The most interesting part of this article is the first few paragraphs, after that weird bit about what conservatives and liberals want from media bias (really???) it went downhill fast.
16
Trump’s attack on Baltimore and Congressman Cummings:
Did his disgusting comments really need to appear so prominently in the paper today?
The Times seems to be dead set on repeatedly informing its readers that Trump is a racist and a bigot despite the fact that most of us already figured this out a long time ago.
I suggest that the Times return to its previous policy of limiting itself to publishing “All the news that’s fit to print.”
From now on, couldn’t we just have a small box somewhere in the paper headed “The Biggest Lie He Told Today,” maybe near the weather report and the ball scores.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/us/politics/trump-elijah-cummings.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer&contentCollection=Politics
32
Horny dudes do dumb things. Common sense and book smarts aren't the same thing. Am I missing anything else?
21
Why on earth does so much of Ross's writing veer towards the prurient? The C1 article in this paper of record today is about destruction of the Amazon by Trump's, and Ross's party's, Brazilian friend. Eye on the ball, Ross. Eye on the ball.
23
A recent episode of Invisibilia podcast provides another excellent opportunity to think about this
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/invisibilia/id953290300?i=1000434743447
1
Not when they are on the side of those who march with torches.
8
Ross: This is the most “Catholic” thing you’ve ever written... the Spirit really does blow whither it will!
5
Again with the false equivalence. Trump, his pet rattlesnake Miller, Fox, and the rest of the right wing noise machine have started a hate campaign against “the four” based completely on lies. Just to whip up their racist base.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps-and-millers-attacks-on-the-squad/
This is blood libel, akin to real anti-semitic slurs like the Jews killing of Christ. That a President is leading the charge boggles the mind.
27
Two con-women and a man who acted/reacted like a gullible idiot, that's what it boils down to (that's how I "read" it).
5
" ... when liberals damn conservative megaphones for reporting 'alternative facts' instead of real ones, what they often really mean is that the right-wing media reports on real facts and real stories ... but then overstates or misreads their significance." Or more often just the lies like Mr. Trump claiming he tried to tamp down the "Send Her Back" chants, when he obviously paused to let it build, and then continued his attack. Keep in mind the inventors of the phrase: " 'Alternative facts' was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration" (Wikipedia)
15
When liberals damn conservative media for reporting “alternative facts,” it's not that we think they overplay crimes committed by immigrants, it's that Fox News and its ilk traffics in conspiracy theories like the murder of Seth Rich. Or the hidden child sex ring in a DC pizza parlor. Or that President Obama wasn't born in America.
There is no equivalence between the "liberal" media and the conservative media.
Chris Hayes may lean left, but he reports facts. Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and the three stooges on the Fox morning show, are partisan hacks who twist facts on a daily basis.
52
Likewise, when liberals damn conservative megaphones for reporting “alternative facts” instead of real ones, what they often really mean is that the right-wing media reports on real facts and real stories
No, what they mean is that right ring media often spreads absolute fiction up to the point of threatening the very survival of our species.
What in "liberal" media compares to climate change denial? Or the promotion of the idea that a black president is not a citizen of the U.S.?
Anyway, there is no "liberal" media of significance. What Trumpists call the lying liberal media is actually the corporate media, which is socially "liberal", but otherwise conservative and protective of its advertisers- the corporations, including themselves.
One could even logically suggest that the liberal social part is a strategy to keep the majority of salaried workers in this country divided and conquered so that the investment class doesn't have to worry about cumbersome regulations and a more egalitarian distribution of this nation's wealth.
18
"Likewise, when liberals damn conservative megaphones for reporting “alternative facts” instead of real ones, what they often really mean is that the right-wing media reports on real facts and real stories — crimes committed by illegal immigrants, say, or the violent edge to the Antifa protests — but then overstates or misreads their significance."
This is exactly why conservatives are bad people. Thanks for laying it out so clearly.
4
“When liberals damn conservative megaphones for reporting ‘alternative facts’ instead of real ones, what they often really mean is that the right-wing media reports on real facts and real stories.”
Douthat, you’re smarter than this. No, what is meant is that the right-wing media is often reporting lies, occasionally spun into conspiracy theories, the likes of which never see the light of day on MSNBC or in the NY Times. Your column is the kind of false equivalency that pervades journalism today.
