of one party or the other than the two party system, which should drive the parties towards the middle, will no longer have that moderating effect. Rather, politics in each district will move to the center of the two individual parties, not the center between the parties. And it will be natural to have two unrelated, party-affiliated "realities" on television news -- one brought by Fox and company and one by MSNBC.
Some might not like centrist politics, but I will take them any day over the extremism that we have now -- extremism that is much more prevalent on the right, but also found on the left. We're very rapidly becoming a Latin American style polity, though saying so may not be fair to the Latin American states of today.
23
"And just as it will call out Mr. Trump when he speaks falsely, it will avoid jumping to conclusions that every Trump move is false — which he said mainstream news organizations were too quick to do."
Looks like he's off to a bad start then. I admit that the NY Times and CNN make up the majority of the news I get from the mainstream press. I don't know what other organizations he includes in that category. But I know I haven't seen many, if any, examples, of mainstream reporters exaggerating the lack of fact in Trump's statements or being too quick to label his acts as weak or mendacious. Maybe the Times reporter didn't have the time or feel the need to include any examples, but that would have been helpful.
Looks like he's off to a bad start then. I admit that the NY Times and CNN make up the majority of the news I get from the mainstream press. I don't know what other organizations he includes in that category. But I know I haven't seen many, if any, examples, of mainstream reporters exaggerating the lack of fact in Trump's statements or being too quick to label his acts as weak or mendacious. Maybe the Times reporter didn't have the time or feel the need to include any examples, but that would have been helpful.
1
I’m calling out your falsehoods, as well as your arrogance concerning your sacrosanct perch as grand arbiter of what is and what is not false news. On March 17 your paper denied the history of Irish slaves in America and the West Indies by ruling out of contention those who were kidnapped to British America, and pretending that all unfree Irish labor was indentured under contract. I hope you know how ridiculous you look to all but your base. Your conceit just accelerates your loss of credibility.
1
Not sure what you're talking about? The NY times generally provides levels of analysis and editorializing unlike the click bait 'news sources'.
1
The day Fox signs off the air, forever, and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk choke on their own bile, I will garner hope that the right has any chance of re-educating their base; a base so steeped in conspiracy theories, fake news, fake information, and a need to hate something/anything...and with the advent of trump they're so confused they don't even know who or what they should be hating never mind thinking. And speaking of Alex Jones "apologizing"....he encouraged and asked his listeners to investigate "pizza gate" for themselves and one man did, with a gun in hand: Alex Jones is in legal jeopardy and thinking an "apology" will help.
The Weekly Standard may have a laudable goal but is it realistic given what they cannot possibly deny about right wing tv and radio...how many of these people are reading the Weekly Standard? I don't know the stats but I have watched many an interview and their answer to "where do you get your news and information?" is consistently: Fox and Breitbart and Facebook memes.
The Weekly Standard may have a laudable goal but is it realistic given what they cannot possibly deny about right wing tv and radio...how many of these people are reading the Weekly Standard? I don't know the stats but I have watched many an interview and their answer to "where do you get your news and information?" is consistently: Fox and Breitbart and Facebook memes.
3
It is over 15 years old, but Salim Muwakkil's column in the Chicago Tribune "Liberal Media' is the Goal Rather Than the Enemy" is still worth a read. He says: "liberalism and journalism have much in common, or at least they should have. The chief quality of liberalism is a skeptical attitude toward all received wisdom, be it sacred or secular. ....Because all received wisdom comes with biased assumptions, and society can only evaluate those biases by examining them"
There is a horrifying profile of two "Gateway Pundits" in the New Yorker magazine of two weeks ago. The "pundits" were so immersed in false narratives that they couldn't tell if a headline from The Onion was real or not. They came across as self centered anarchists who were only interested in how many people they were fooling, not caring, in the least, what kind of harm they were doing to our republic. I'm not sure that facts, logic or reason have a chance against this level of cynicism.
1
My warning to The Weekly Standard... better get ready to be labeled "fake news"
7
The "cuck" brigade already hates William Kristol.
I have little use for him, more due to his misbegotten advocacy for the Iraq Invasion.
I have little use for him, more due to his misbegotten advocacy for the Iraq Invasion.
1
The fundamental problem is that the facts do not agree with their point of view, so rather than alter their point of view, they decided to alter the facts.
50
Nate,
The fundamental problem is not the understanding of facts. The problem is that this debate is about dogma and empiricism and that like William F. Buckley Jr said believed facts are to be disregarded if the facts conflict with dogma.
If I might for the moment be a constitutional originalist. The founding documents were written during the Enlightenment and the Establishment clause expressly forbid dogma which conflicts with empirical evidence.
Men like Buckley, Scalia, Ryan and McConnell are anti-American and far too few of us are familiar with this 5000 year old debate.
We desperately need to study the humanities. We need to know Socrates, Hillel, Jesus and John of Salisbury, the Sophists are kicking the bejesus out of us.
The fundamental problem is not the understanding of facts. The problem is that this debate is about dogma and empiricism and that like William F. Buckley Jr said believed facts are to be disregarded if the facts conflict with dogma.
If I might for the moment be a constitutional originalist. The founding documents were written during the Enlightenment and the Establishment clause expressly forbid dogma which conflicts with empirical evidence.
Men like Buckley, Scalia, Ryan and McConnell are anti-American and far too few of us are familiar with this 5000 year old debate.
We desperately need to study the humanities. We need to know Socrates, Hillel, Jesus and John of Salisbury, the Sophists are kicking the bejesus out of us.
2
For example, in the days when he was just your average NYC real-estate guy, Trump's bio had him as being 6'2" and 250lbs.
When someone pointed out to him that that BMI (height-to-weight ratio) qualified Trump as 'obese', he simply changed his height to 6'3".
See how supple facts can be?
When someone pointed out to him that that BMI (height-to-weight ratio) qualified Trump as 'obese', he simply changed his height to 6'3".
See how supple facts can be?
The "mainstream media" conspiracy is another place where the far-right and the far-left have come together in an ouroboros. The only difference is the nature of the claimed bias and source of the conspiracy. The far-right claims the mainstream media is a massive left-wing conspiracy run by "identity politics-loving liberal elite," while the far-left claims the mainstream media is a massive right-wing conspiracy run by "money-grubbing corporate elite."
3
Oh, look, another right-wing news outlet that claims to be the only sources of the truth, while pushing the idea of "mainstream media" being a massive, monolithic conspiracy. From Wall Street Journal to Al Jazeera to the Guardian, they are all controlled by the same secret master.
5
It's kind of amazing to see none other than Stephen Hayes advocating honest fact-based journalism. I hope he's sincere. Perhaps he is. Perhaps he's learned something he didn't know back in 2003. Doesn't anyone remember the infamous "Feith memo"? Where Donald Rumsfeld's Undersecretary Douglas Feith was cooking up pretenses for the Iraq war? And there was The Weekly Standard, and specifically Mr Hayes, turning up the heat on the stove? Granted, it wasn't Breitbart. It was way slicker, way more insidious. But the fact that it was an iota more plausible than Breitbart-insanity only made it dangerously more effective. I will never forget how maddening this twisting up of selected morsels of fact mixed with assumption and fear was. And I find it kind of hard to believe that anyone telling the story of Hayes and The Standard on this topic could fail to bring this up! Have a look down the memory hole:
"But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans." Hayes, Nov 24, 2003.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-saddam-osama-memo-cont./article/4635
"But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans." Hayes, Nov 24, 2003.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-saddam-osama-memo-cont./article/4635
13
I subscribe to both the WSJ & NYT. WSJ readers refer to liberals as evil ignorant people bent on preventing human progress. NYT readers refer to conservatives as evil ignorant people bent on preventing human progress. Both apply the simple label of "liberal" or "conservative" to those with the most extreme views rather than those with far more common moderate views. Since this is the NYT, I will comment that moderate conservatives believe that limited government is best as government more often than not fails when it tries to intervene in the economy. For example, how is the U.S. Government's attempt to increase the affordability of a college education coming along? How competent has the Dept. of Interior's management of the American Indian oil trust fund been? What happened to jobs and tax revenue when the U.S. Government introduced a boat luxury tax in order to increase tax revenue? My point is that moderates on both the left and right can achieve goals if they will just apply a little common sense.
1
Great, now even moderates have a purity test. Otherwise how would we know who the true moderates are? Strange days indeed.
Lorem, we will know moderates when we see them. :-)
Facts, logic, and reason. That would be a novel approach for those on the right.
7
Just like Rice's ridiculous op-ed in the WaPo last week about truth coming from the White House. Like the "truth" she told over and over on the Sunday talk shows a few days after Benghazi. What a hack..
2
Wouldn't it be fun if ignorance were painful? Horribly, searingly painful. And wouldn't it be a delight to see Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sykes doubled-up in agony? Yes, it would.
2
This is what we need more than ever. Facts. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, one needs to know the truth. Without it, we are lost.
5
I believe, purely by accident, Big Pharma caused the Health bill to go down in defeat. How? By flooding the media both the left and the right
with ads for their overpriced pills they
were able to pierce the echo chamber. For example-"Boomers! You might
have Hep-C!" And if not that maybe diabetes, Opioid Constipation, Congestive Heart Failure? Cancer or Dry eyes? and so on. These days these ads reached everyone equally. They could not be avoided by just watching Fox or MSNBC. The ads are deviously designed to send you running to your doctor to ask, "are those pills right for me?"
Of course the next chilling question is "Could I afford those under Trumpcare?"
When the answer is obviously no we can understand why the popularity of the bill sank to 17% Thanks Big Pharma, even if you didn't intend it, well played
with ads for their overpriced pills they
were able to pierce the echo chamber. For example-"Boomers! You might
have Hep-C!" And if not that maybe diabetes, Opioid Constipation, Congestive Heart Failure? Cancer or Dry eyes? and so on. These days these ads reached everyone equally. They could not be avoided by just watching Fox or MSNBC. The ads are deviously designed to send you running to your doctor to ask, "are those pills right for me?"
Of course the next chilling question is "Could I afford those under Trumpcare?"
When the answer is obviously no we can understand why the popularity of the bill sank to 17% Thanks Big Pharma, even if you didn't intend it, well played
2
as a matter of background, i'm ivy-league educated and have an advance degree in science. i've been reading the NYT since the early 90s and read as many so-called mainstream news outlet for years. then there are publications with a particular bent like the national review and the atlantic. ditto with internet news sites. i've never actually came over to fox news, but a strange thing happened. i've never even heard of breitbart until this past year and started reading their articles which i have found some articles to balance out the progressive views of the NYT in the same way that I sometimes watch/read RT news to balance out Western viewpoints. I think I will give this new publication a try. With so many articles being opinion based, it is now up to the readers to sort out what is fact and what is opinion.
3
That's great. Keep in mind that RT is state-run. It's a real difference and if you don't believe it, go see how that outlet is reporting internal Russian political stories.
The NYT gets things wrong but it's a horrible false equivalence to "balance out" with Breitbart or Zerohedge or RT. These sites hardly care when they get it wrong. They just move on without retraction, generally speaking.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but I say it since you don't.
The NYT gets things wrong but it's a horrible false equivalence to "balance out" with Breitbart or Zerohedge or RT. These sites hardly care when they get it wrong. They just move on without retraction, generally speaking.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but I say it since you don't.
1
Sorry, though I strongly support the recently announced move by the conservative Weekly Standard to now focus on more objective reporting within its pages, I note that the Trump White House, the Right Wing and alt- news media and the GOP Tea Party bomb throwers in Congress all have lead a fierce campaign to punish any journalist or news organization who dares to deviate from that day's received talking points. I only hope the
Weekly Standard's Editor, Stephen Hayes, and his staff are prepared for the blow back that they will surly encounter from the current Masters of the Universe if the Weekly Standard indeed begins to focus on facts and figures instead of confusion and subterfuge.... I think non-the-less, Good Luck and well wishes is in order for the Weekly Standard's willingness to resist the current tide pushing journalism toward valuing hyperbole over objectivity, in reporting the news
Weekly Standard's Editor, Stephen Hayes, and his staff are prepared for the blow back that they will surly encounter from the current Masters of the Universe if the Weekly Standard indeed begins to focus on facts and figures instead of confusion and subterfuge.... I think non-the-less, Good Luck and well wishes is in order for the Weekly Standard's willingness to resist the current tide pushing journalism toward valuing hyperbole over objectivity, in reporting the news
32
The country needs a responsible conservative party. A responsible conservative party would share many of the policy goals of a responsible liberal party. It would differ in the types of programs it would support. For example, on health care a responsible conservative party would have a plan to insure all citizens. It might push for a market based plan rather than a single payer plan. And indeed either one could work. A responsible conservative party would not push poor people off health insurance roles in order to reduce taxes on the super rich as the current crop irresponsible Republicans has done.
31
How have current Republicans managed the feat of pushing poor people off the rolls and reduced taxes on the rich, since Obamacare is the law of the land and their repeal/replace bill has been pulled? I don't believe they've passed any tax cuts for the rich lately, either.
They just finished trying to do that in the past week. It failed, but it is what they wanted, huge tax cuts for the rich and pushing poor people off of insurance.
The problem was that to the conservatives, the bill didn't hurt enough people or give enough money to the rich.
Thus they are trying, just failing so far. But they are promising to come back to it and do it right the next time to give the rich the huge tax cut they deserve in their minds. The conservatives are not interested in doing what Joejohn said they should do. Their ideas are not to help the poor.
The problem was that to the conservatives, the bill didn't hurt enough people or give enough money to the rich.
Thus they are trying, just failing so far. But they are promising to come back to it and do it right the next time to give the rich the huge tax cut they deserve in their minds. The conservatives are not interested in doing what Joejohn said they should do. Their ideas are not to help the poor.
Add more resources and make sure you're basing your arguments on facts, logic and reason? Since when has that persuaded anybody in politics? It feels like truth is dead. Where does that leave our country?
2
If Mr. Hayes truly intends to be a journalist who deals in "facts, logic, and reason" only, one certainly hopes he realizes that one cannot do so As a Republican or Democrat. One instead must be a Voice of reason and logic.
In other words, akin to Rawl's veil of ignorance, mr. Hayes needs to stand behind his veil of ignorance, and approach argument and issues as that voice of reason and logic, not as a "conservative" (or "liberal").
To do otherwise is to simply be another sophist, of which there are more than enough.
In other words, akin to Rawl's veil of ignorance, mr. Hayes needs to stand behind his veil of ignorance, and approach argument and issues as that voice of reason and logic, not as a "conservative" (or "liberal").