20
"And nothing should temper partisanship more than an awareness that somewhere, on some issue, people with whom you disagree are telling a story that you really need to hear." Agreed, absolutely. Its why I read your column!
But..."Likewise, when liberals damn conservative megaphones for reporting “alternative facts” instead of real ones, what they often really mean is that the right-wing media reports on real facts and real stories — crimes committed by illegal immigrants, say, or the violent edge to the Antifa protests — but then overstates or misreads their significance.." is also absolutely wrong and a biased statement. No, what bothers me about conservative media is that they report "alternative facts" as facts including giving credence to ridiculous conspiracy theories.
5
"Likewise, when liberals damn conservative megaphones for reporting “alternative facts” instead of real ones, what they often really mean is that the right-wing media reports on real facts and real stories..."
What we often really mean is that they are telling lies, outright lies. Just like the original "alternative fact", Sean Spicer's description of the size of Trump's inauguration.
10
Maybe the investigation into the Trump campaign is treason. Maybe we really do need a big beautiful wall.
Maybe tax cuts for the top 1% really do pay for themselves. Maybe the facilities that house illegal immigrants really are more summer camps than concentration camps.
Maybe the solution to gun violence is more guns.
Maybe trade wars are easy to win.
Maybe Putin didn't interfere in the election.
Sure ... we're stupid ... we'll believe anything.
26
How’s this for a story? Shortly after he took office, the National Enquirer ran a piece with the following headline: Obamas Ruined White House. Broken Toilets. Rats and Mice. No, thank you very much, I didn’t sympathize with the “other side”. I recoiled in horror and disgust.
Flash forward more than two years, and Trump himself insults Congressman Elijah Cummings and his constituency, tweeting that their hometown of Baltimore is a “disgusting, filthy, rat and rodent-infested mess,...where no human being would want to live”. When Trump-friendly rags and Trump himself employ such white-supremacist dog whistles to “stoke their base,” we all know what the story is. According to such racist illogic, African-Americans are associated with such negative adjectives involving vermine and infestation and, oh, by the way, are not human, because they choose to live “where no human being would”. So, once again, no, even though I am certain there are some “very fine people” on the “other side,” I will not sympathize with such grotesque, despicable and disgusting narratives. They and their perpetrators deserve neither understanding nor empathy. For their polarizing efforts, they merit precisely the polar opposite. They, and their ilk, deserve nothing more than to be rendered unto the trash heap of history—along with their unsympathetic “stories”.
35
How can anyone have a worthwhile discussion with someone who thinks scientific facts are “fake news”?
14
How in God's name can a Harvard law professor not know with whom he's had sex? I thought they were supposed to be pretty smart up there.
6
Um, a simple Google search reveals a completely different Maria Pia Schulman. Who are these cons?
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/maria-pia-shuman-accepting-for-inductee-mort-shuman-at-the-news-photo/97745354
1
It would be nice if we could all “just get along.” Sadly, that is not where we are right now. When your enemy is banging on your door demanding your head, savage retaliation, not niceness is what is required. Trump is our avenger against the SJWs and the forces of darkness.
2
Reading the comments sections on Fox is instructive. The racists and fascists definitely are not about to change their views by opening their minds to any contrary views. They have their own set of internally consistent "facts" and any opinion that says anything that contradicts their facts is simply proof of evil treachery and lies by the enemy. I use the word advisedly rather than opposition because they openly say they want their political enemies dead or in concentration camps.
6
I respect that you are aiming for greater understanding, but I still call false equivalency. I don't need to read the National Enquirer to understand that some people are polarized as to whether or not UFOs or Bigfoot exist(s). Left or right aside, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I want to see the evidence, witness the event, and attend the trial. I want to speak with the eye witnesses. I want to see the dinosaur bones for myself at the museum. When all that is not possible, the next best thing is to read (and watch) as many different sources of information as possible. An informed electorate, with a basic level of education, can compare and contrast multiple sources of information and reach a valid conclusion when sufficient evidence has been presented. The problem occurs when we give snake oil salesmen equal time, or we give soapboxes and megaphones to authoritarians and idiots or those with hidden agendas. Consider this. Should the major TV networks provide creationists an hour a day of 'news' time so America can better understand the polarization between science and creationism? Or maybe the moon landing deniers should have their own show too? Barf. When I tune into Fox 'news' I feel like I'm reading the National Enquirer, a non credible source. It's like China's Xinhua news, State sponsored TV. Informed electorates must be able to compare/contrast information from multiple sources to determine which sources of news are credible and which are not.