To do otherwise is to simply be another sophist, of which there are more than enough.
2
Good for him! Truth shall always prevail irrespective of political affiliation.
I read some of the comments on Breitbart this weekend regarding the health care bill being pulled. To my surprise, there were a few (very small) commenters who indicated they were getting tired of the site and the inaccuracies. The harvest for truth is plentiful, but the laborers for truth are few. I'm glad he is taking this on. Much needed!
I read some of the comments on Breitbart this weekend regarding the health care bill being pulled. To my surprise, there were a few (very small) commenters who indicated they were getting tired of the site and the inaccuracies. The harvest for truth is plentiful, but the laborers for truth are few. I'm glad he is taking this on. Much needed!
50
The reason that so many right wing news outlets just make things up is because, as the great Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a liberal bias."
16
Good luck Mr. Hayes. Right-wing encouragement of the divorce from reality has already incurred lasting damage. You have a long way to climb from a hole most easily dug without the constraints of consistent principle, truth, accountability, and too often, humanity. Adhere to those, and you'll emerge with your integrity intact, and maybe a wider readership.
3
Trying to bring facts and objectivity back to the conservative movement makes Sisyphus' problem with the boulder sound like a day at the beach. The dilemma for conservatives is that those who know realized long ago that their core principles are defective and just don't work when turned into policy (e.g. Trickle down economics), so they became the party that relied on easy to swallow talking points aimed at naive and alienated voters whose scam radars weren't working while they raked in campaign donations from billionaires for whom politics was a hobby more interesting than race horses. The folks described in the article as the intellectuals of the conservative movement for the most part came to this realization decades ago and either moved on, or became career pundits as a means to earn a living from their tarnished but still recognized brand. Conservatives today are like doctors a hundred years ago who still insisted on bleeding patients with leeches even though the modern medicine of the time had shown that it didn't work. So weaning the conservative mentality off of falsehoods and deception is a noble ambition, for which I wish them well.
3
Fox News, Breitbart and Infowars have exposed the republican agenda to bare the real purpose
It is all about tax breaks for the wealthy and they don't care if the country cannot function. They don't want to participate or improve or enhance. They just want to find new ways to make money and they don't care who they have to step on to do it.
They don't want to contribute to society at all, they consider us all beneath them.
It is all about tax breaks for the wealthy and they don't care if the country cannot function. They don't want to participate or improve or enhance. They just want to find new ways to make money and they don't care who they have to step on to do it.
They don't want to contribute to society at all, they consider us all beneath them.
31
Someone asked me when I talk about conservative political thought these days so negatively, that basically I don't see any conservative political thought, what I see masquereding as conservative thought is reactionary, reactive yelling and blaming everyone else, rather than thought. The health care debacle is a perfect example, the reactionary ideal was to 'get rid of ACA' because it was evil, done by Obama, etc, but there was no serious thought about how to achieve goals the ACA wanted to do (affordable health insurance/care) while fixing the broken parts, they were caught instead of yelling and screaming actually having to do something.
People like William F Buckley and George Will , as much as I could disagree with them, made the attempt to state the facts, give their ideas for changing things and why they thought they would work. You could debate them, debating what passes for conservatism these days is a yelling match on right wing talk radio, it is "oh yeah, that's true because it is true, despite the lies of the liberal press".
People like William F Buckley and George Will , as much as I could disagree with them, made the attempt to state the facts, give their ideas for changing things and why they thought they would work. You could debate them, debating what passes for conservatism these days is a yelling match on right wing talk radio, it is "oh yeah, that's true because it is true, despite the lies of the liberal press".
18
Does anyone else notice how things have gotten progressively worse since say ... the late 80s? That's when our government buried the FCC's only true weapon: The Fairness Doctrine.
Because of the Fairness Doctrine, Broadcasters had to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and they had to fairly represent opposing views or suffer the wrath of the FCC.
In 1986, President Reagan led the charge to do away with it. Certainly, he couldn't see what was coming. But one thing is for certain, "fake news" or the ability to spread bold faced lies on public airwaves wouldn't be happening today.
Broadcasters and publishers might once again be interested in the truth, not ad sales and ratings. And the American people might actually know the facts.
Because of the Fairness Doctrine, Broadcasters had to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and they had to fairly represent opposing views or suffer the wrath of the FCC.
In 1986, President Reagan led the charge to do away with it. Certainly, he couldn't see what was coming. But one thing is for certain, "fake news" or the ability to spread bold faced lies on public airwaves wouldn't be happening today.
Broadcasters and publishers might once again be interested in the truth, not ad sales and ratings. And the American people might actually know the facts.
12
The Fairness Doctrine was a rationing scheme, to assure access to scarce TV signal in a three-channel world.
That world does not exist anymore. There's no defense for rationing something that is in abundant supply.
Limbaugh used to bellow, "I *am* the 'equal time.'" Like him or not, there was some truth in that statement.
That world does not exist anymore. There's no defense for rationing something that is in abundant supply.
Limbaugh used to bellow, "I *am* the 'equal time.'" Like him or not, there was some truth in that statement.
1
Recent reputable polls show that 40 to 50+% of Republicans think Obama is Muslim. 41% believe Obama was not born in the US and 72% still doubt his place of birth. According to Pew, 15% of conservative Republicans and 34% of moderate Republicans believe the earth is warming mainly because of human activity. 63% of moderate Democrats and 79% of liberal Democrats believe the earth is warming mainly because of human activity like almost all climate scientists do.
It's apparent that many Republicans and even more so those that consider themselves conservative are somewhat resistant to the truth. Sure, a tiny wacko fringe of those consider themselves liberal believe stuff like the CIA brought down the twin towers, but the numbers of fact denier liberals is nothing compared to Republicans. The Republican president appears to believe in lies about just about everything, recently saying the Vince Foster suicide story is "fishy", of course after being the number one Obama denier for years.
It's a little hard to see a market for the new Truth Telling Weekly Standard.
It's apparent that many Republicans and even more so those that consider themselves conservative are somewhat resistant to the truth. Sure, a tiny wacko fringe of those consider themselves liberal believe stuff like the CIA brought down the twin towers, but the numbers of fact denier liberals is nothing compared to Republicans. The Republican president appears to believe in lies about just about everything, recently saying the Vince Foster suicide story is "fishy", of course after being the number one Obama denier for years.
It's a little hard to see a market for the new Truth Telling Weekly Standard.
28
Don't waste your time Mr. Hayes. Trump's acolytes, while calling themselves "conservatives," have zero idea of what constitutes facts, reason or logic.. . or even what conservative means. That they elected Don the Con is prima facie evidence of this.
This gaggle of insular fools likely views your publication as the mirror image of the NYT: Effete liberal, lying, mainstream media.
Suggest that instead of hiring more journalists, you hire grade and middle-school teachers and parachute them into Trump country. They can start with basic history, civics, logic and science. Then, pick a few and send them to Europe so they can see first-hand actual advanced civilizations and, learn first-hand, that America is a third-rate finisher behind many countries who have better health-care, quality of life, and infrastructure. And, these countries understand that Climate Change is for real.
Pardon me. . I just awoke from a silly reverie.
This gaggle of insular fools likely views your publication as the mirror image of the NYT: Effete liberal, lying, mainstream media.
Suggest that instead of hiring more journalists, you hire grade and middle-school teachers and parachute them into Trump country. They can start with basic history, civics, logic and science. Then, pick a few and send them to Europe so they can see first-hand actual advanced civilizations and, learn first-hand, that America is a third-rate finisher behind many countries who have better health-care, quality of life, and infrastructure. And, these countries understand that Climate Change is for real.
Pardon me. . I just awoke from a silly reverie.
8
In this context, I recall the words of Ron Ziegler, Nixon's one-time press officer: Those facts are no longer available. Ron was happier working at DisneyLand.
6
Even though I identify as liberal, I used to enjoy reading Buckley's National Review because it offered an informed, thoughtful, and rational perspective from the other side. That was long ago. Kudos to Mr. Hayes for trying to bring a semblance of integrity back to conservative media, but I won't hold my breath. His target audience has clearly shown its preference for the irresponsible and inflammatory content of Fox News, Brietbart, Limbaugh, and the like. Most have little regard for logic or facts. There are some thoughtful conservative media outlets, but as long as conservative audiences choose to embrace the worst kind of reporting, legitimate conservative journalism will be relegated to obscurity. For the content providers, its ultimately about the ratings and the money.
5
This is, of course, admirable. Because the only hope for discourse to replace raw partisanship is for the center-right to find its center. And, I think this may have been the silent coalition Clinton was courting. A detente that would have coalesced in any late 20th century year. Alas, we seem to be in a new media era and The Weekly Standard is still essentially "print" competing with Fox, Hate Radio, and now Breitbart.
It's sort of like hoping people will opt for going to a lecture rather than a movie. That certainly didn't work with the "Trump demographic" which ignored the Standard's "Never Trump" warnings while grooving on Sean Hannity.
It's sort of like hoping people will opt for going to a lecture rather than a movie. That certainly didn't work with the "Trump demographic" which ignored the Standard's "Never Trump" warnings while grooving on Sean Hannity.
57
Those who have been reading Weekly Standard would know by now that one big message in their pages is that the American left "is largely divorced from the facts, logic and reason.." I am using the words of devoted liberal, right here in this comments section, to make this point.
Sure, WS never liked Trump, and often made the effort to criticize or correct him. But they spent even more time criticizing and correcting the liberal media. And on most issues, they take the same or similar positions which Trump is trying to implement now.
Notice how the three words are used: "facts, logic and reason", probably because WS knows that facts alone can't define or detect truth. Just read all the trial cases where witnesses, under oath, swore to opposite facts, yet none of them were lying. Or try to figure out how statistics, which is supposedly a collection of facts, so often can be used to arrive at OPPOSITE conclusions. So fact checking, which the liberals almost always resort to prove their point, is not very effective in finding the truth.
It's not a matter of plain dry facts. Most news sources report the same ones at least 95% of the time. It's how you use your reason to interpret them which counts. And on this point - the intepretation - the left wing media falls short.
Sure, WS never liked Trump, and often made the effort to criticize or correct him. But they spent even more time criticizing and correcting the liberal media. And on most issues, they take the same or similar positions which Trump is trying to implement now.
Notice how the three words are used: "facts, logic and reason", probably because WS knows that facts alone can't define or detect truth. Just read all the trial cases where witnesses, under oath, swore to opposite facts, yet none of them were lying. Or try to figure out how statistics, which is supposedly a collection of facts, so often can be used to arrive at OPPOSITE conclusions. So fact checking, which the liberals almost always resort to prove their point, is not very effective in finding the truth.
It's not a matter of plain dry facts. Most news sources report the same ones at least 95% of the time. It's how you use your reason to interpret them which counts. And on this point - the intepretation - the left wing media falls short.
2
What exactly is conservatism? My "New World" dictionary defines it as, "the principles and practices of a conservative person or party; tendency to oppose change in institutions and methods."
And a "conservative" is "... 2. tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these...." (Other definitions are less informative.)
These definitions are the opposite of wanting to dismantle or reverse existing traditions or institutions. These people are not "conservative"; they are reactionaries and extremists. Being "more conservative" means being more extreme.
There is a reason why conservatives cannot win "the intellectual argument" and why it "has been replaced with winning the war, by any means necessary." Telling people that the status quo is perfect, and all change must be resisted is not a winning argument. And saying they want to return to the good ole days of Jim Crow, or the Robber Barons, or the glorious antebellum days doesn't win many arguments.
Maybe they should come up with some arguments to move forward, not backward.
And a "conservative" is "... 2. tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these...." (Other definitions are less informative.)
These definitions are the opposite of wanting to dismantle or reverse existing traditions or institutions. These people are not "conservative"; they are reactionaries and extremists. Being "more conservative" means being more extreme.
There is a reason why conservatives cannot win "the intellectual argument" and why it "has been replaced with winning the war, by any means necessary." Telling people that the status quo is perfect, and all change must be resisted is not a winning argument. And saying they want to return to the good ole days of Jim Crow, or the Robber Barons, or the glorious antebellum days doesn't win many arguments.
Maybe they should come up with some arguments to move forward, not backward.
3
I'd love to see some proof that conservatives have said they want to return to Jim Crow, Robber Barons, and the antebellum days (the first and third of which were instituted and supported by Democrats).
The age of the robber barons was a time where the government was weak and had the fewest laws and regulations governing businesses. The conservatives are demanding that the government be drown in a bathtub and that all laws and regulations should be done away with.
Many also want to get rid of the equal rights act and to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws
Back in those days, the democrats were the conservative party, which changed after the 1960s'.
Doing away with those laws and regulations would allow the age of the robber barons to come back. To do whatever they want with a weak government that could not protect the rest of us from the rich. Allowing open discrimination, which is what the jim crow laws were, would make it legal for people to pass laws that allow discrimination. We already have conservatives trying to let open discrimination of the LGBTQ community happen with the laws they are trying to pass. We still have massive secret discrimination of blacks, doing away with the laws would allow laws to be passed against blacks.
Many also want to get rid of the equal rights act and to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws
Back in those days, the democrats were the conservative party, which changed after the 1960s'.
Doing away with those laws and regulations would allow the age of the robber barons to come back. To do whatever they want with a weak government that could not protect the rest of us from the rich. Allowing open discrimination, which is what the jim crow laws were, would make it legal for people to pass laws that allow discrimination. We already have conservatives trying to let open discrimination of the LGBTQ community happen with the laws they are trying to pass. We still have massive secret discrimination of blacks, doing away with the laws would allow laws to be passed against blacks.
1
While I will acknowledge that it's a better approach than purposeful misinformation, I believe legitimate news media should use "facts, logic and reason" to arrive at conclusions, rather than use them as tools to justify ideology that they believe in.
4
One cannot afford to forget that William F Buckley Jr was instrumental in turning the Republican Party from a political party into a religious cult.
Buckley was a 12th century Catholic for whom Dogma always trumped empirical evidence. Today the conservative movement continues to defile the US constitution and corrupt its language. I cannot help but noted that it was the conservative movement that turned Antonin Scalia from a brilliant lawyer into a exemplary jurist. Scalia was never a jurist and remained until his very end a brilliant lawyer but had none of the humility and honesty that might have made him an even adequate Supreme Court Justice.
The conservative movement is not conservative it is a reactionary movement whose goal it is to destroy everything the United States was supposed to represent. It has brought into question the very legitimacy of the government of the USA and the notion of government by We the the People.
I am Canadian and have on occasion supported our Conservative Part but our conservatives believe in the legitimacy of our constitution and government and that sometimes taxes need to be raised to pay for services that only a proper government committed to the commonwealth can provide.