13
As so often, it’s breath-taking to watch Ross Douthat trying to twist open lying, blind cheerleading for Trump, and some truly ugly racisms and sneers at the poor, into a mirror image of the Left.
Know what I take as a pretty good symbol for what Douthat’s writing apologias for?
“Pastor,” Kevin Swanson, speechifying about hanging gay people with three Republican candidates in close attendance. Trump screaming about Mexicans. Yack about Secind Amendment remedies, followed by murders in churches, synagogues, and mosques carried out by right-wing lunatics.
And of course, tax cuts for the wealthiest.
14
The author's choice of exemplars is, in itself, telling. Bruce Hay is obviously a weak-willed idiot, and I grow weary of "Harvard professor" being the modifier used to paint all liberals as weak-willed idiots. Sometimes an idiot is merely an idiot. I travel in these circles and I know that Harvard grads are way less than impressive.
Douthat neatly evades the most important issue in the age of Trump: cruelty. Conservatives, particularly evangelicals, are very willing to treat their fellows with cruelty in the name of some obscure abstraction like "illegal immigrant" while evading the Christian truth that we must love our neighbors. And why do they do it? Because they are afraid of inevitable demographic change, they could not refrain from doubling down and scapegoating Hispanics when they should have welcomed the stranger in the finest Christian and American tradition, and now they are stuck in a cycle of cruelty.
Yo, Douthat, these people are Catholics. Have you no shame?
Throughout American history, the left has challenged the cruel, sometimes with their very lives. THAT is the history. Not this nonsense. The left challenged slavery, they challenged the Know Nothings, they challenged the Klan, they challenged Jim Crow, they challenged the draft in Viet Nam, when 75 percent of casualties were soldiers in the first 90 days of service. And now they challenge Trump and forced separation of families at the border.
You write in service of cruelty, Mr. Douthat. Shame!
19
As Syndrome says to Mr. Incredible: “You sly dog....”
Douthat, you almost had me going along with you. Then I realized that behind the concept of this article is the fact that you think I’m polarised!
I’m not a fan of Jen Bush, little Marco, or Ted Cruz, but I am certain that I would NOT be puking in the toilet every time they tweet.
What I’m polarised about is how you, as an educated, rational, east coast intellectual rarely, if ever, stand up and use your platform to beat back the silly chanting that occurs. Where are you when goofy Gohmert rips into Mueller with half baked and twisted logic? Where are you when 45 fans the fear and paranoia of his base with fantastical half truths about immigrants? Why dont you investigate how people are duped by 45’s simplistic concepts of MAGA which are decades ago proven ineffective (see tariffs- is this the eighteenth century; see climate change- it must be true because fifty years ago the Ohio river literally caught on fire (more than once!)
I cannot stress it enough, I’m not polarised against honest diatribe with those on the other side. I’m polarised against those who go along unquestioning their leader.
I dare you to write an essay on three things you believe Obama to have gotten right, and juxtapose it with just two things you think
8
What strikes me about this story is how easily both can be true. Hay may well be a big gullible idiot that should have never ever gotten into this devastating situation. That reality does not preclude him being the victim of a new establishment where certain social groups are given the social benefit-of-the-doubt and that once he fell into the hole new societal pressures prevented him from effectively escaping.
2
I don't think it is accurate to call Shuman a lesbian, even though that is how she presented herself to Hay. It is part of the con they were pulling on Hay. It was meant to flatter him probably. "You are the exception."
1
Conservatives: tell all the stories you want. You're still voting for and supporting a scoundrel who is, in fact, a racist and an authoritarian. You have disqualified your personal narratives by your association with a man who is selling us all out. You refuse to see this and actually bask his his transgressions. You have essentially neutered your ability to be persuasive with any of the countless groups of people that Trump demonizes.