Buckley was a 12th century Catholic for whom Dogma always trumped empirical evidence. Today the conservative movement continues to defile the US constitution and corrupt its language. I cannot help but noted that it was the conservative movement that turned Antonin Scalia from a brilliant lawyer into a exemplary jurist. Scalia was never a jurist and remained until his very end a brilliant lawyer but had none of the humility and honesty that might have made him an even adequate Supreme Court Justice.
The conservative movement is not conservative it is a reactionary movement whose goal it is to destroy everything the United States was supposed to represent. It has brought into question the very legitimacy of the government of the USA and the notion of government by We the the People.
I am Canadian and have on occasion supported our Conservative Part but our conservatives believe in the legitimacy of our constitution and government and that sometimes taxes need to be raised to pay for services that only a proper government committed to the commonwealth can provide.
10
We often hear about "conservative principles"; but, too often the meaning of principles appears to unprincipled deceit spiced with a smile and mean contempt. I believe there are principles among conservatives but they have become blended among radicals, racists, evangelicals, jingoists and chaos opportunists.
With the likes of Bannon, Trumps, Pence, et al; it is hard to tell what demon is in the drive and what principle is observed or corrupted. It is also hard to tell if they are aligned with the United States or are seeking to align it with the will of foreign powers from Moscow to wherever. This is most troubling.
With the likes of Bannon, Trumps, Pence, et al; it is hard to tell what demon is in the drive and what principle is observed or corrupted. It is also hard to tell if they are aligned with the United States or are seeking to align it with the will of foreign powers from Moscow to wherever. This is most troubling.
3
Has Rutenberg actually read the Weekly Standard? Around here it's known as the Weekly Wingnut as it peddles a constant stream of Briebart-style reporting.
1
"Never Trump" made some sense when there were still some other options on the GOP side. But when Trump sewed up the nomination, and the only alternative was Hillary, "Never Trump" ceased to make any sense whatsoever.
2
The article was a breath of fresh air in today’s conservative news environment. I remember hearing about “The Weekly Standard” some time back but never really took the time to investigate it. I tend to be more liberal on social issues but fiscally a conservative, so accessed the Standard’s website a short while ago and read a few articles, excellent. Were factual, and succinct.
Checked out some of your writers bio’s and they have the experience. Did note though, only one female, Kelly Jane Torrance. Something the paper might want to consider reviewing.
Checked out some of your writers bio’s and they have the experience. Did note though, only one female, Kelly Jane Torrance. Something the paper might want to consider reviewing.
50
Perhaps it's time to consider reinstating the Fairness Doctrine that the FCC got rid of in 1987 or something similar.
2
How does one subscribe to facts, logic, and reason and be conservative?
5
I'll believe it when I see it.
3
So, they created a situation where lies are taken for the truth and the truth is assumed to be a lie partly to undermine the "liberal" media. Did it never cross their minds that the constant doubletalk they engaged in would unravel any trust their supporters had for them as well as the "mainstream liberal" media? Journalists are not supposed to write their opinions of the news. They are supposed to report the facts whether they like those facts or not. That goes for liberals and conservatives.
A bomb goes off in the middle of a city and kills hundreds of people. A serious illness is working its way throughout a certain populations. How do reporters write or report these things? Not with their opinions or by attributing them to their pet causes. A bomb went off. People were killed. No one has claimed responsibility. For an illness: these populations are being affected. Right now no one knows what they have in common. Everyone is asked to be careful.
In today's world that is not what occurs. We see opinions before the facts. We hear demands for change before we know what needs to change. Politicians refuse to work together because the conservative media picks it up and uses it to sabotage any cooperation on the grounds that liberals are the devil incarnate. And yes, extremist liberals do the same thing. But mainstream media doesn't have to do these things. They would do better reporting the facts and giving us a chance to make up our own minds.
A bomb goes off in the middle of a city and kills hundreds of people. A serious illness is working its way throughout a certain populations. How do reporters write or report these things? Not with their opinions or by attributing them to their pet causes. A bomb went off. People were killed. No one has claimed responsibility. For an illness: these populations are being affected. Right now no one knows what they have in common. Everyone is asked to be careful.
In today's world that is not what occurs. We see opinions before the facts. We hear demands for change before we know what needs to change. Politicians refuse to work together because the conservative media picks it up and uses it to sabotage any cooperation on the grounds that liberals are the devil incarnate. And yes, extremist liberals do the same thing. But mainstream media doesn't have to do these things. They would do better reporting the facts and giving us a chance to make up our own minds.
51
Political parties, when in power, have always accused the media of bias. Bias, to them, is anything that tells truth they would rather keep hidden, or exposes their half truths and lies by omission. As the article says, there is a real problem that was initially caused by deliberate attempts by some of the media to distribute propaganda. Now that anyone can create a website and thereby become part of "the media", or even worse just post propaganda on Twitter or Facebook, the situation is out of control.
7
Today almost all media has bias, to make their customers happy if for no other reason. And a lot of what they publish is opinion or slanted headlines not supported by the body of an article.
1
Sort of funny to see a conservative newsperson from THE WEEKLY STANDARD craving evidence-based reporting. At some point, a conservative is going to reach a crossroads where they have to choose evidence or ideology, and, historically, they always choose the latter to uphold their views. It's what makes them conservatives.
I'd consider this the "because I said so" school of thinking, with the appeal to authority at the heart of all conservative thinking. Whether that authority is God or Leader or Party, it's coming from somewhere. What's more, it's occurring above and beyond paltry considerations of evidence.
Just as individuality is different from individualism, so is rationality different from rationalization -- all this fellow is going to do is come up with elegant rationalizations for ultimately conservative talking points. It's kind of like Christian movies -- regardless of the story, you know where they're going to end up.
I'd consider this the "because I said so" school of thinking, with the appeal to authority at the heart of all conservative thinking. Whether that authority is God or Leader or Party, it's coming from somewhere. What's more, it's occurring above and beyond paltry considerations of evidence.
Just as individuality is different from individualism, so is rationality different from rationalization -- all this fellow is going to do is come up with elegant rationalizations for ultimately conservative talking points. It's kind of like Christian movies -- regardless of the story, you know where they're going to end up.
18
"Conservative" and "facts" have no serious relation to each other.
69
It used not to be that way. If the conservative news outlets are trying to get back to truth-telling, good for them. There is a place, IMO, for biased news organizations that nevertheless make an effort to be accurate. We are all biased. We are all more likely to be critical of reported facts that do not support our preconceived views, and less critical of those that do. I'll read the Weekly Standard with pleasure and interest as long as it is biased, yet makes an attempt to tell the truth. I could be mistaken about this, but I think Breitbart was like that before Andrew died.
Please do not think there is a media outlet anywhere that is free of bias. If it is, it isn't human. The best you can do is to try to read a variety of sources, and screen out the ones you know are lying to you.
Please do not think there is a media outlet anywhere that is free of bias. If it is, it isn't human. The best you can do is to try to read a variety of sources, and screen out the ones you know are lying to you.
1
@Laura
You're mistaken. Andrew Breitbart was never concerned with telling the truth.
You're mistaken. Andrew Breitbart was never concerned with telling the truth.
3
Me: they prefer alternative facts.
1
Heartwarming news. However it seems to me that an exclusively conservative bias (rear mirror view) is no better than an exclusively liberal bias (windshield view trying to adapt to change) in the facts the "pro" chooses to declare. I would prefer a "pro" to examine facts regarding the outcomes of different memes and make a case for data when there is none.
2
Climate is where the rubber meets the road in the relationship between fact and fiction in politics and journalism. Conservatives propose:
1. That the ice cap on Mars proves something about the warming experienced on Earth (See Rohrabacher and Alley discuss).
2. That the climate models are the only evidence suggesting that humans are the main cause of the post 1970 warming.
3. That the hacked emails prove that the very public, oft replicated climate data are less than robust record of nature changes.
4. That CO2 warms but not by much and we are likely to like the benefits of AGW.
5. That Fred Seitz's petition of deniers was honestly assembled.
A "reporter" believing these things will have to work very hard to competently cover climate because these propositions do not form a valid basis for observing nature nor humankind's effort to deal with its present dilemma.
There are large uncertainties in climate sensitivity. There are conservative tools for dealing with climate change such as carbon tax. These are reasonable topics for discussion.
The inability to have a rational discussion about climate with conservatives puts the entire enterprise of conservatism in doubt. If in a pinch ~90% of conservatives rely on their ideology over the First Law of Thermodynamics in evaluating propositions about climate, then there is little reason to believe that conservatives are fit partners in the discussion of humanity's future. First they must understand that climate facts matter.
1. That the ice cap on Mars proves something about the warming experienced on Earth (See Rohrabacher and Alley discuss).
2. That the climate models are the only evidence suggesting that humans are the main cause of the post 1970 warming.
3. That the hacked emails prove that the very public, oft replicated climate data are less than robust record of nature changes.
4. That CO2 warms but not by much and we are likely to like the benefits of AGW.
5. That Fred Seitz's petition of deniers was honestly assembled.
A "reporter" believing these things will have to work very hard to competently cover climate because these propositions do not form a valid basis for observing nature nor humankind's effort to deal with its present dilemma.
There are large uncertainties in climate sensitivity. There are conservative tools for dealing with climate change such as carbon tax. These are reasonable topics for discussion.
The inability to have a rational discussion about climate with conservatives puts the entire enterprise of conservatism in doubt. If in a pinch ~90% of conservatives rely on their ideology over the First Law of Thermodynamics in evaluating propositions about climate, then there is little reason to believe that conservatives are fit partners in the discussion of humanity's future. First they must understand that climate facts matter.
93
there is no evidence whatsoever that co2 (an essential component of life on earth) has any effect on climate. if anything, considering the geological record, it's more likely that stark changes in climate, due to the astrophysical cycles that affect our planet, influence co2 levels slightly.
1
Your science is at least over a hundred and 50 yrs old. Back in the 19th century CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas. Along with others. That fact has remained true and will remain true.
There are no astrophysical cycles affect our climate right now for warming. In fact the only cycle says we should be freezing in an ice age. The sun is at a current low, there has been no planetary tilt to affect the weather, volcanic eruptions down. All of the past affecters have been shown not to be in effect.
The past does show us that when CO2 has been high, the temperature rise. And that is happening today.
Please, really study some actual science, not the garbage you are spouting. None of what you said is true at all, due to a lack of education on science and how it is conducted.
And yes CO2 is necessary. So is oxygen and nitrogen. In the correct proportions that is. We are adapted to a certain atmospheric mix, changing the mix quickly is not good for life. The dying of the coral reefs which come from a saturation of CO2 in the oceans shows how important balance is. CO2 accumulation leads to a thinning of shells for mollusks, it warms the water to kill the algae the coral needs to live in a symbiotic bond.
And plants on land are not growing in more abundance, they need water also, esp with the temperature rising.
You may think you know more than the scientists who actually study climate, but you don't.
There are no astrophysical cycles affect our climate right now for warming. In fact the only cycle says we should be freezing in an ice age. The sun is at a current low, there has been no planetary tilt to affect the weather, volcanic eruptions down. All of the past affecters have been shown not to be in effect.
The past does show us that when CO2 has been high, the temperature rise. And that is happening today.
Please, really study some actual science, not the garbage you are spouting. None of what you said is true at all, due to a lack of education on science and how it is conducted.
And yes CO2 is necessary. So is oxygen and nitrogen. In the correct proportions that is. We are adapted to a certain atmospheric mix, changing the mix quickly is not good for life. The dying of the coral reefs which come from a saturation of CO2 in the oceans shows how important balance is. CO2 accumulation leads to a thinning of shells for mollusks, it warms the water to kill the algae the coral needs to live in a symbiotic bond.
And plants on land are not growing in more abundance, they need water also, esp with the temperature rising.
You may think you know more than the scientists who actually study climate, but you don't.
2
It's totally self-defeating that conservatives have pursued this anti-science line. It has allowed the debate to be completely focused on the reality of climate change, rather than on the question of whether not any realistic action that governments can take (whether regulatory or market-based) can actually slow the process down or alter its eventual conclusion.
This is a pragmatic and practical question for conservatives to be asking since there is no scientific "proof" that we can actually slow climate change down, and the prospects for concerted global efforts to cut carbon emissions are bleak anyway. More and more it seems that climate change started sooner than we originally thought, and turning the ship around at this point might be essentially impossible.
This is a pragmatic and practical question for conservatives to be asking since there is no scientific "proof" that we can actually slow climate change down, and the prospects for concerted global efforts to cut carbon emissions are bleak anyway. More and more it seems that climate change started sooner than we originally thought, and turning the ship around at this point might be essentially impossible.
I'd always admired the conservative movement and its intellectual inhabitants until the last decade or more. While I didn't share most of their views I did respect them.
There is a built in distance from real lives to their principles.
If Mr. Hayes is going to change the landscape with the truth and put away the fake news arsenal being employed elsewhere then I wish him well.
I believe in reading different opinions on matters important to me. I'm sure many would welcome real fair and balanced reporting rather than the pulp served up now on the right.
Hysteria is no substitute for the truth. If you believe in something, explain it factually and stand with it. Those who care will stand with you.
There is a built in distance from real lives to their principles.
If Mr. Hayes is going to change the landscape with the truth and put away the fake news arsenal being employed elsewhere then I wish him well.
I believe in reading different opinions on matters important to me. I'm sure many would welcome real fair and balanced reporting rather than the pulp served up now on the right.
Hysteria is no substitute for the truth. If you believe in something, explain it factually and stand with it. Those who care will stand with you.
40
Could not have said it better. Thanks
1
And if the facts (a.k.a. science) show that conservatives are silly and/or opportunists exploiting the uneducated masses, then what?
62
I'd love to see the science behind that statement.
Label it Fake News, of course.
3
I've subscribed to magazines of the left and right for decades. I believe reading different views is mentally healthy. I first subscribed to National Review, The New Yorker and The New Republic in the late sixties. I added The Weekly Standard about 10 years ago. I found I didn't have time to read both right of center mags, so when Buckley died, I dropped NR.
One of The Weekly Standard's best features is its Books & Arts section, which is concise and covers a wide variety of material. I hope Mr. Hayes does not change this section.
I notice that The New Republic, which by the 1990s had become essentially a centrist mag, has veered sharply to the left since Martin Peretz sold the mag. The average article is now a little too far left for me, but I will continue to be dutiful and read it carefully. As I noted, helps me be mentally balanced.