4
We can see the Sacklers as daring and resourceful entrepreneurs who beat the system in order to achieve a large success. We can see global warming warnings as a plot against the American Way of Life and our love affair with the automobile. We can see Obama as a Kenyan and Hillary as the madame of the pizza parlor's child sex ring. We can see the Church's pedophile problems as blown way out of proportion by those who want to bring the Church down, and as stemming ultimately from a loosening of sexual morality and an easing of prohibitions on homosexuality (back when we still had sexual morality, we did not hear about priestly pedophilia, so it must not have existed). We can see the Rapture coming. We can see worries about the deficit as a way to scare people into accepting the downsizing of government, and increasing the deficit as a way to ultimately force downsizing of government.
I dont like any of these things, but I dont think I am polarized.
Of course, poor people cheat on government benefits, and examples can be found. But they are just following the moral lead of rich people who cheat on government benefits. We try to catch the poor people and punish them harshly, but try (with the help of lawyers) not to catch the rich, and when we are backed into a corner and pursue them, we just take a small portion of what they have gotten (and their lawyers get another small portion).
We tell the stories that turn us on or give us our rage fix.
7
I think the dude got what he deserved.
"...multiple narratives can all be true at once."
I'm trying hard to match this critically important awareness with, say, some your recent comments on the state of the Catholic Church and religion in general.
Could you provide an example?
1
This is an failed attempt at a false equivalence. We can ask, for example, why do 30% to 40% of Republican voters still believe Obama was born in Kenya? why are so many willing to believe that Hillary Clinton was trafficking sex slaves out of a pizzeria? Are there really equivalent examples on the other side?
More seriously, why do so many Republicans refuse to believe in the scientific method?
Why have they burdened us with a President and an administration that refuses the concept of knowledge and learning and research? Just about every agency is led by someone completely unprepared for the position, seemingly intentionally so.
12
Hogwash, Mr. Douthat! It's pretty clear you seek to justify the Republican Party's wholesale ratification of Donald Trump and his agenda of hate by reducing it to "the mistreatment of particular migrant family" and then equating it with the personal problems of one Harvard Law professor. That is a false equivalency. For decades the Republican Party and it's sycophants have sought to exploit the worst prejudices of the American people to gain political power. Now the chickens have come home to roost. You have the government you worked so hard to create, run by a narcissist aided by incompetents with the acquiescence of venal Senators and representatives who overlook, or even worse, subscribe to the same moral-averse behavior that Donald Trump epitomizes. All justified by five reactionary jurists, whose lack of character is apparent.
If you wish to "depolarize" I suggest you talk to the creators of that polarity, the national Republican Party.
7
Conservative complaints about social media bias against them stems from the fact they they are the ones violating standards of decency with hate speech.
3
bizarro point of departure for a column about polarization. if i understand the author's thesis: the left would see Prof. Hay as uniquely gullible and vulnerable, one man blinded by his own difficulties and self-doubts? the right would see this as a large scale cautionary tale: here is what lesbians, transgenders, feminists, sexual libertinism, and title IX succoring of the Me Too movement can do to ruin a man's life? and the author would be "instinctively inclined" to the rightward interpretation?
poppycock. this story was about a con game pure and simple. the predators in this parable cloaked their actions in liberal sheep's clothing to be sure; the victim fell for it; "the system" made him bear the burden of being thrown out of his job while it took the perps' Me Too fabrications seriously. but is this a useful example? or just another Fox level elevation of something aberrational into conservative sensationalism?
this story doesn't deserve probing of political side by side interpretations. some other stories might. maybe the author could write about something that is actually relevant and representative, not indulge in voyeuristic ignorance of libido gone wrong.
2
Why would someone at the New York Times spend one second on this non story? People do bad things all the time. Not every story is a contrast in world views or political polarization. Sometimes it’s just bad people doing bad things to people who are taken advantage of.
5
Russ is working overtime to try and justify all the lies of the right wing media machine. I guess he falls for them himself.
5
It's well-documented that right-wingers are far more likely to believe and promote lies than are liberals.
And, by the way, when liberals object to lies told by conservatives (aka "alternative facts"), they aren't protesting the telling of "real stories" that don't happen to align with their world view. They are protesting the promotion of lies (untruths, falsehoods, things that actually don't happen or didn't exist). The fact that you see protests about "alternative facts" in this way is very telling indeed about your own analytical skills, Ross.