One of The Weekly Standard's best features is its Books & Arts section, which is concise and covers a wide variety of material. I hope Mr. Hayes does not change this section.
I notice that The New Republic, which by the 1990s had become essentially a centrist mag, has veered sharply to the left since Martin Peretz sold the mag. The average article is now a little too far left for me, but I will continue to be dutiful and read it carefully. As I noted, helps me be mentally balanced.
63
I personally welcome any news outlet whose content is based on "facts, logic, and reason," and that participates in a shared sense of "truth" in reporting. I would welcome such a "right leaning" source. Breitbart News is on a par with "Weekly World News" type outlets, and Fox News just panders to whatever will make it money and increase viewers, displaying only the trappings of legitimacy. I wish the Weekly Standard well, but the proof, as always, is in the pudding.
22
One thing Trump’s election meant is that many Americans are weary of politics as usual and don’t want another four years like the last twelve, maybe longer than that. I think a lot of politicians and journalists don’t fully appreciate and understand that—yet, and act as if little has changed and the two parties can go about their business in the conventional way. People’s patience is not unlimited.
2
So, you think that they'd rather have lies and nonsense of the kind that our President represents?
1
What a curious statement...
Conservatives have succeeded in ending the hegemony of the mainstream news media... I like the quote attributed to H.S. Thompson much better.
Conservatives have succeeded in ending the hegemony of the mainstream news media... I like the quote attributed to H.S. Thompson much better.
7
The American right is largely divorced from the facts, logic and reason and married to fear, loathing, greed, white spite, resentment and carefully cultured ignorance, conspiracy, and voter suppression.
If the Weekly Standard starts telling the truth, they will no longer be part of the Republican's (and Richard Hofstadter's) Paranoid Style of American politics.
Telling the truth is the only thing that will help save America.
Let's hope (naively) they might actually be serious, but Weekly Standard owner Philip Anschutz is an Oil Baron who helped put the kibosh on the Senate considering the Kyoto Protocol climate change treaty.
It's hard to take Greed Over People seriously.
If the Weekly Standard starts telling the truth, they will no longer be part of the Republican's (and Richard Hofstadter's) Paranoid Style of American politics.
Telling the truth is the only thing that will help save America.
Let's hope (naively) they might actually be serious, but Weekly Standard owner Philip Anschutz is an Oil Baron who helped put the kibosh on the Senate considering the Kyoto Protocol climate change treaty.
It's hard to take Greed Over People seriously.
155
And you know all the information in your first paragraph from the news you receive from the American left, is that correct?
Just listening to Trump, Bannon, and the conservatives show a lack of facts and knowledge on the part of the right. I haven't seen such hate from the right since the 60s'.
And as for greed, how does cutting taxes on the rich and taking away health insurance from the poor show they care about the actual people who will be hurt by their policies? Has a huge tax cut for the rich ever helped the poor? The answer is no. Since such policies have been enacted, the rich have increased their wealth by 300% and the rest of the people, the working people have had stagnant wages despite inflation. Which means they now earn less than what they did in the 1980s'.
Those tax cut for the rich and doing away with all welfare for the poor is conservative policy and has only hurt the poor immensely. However, the rich are making out fantastically. That is called greed. And all one has to do is listen as conservatives talk about more tax cuts for the rich and more cuts in funding for the poor. Just listening to them shows me what they stand for.
And as for greed, how does cutting taxes on the rich and taking away health insurance from the poor show they care about the actual people who will be hurt by their policies? Has a huge tax cut for the rich ever helped the poor? The answer is no. Since such policies have been enacted, the rich have increased their wealth by 300% and the rest of the people, the working people have had stagnant wages despite inflation. Which means they now earn less than what they did in the 1980s'.
Those tax cut for the rich and doing away with all welfare for the poor is conservative policy and has only hurt the poor immensely. However, the rich are making out fantastically. That is called greed. And all one has to do is listen as conservatives talk about more tax cuts for the rich and more cuts in funding for the poor. Just listening to them shows me what they stand for.
I would like to see a "Consumer Reports" ranking of news sources. Here's how you might do it.
Choose 1000 people who have an interest in being informed. Split them into various groups that watch news sources for, say, 1 month. They agree to look at only those news sources.
Have them fill out a current events questionnaire both before and after the 1 month period.
Rank the news sources by the score on the exam.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Let's have news sources compete on the basis of how well they inform the viewer or reader, not on their popularity. It's not hard to guess who would rank at the top and bottom.
Choose 1000 people who have an interest in being informed. Split them into various groups that watch news sources for, say, 1 month. They agree to look at only those news sources.
Have them fill out a current events questionnaire both before and after the 1 month period.
Rank the news sources by the score on the exam.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Let's have news sources compete on the basis of how well they inform the viewer or reader, not on their popularity. It's not hard to guess who would rank at the top and bottom.
11
If hard line conservatives start using facts to support their reporting their media outlet(s) will become part of, "... the mainstream news media as a liberal monolith..." As Stephen Colbert said, it is well known that facts have a liberal bias.
133
Your source is a comedian, how appropriate. And objective facts have no bias. But objective facts are sometimes rare and difficult to impossible to obtain.
4
Talk about amateur hour. Rep. Nunes, most likely took the information from the clueless 28 year old Hope Hicks who works for Trump as a media flack. . The information turned out to be collected incidental to a broader investigation and of no interest to those intelligence operatives who collected it. But Trump, when advised by Nunes , then claimed he was then vindicated for his alleged baseless claims about Obama wiretapping him. Nunes got setup and used by Trump. He needs to resign and not seek reelection.
25
Look, this is admirable.......but it reads like a drop in the bucket.
One of the first things we need to do is to actually educate consumers not just to be able to differentiate between false/true but to understand things in context.
I give CNN credit for doing a great job with that. IF you watch in the morning, one trend I have noticed is that they have stopped skimming issues but instead explore facts. If a claim is made about immigrants, they vet it with not just the corresponding fact but with others that create context. CBS news does this too--but in a more high brow sort of way.
By contrast, the Today Show is TERRIBLE. They skim topics. They treat politics like a street fight focusing on winners/losers without ever answering the basic questions views want to know: WHAT DOES THIE MEAN TO ME beyond just "my team (red.blue) won...... I have stopped watching Today as a result.
I think that it will be great to have a counter punch to Breibart.
One of the first things we need to do is to actually educate consumers not just to be able to differentiate between false/true but to understand things in context.
I give CNN credit for doing a great job with that. IF you watch in the morning, one trend I have noticed is that they have stopped skimming issues but instead explore facts. If a claim is made about immigrants, they vet it with not just the corresponding fact but with others that create context. CBS news does this too--but in a more high brow sort of way.
By contrast, the Today Show is TERRIBLE. They skim topics. They treat politics like a street fight focusing on winners/losers without ever answering the basic questions views want to know: WHAT DOES THIE MEAN TO ME beyond just "my team (red.blue) won...... I have stopped watching Today as a result.
I think that it will be great to have a counter punch to Breibart.
51
CNN and CBS are quite biased as is this newspaper.
1
One of the first things I do when reading an article is pay attention to the tone of the first two paragraphs. If they consists solely of framing to get my emotions prepared so that I receive the facts, when I finally get to them, with the proper amount of outrage, grief, or whatever, I stop RIGHT THERE.
1
"Look"?