Still, nice try. Ridiculous ridiculous column, ridiculous argument, but we have to give you credit for trying.
4
I’m yet to hear a story from Fox News that I really needed to hear :( Believe me, I’ve tried hard to listen.
2
As long as we have a "leader" who specializes in blatant lies and name-calling, it is hard to see the other side. Why should I waste time on lies and the support of lies?
7
What is wrong with this is conjecture claiming systematic, objective knowledge.
1
I recall the author was a champion of the Tea Party. Which makes this a piece of performative contradiction.
5
There are no left leaning or right leaning facts. For example, it is a fact that Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other President. It is a fact that when he left office illegal immigration into the U.S. was at a 40 year low. It is a fact that under Obama there were no caravans of asylum seekers crossing Mexico, because Obama was able to enlist help from the Mexican Government. On the other hand it is not a fact that Democrats are in favor of open borders, and it is not a fact that illegal immigrants vote in U.S. elections in large numbers.
10
When the Left says that Trump is a liar. this is not mincing words. Trump makes things up, out of thin air which are verifiably not true. Not just an exaggeration, not "a spin" that is lies by omission, but just the most basic kind of lies. Claims that have no connection to reality. Things he made up. Complete fabrications.
To spin this as partisan, means that there is no basic understanding of reality for Ross Douthat. That he would be unable to understand "beyond a reasonable doubt" from what is need by a juror.
But then, I think Ross knows better. I believe Ross knows Trump lies, and by trying to pass Trumps lies off as "half-truths". Ross should know better than to lie, that what he is doing is a betrayal of most ethical and moral codes that he claims to hold dear.
Trust, but verify was what Ronald Reagan said, because Reagan understood there were verifiable facts. Ross has lost the light of that argument in a wild search to make liars acceptable.
3
I thought Conservatives are supposed to be tough on crime. Seems to me the story ends there.
3
Dear Mr. Douthat, listen to Sean Hannity for a week then tell us what you think.
4
"By this I mean the heart of polarization is often not a disagreement about the facts of a particular narrative"
Ross, you must be kidding if you think there is so disagreement about facts. Case in point. Question: Did your report exonerate the President. Mueller: No.
FOX News, Trump, Trump followers: Mueller totally exonerates the President.
Now just how do you put that into your narrative of 'often not a disagreement about the facts of a particular narrative'? Maybe you can but I can't.
And for most narratives involving Republicans, Conservatives, the RW, FOX and Trump vs Democrats, Liberals and Progressives, the facts are with Democrats, Liberals and Progressives but the narrative revolves around the 'facts' as presented by Republicans, FOX, Trump, etc. Shame.
4
In the age of Trump and "win by any mean possible"-republicans
- focusing on de-polarisation serves only to weaken the opposition to the corrupt government.
It's like analysing the thief robbing your house
- the thief needs to be arrested, period.
Trump, Trumpers, republicans and MAGAs knows their in the wrong but doesn't care
- so evict
3
Your "one bonkers story" about alleged grifters reminds me that, thanks to our beloved internet, grifters are legion. Is there no hope anymore for a civil society?
I get it that a right-wing talking point is that "factually informed voters" are the most partisan. But why shouldn't they be, unless facts are now fake news? When you question everything, you throw out the old-fashioned preference for simple morality with the political propaganda.
Christianity becomes xenophobia. The police forces so necessary to keep order can descend into naked brutality. And we can judge our neighbors as unworthy of human rights because of the color of their skin.
3
And I thought only David Brooks could write "Rodney King" columns. Walt Kelly got it right, "We have seen the enemy..."
I can hardly wait for the Horowitz report. In the interim, you and David will be safe by the water cooler.
What I take away from this story is that going to Harvard, or teaching there, is no guarantee of mental acuity.
Learning about Prof. Hay's impotent incompetence at defending himself from grifters occurs on the same day the Washington Post published an article about Anthony Scaramucci (aka "the Mooch.") It seems he was a classmate of Rod Rosenstein at Harvard, and was well respected by him.
Thank God I went to Wharton instead; although we have a certain alumnus (Class of '68) whom we would rather not mention.