Somehow we fail to make the distinction between 1) choosing which news items to highlight (a legit MSM critique, although it is also simply part of journalism that requires making judgments) and 2) fabricating nonsense, ignoring major news, rejecting science, and creating hysteria over non issues (which is what the wingnuts have done, led by Fox and breitbart but followed by all). Most responsible conservative intellectuals are now banished from the movement by the nuts.
4
Would be a welcome outlet as an alternative to fox and the radio blowhards for thinking people who truly want both sides of a story.
15
Hayes was always one of the more reasonable voices on Fox, he just simply says it like it is. Never afraid to criticize either side. We need more journalists like him.
8
Or those who will stick to the 5 W's and how, leave out that emotional wording and do their jobs properly. That is almost impossible.
1
I'm very appreciative of this man's intention. I'm even mildly appreciative of Philip Anschutz. But - isn't Anschutz one of the dark money people like Kochs who have been manipulating the direction of our country's media and politics behind the scenes to begin with? Neil Gorsuch is a Federalist Society/Anschutz protege. Don't intellectual conservatives have their own grassroots money outside of the realm of biliionaire sponsors? It's not like Soros pays for The Nation (well perhaps but I don't think so.) The grassroots conservatives paid for Trump, I wish it had been only them and not the Mercers.
12
You are correct about Anschutz.
3
Falsehoods in reporting? The media ,television & Internet, but also print should require a Wikipedia like references to their sources & facts. This would alleviate the arguments between fake sources & just biased sources. I wish they would start with today's news:
1.) Why did Fox News seem to lie about reporting Trump was not playing golf when he was? Trivial matter but why the need to cover for Trump? Don't they do enough?
2.) Interviewers should note after an interview what were any limitations on asking questions. Are most politicians scared of pointed questions & what the avoided questions would probably make a better story .
3.) Media should self-identify themselves as infotainment or true news reporters. It would clear up a lot on channels & publications.
4.) Reporters need to pick up on readers/viewers/listeners questions for those making news. An example; Congressman Nunnes, are you colluding with the Trump administration to cover up Russian/Trump administration collusion? Are you aware if there is any,you would be an accessory?
Nice to see someone does care in the media,but actually better questions & asking sources to substantiate claims & identify reporters biases have around at places like PBS since the Watergate era.
1.) Why did Fox News seem to lie about reporting Trump was not playing golf when he was? Trivial matter but why the need to cover for Trump? Don't they do enough?
2.) Interviewers should note after an interview what were any limitations on asking questions. Are most politicians scared of pointed questions & what the avoided questions would probably make a better story .
3.) Media should self-identify themselves as infotainment or true news reporters. It would clear up a lot on channels & publications.
4.) Reporters need to pick up on readers/viewers/listeners questions for those making news. An example; Congressman Nunnes, are you colluding with the Trump administration to cover up Russian/Trump administration collusion? Are you aware if there is any,you would be an accessory?
Nice to see someone does care in the media,but actually better questions & asking sources to substantiate claims & identify reporters biases have around at places like PBS since the Watergate era.
26
That conservatives and the far right are now suddenly concerned with facts is laughable.
Too little, waaaaay too late. I have yet to hear Rupert Murdoch make even one declaration about factual reporting at Fox News or by any of its parade of lying pundits. He and he alone started this insanity when he created Fox to prop up the Bush Administration, which ignored the warnings that led to 911 and lied us into the disastrous Iraq war.
Not only that, NO ONE will take him on.
The only thing that matters to anyone in the media is power and profit. He who controls the narrative, controls everything today and that is why we have the worst person in American history as our president today.
Les Moonves' craven statement about Trump being bad for America but very good for CBS' bottom line is underscored with great irony by the fact that his industry recently honored him for his contributions to television and journalism.
The liar-in-chief's supporters, as stated in media outlets everywhere, DON'T CARE THAT HE LIES. That is what passes for informed citizenry today in my country.
What a sad and dangerous joke - on American democracy and on all Americans.
Too little, waaaaay too late. I have yet to hear Rupert Murdoch make even one declaration about factual reporting at Fox News or by any of its parade of lying pundits. He and he alone started this insanity when he created Fox to prop up the Bush Administration, which ignored the warnings that led to 911 and lied us into the disastrous Iraq war.
Not only that, NO ONE will take him on.
The only thing that matters to anyone in the media is power and profit. He who controls the narrative, controls everything today and that is why we have the worst person in American history as our president today.
Les Moonves' craven statement about Trump being bad for America but very good for CBS' bottom line is underscored with great irony by the fact that his industry recently honored him for his contributions to television and journalism.
The liar-in-chief's supporters, as stated in media outlets everywhere, DON'T CARE THAT HE LIES. That is what passes for informed citizenry today in my country.
What a sad and dangerous joke - on American democracy and on all Americans.
186
Actually, I think he created Fox to tear down the Clinton administration. The concept is the same, only the timing is different.
1
We can all hope the Weekly Standard is able to move the right-wing media back from its culture of misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies, but it's a long shot at best. I include Fox, Andrew Breitbart, one of the most notorious liars of all time, and Drudge in the list of usual suspects for intellectually dishonest right-leaning organizations claiming to report news. The problem, as I see it, is that my conservative friends and Donald Trump literally don't know and no longer even care whether what they read is true. They're lazy and ignorant. I have reluctantly concluded the truth is dead. If you encounter a conservative or Republican who is completely without any hint of intellectual integrity understand that was always the plan.
72
Is it a sign of the times that I seem to be the only person writing a comment here? Although I am a staunch democrat, I am delighted by the presence of a newly reconfigured conservative weekly paper, and will make it my job to read it.
33
The article should have mentioned that Weekly Standard gets the vast majority of its funding from Rupert Murdoch. It's never made money.
7
The article says he doesn't own it anymore.
1
This liberal would welcome a sane, informed, conservative voice in media policy debates. Liberals don't always get everything right and we all need to work together better on the problems confronting us. "Facts, logic, and reason" are what I seek in news reporting and even in opinion pieces. However, the mainstream media has been falsely labeled "liberal" simply for reporting facts -- scientific, demographic, etc -- and generally using them in logical, reasonable arguments. I wish the Weekly Standard well. If it's truly guided by facts. logic, and reason, it would be of great help right now in countering the fabulists currently dominating right-wing journalism.
428
When conservatives become "sane" and "informed" they become progressives.
2
If the Weekly Standard were truly guided by facts, reason, and logic, it would not be a conservative publication.
1
Teka writes, "This liberal would welcome a sane, informed, conservative voice in media policy debates"
...and we'll believe it when we see it.
...and we'll believe it when we see it.
Ghandi defeated the British empire with Satyagraha, or the 'force of truth'.
Many right wing news organizations will destroy the United States of America with their untruths.
Many right wing news organizations will destroy the United States of America with their untruths.
13
Good luck with that. The cynical right wing press and cable networks, backed by Murdoch, Ailes and the rest of the rogues' gallery, has no interest in objective news, only in consolidating right wing, authoritarian government that minimizes regulation, maximizes "patriotism" and leaves the wealthy free to romp as they like. Hayes is on a fool's errand.
76
How do minimal regulation, patriotism, and freedom (for the wealthy) translate to authoritarian government? Also, if you don't like the wealthy being free to "romp," how would you prefer they be restrained?
Author and professor Tom Nichols advises students to subscribe to a journal they disagree with to avoid reinforcing the echo chamber of their own values and supporting their own confirmation bias. So, why not run a trial, Times?