1
Oddly enough, Ross, when I turn to the NYT Op Ed page I often read you or Brooksie first. WaPo? George Will. I don't often agree with your position in the end, but sometimes, like today, yes. I suspect the reason Fox News has the audience it does is because Sean Hannity is no William F. Buckley. Were Buckley sitting in Hannity's chair dispensing conservative thought in his erudite manner with the red meat wrapped in the cogent argument of the intelligentsia, the Trump base would switch the channel to Monster Trucks and NASCAR. But, were Buckley still here, liberals would have to contend with conservative thought and not be dismissive because of the louche presentation. Is that liberal bias? Probably. Intelligent bias, most definitely. Once conservatives (other than you, Will and Brooks) start speaking English again, maybe liberals will give them a go.
2
Whoa! just a minute here. Fox News does report "alternative facts." They regularly report things that simply are not true. (Migrants bringing in leprosy!) How to interpret, and what to emphasize, sure, that depends on the perspective you bring to the materials. But there was no child sex-trafficking ring being run out of a DC pizza place. The Clintons did not murder one of their staffers. And this is not even to take up the innuendoes that Sandy Hook "really didn't happen."
8
One has to wonder what is going on at Harvard when they hire a man to teach a course on judgment who clearly has none?
3
This argument fails the basic sniff test. Stories such as Hillary running a child sex room out of the basement of a pizza shop aren’t even loosely tethered to reality. It isn’t a question of emphasis when there are also gaps of omission or there aren’t parts added that simply aren’t true. When Trump says that the crowds at his inauguration were the largest ever that is not emphasis but a lie. Full stop.
5
It seems to me that this article is pretty well skewered by comments addressing plain lies on the right, particularly those by Fox News and our current president. As an interested subscriber, I would like to see Mr. Douthat come out and attempt to defend it.
3
OMG, let's take an incident that's so far out on the bell curve that it's barely visible and then use it as an example of polarization!
For every story like this, there are 20 about cops abusing African-Americans and white bros insulting gays and transgender folks. That's polarization too, Ross!
The Right's racism and Trump supporting ignorance is not something I am trying to understand. It's been around for decades and is tiresome and morally bankrupt.
4
"... choosing a side, as we all tend to do, doesn’t have to mean taking only that side’s narratives as truth."
From Mr. Douthat's keyboard to God's ears.
Can't even begin to understand how Professor Hay was inveigled into this scheme. The right/left discussion is IMO meaningless but the focus should be on the introduction of common sense into education. A professor OMG, it seems to me that either he was quite the man about town and couldn't keep track or there was a short circuit in his brain.
1
Where Republicans are concerned many times there is no other side, unless you feel that the poor plutocrats are being abused in our country.
1
Okay, here's my vision of a headline (complete with sub-head) for a conservative opinion piece on the Hay story: "Man Victimized by Women - Women Actually Have All the Real Power In Society And Have Weaponized Their Own False Victimization."
I dream of a day where that story would be simply headlined "Depressed Professor Involved in Scam by Professional Grifters" and nobody's gender would matter to anybody.
1
I need to understand how the right wingers are fascist autocrats? I already get it, Ross. America is a far-right corporate police state brought on by rich old white men. If women cared more, it would never be, but they don't.
2
The way I read the first tale is that it was about a couple of crooks scamming the gullible. The shocker was how high up in society it ran.
1
I'd suggest Mr. Douthat spend a month listening exclusively to FOX talking heads, and then revisit this column.
3
Some people are easily conned. Remember those who sent money to Nigerian princes?
Trump (choke) said Baltimore was squalid and now various people are scolding him for being racist, etc., ignoring the fact that Baltimore is indeed squalid.
The Dems don't want their squalor problem mentioned. Some of the media oblige them by not mentioning it. If it is mentioned, people yell "Racist!" and think that it is fixed. It is not fixed. The squalor remains. It is a fact.
The worst kind of kaffeeklatsch are those which organize around political affiliations.
“...and the mistreatment of a particular migrant family at the border could also be a heightened example of what’s gone wrong with Trumpian conservatism...”
How did we get from some professorial rube, to the barrage of human rights violations committed by the Trump administration?
Cogito, ergo dissonance?
1
Ha Ha Ha! So we need to hear both side of the story, eh? and I have something to learn from you? OK -- I grant the point. And you seem pretty rational some of the time.
But try to imagine Trump telling the truth for a whole day. OK--I admit--that would be hard. For half a day? For an hour? For 15 minutes? For 5 minutes? In a single tweet?
If that's what Republicans have as a leader.... no wonder they have a credibility problem!
6
"... a heterosexual cisgender man ...."?
What is that supposed to mean?
I don't get it, but then again, I don't get a lot of things that are going on today.
Nor do I get the point of an article that is apparently trying to convince me that Rachel Maddow isn't a better and truer guide to what's going on at our Southern Border and in our politics today than Laura Ingraham.
9
Right now our government has small children caged, unbathed. supervised by other children, living on cup noodles and granola bars.
One side says this is morally unacceptable
The other says “But illegal”
And Ross wants us to say tomayto, tomahto...just two points of view
7
Where were the Democrat leaders when Congressional committee leaders called Trump "treasonous" without evidence? I would like to hear about their acknowledgment, if they cannot come to apologize. Trump was lambasted by the press some time ago for calling actions treasonous. Take the worst interpretations of anything even in the Mueller report and none of those can be considered as such. We have read the mainstream press responding when Republicans have loosely and improperly accused Democrats of treason. The left wing columns never criticize such charges hurled against Republican or even once again define the definition for clarity.
Where is the ACLU that defended the hallowed freedom of speech, including Nazis in Skokie, now when speech is being suppressed on of all places American campuses by radical and often violent thought police of the left? Democrat patriots should stand up and condemn?
Where was the American press when a march by supporters of traditional war monuments and a group of armed neo-Nazis (who were obeying police direction) were blocked and attacked by radical violent leftists opposing the Nazis (Read the whole Charlottesville report issued by the liberal town govt). Agree that the Nazi who killed and injured was despicable and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But the mainstream press used this as an opportunity to tell a false narrative that absolved the left and falsely reported that the right started the violence.
Just be honest.
A pretty good example in support of Azimov's apt analysis of the cult of ignorance: "...my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
Given moral, intellectual and social confusion and a fact-free cult of personality headed squarely at fascism, of course it is.
3
I have come to the point where I just want 2 countries. Lincoln was wrong. E Pluribus unum is a lie. No Gray and Blue instead let’s just split the country in 2 like kids picking sides on playground. Our side takes RGB...your side can have Kavanagh. Your side can have McConnell and Trump and our side will keep the “Squad and the Obamas. Our side has abortion rights and your side can do what it likes. We keep Lin Manuel Miranda and you can have Nashville. When all is done we keep our own tax dollars and run our own domestic programs and stay out of each other’s way. Passports to cross state lines and everyone can stop fighting.
6
I know you are a pragmatic, Right leaning opinion writer. However, the story of illegals being criminals is a lie. Period. That should be the truth both sides of the coin.
2
I can't believe that Fox had that lying headline on their building! The brainwashing the repubs have done to a segment of our society is complete.
3
Depolarizing the poles? How about something a little elementary, such as writing a written summary of the opposing viewpoint in a way that the author would agree is fair and accurate?
1
I see mention after mention of Fox News and frankly, it’s pathetic. Is that seriously what Times readers want to be compared to? As a conservative (and no fan of Trump), I think Fox is partisan garbage, akin to MSNBC. The Times should be held to higher standard. Compared to Fox, the Times looks fair and reasonable. The problem is that when more appropriate comparisons are drawn, with the likes of the Wall Street Journal or National Review, it’s the Times that doesn’t stack up. The Times has lost sight of the forest through the trees in it’s anti Trump frenzy and short sighted attempts to demonstrate idealogical purity ( a constantly shifting goal post). National Review, in particular, is able to separate the day’s politics with long term big picture policy issues. The Times could learn from them.
What you are arguing is that both the mainstream media and the right-wing media are reporting the facts truthfully, but are representing those facts to support a particular narrative.
With respect, that isn't what is happening. The right-wing media, in an effort to launder the president's lies, is reporting falsely proven conspiracy theories, lies and propaganda.
No, Seth Rich didn't steal Hillary Clinton's emails. Birmingham, England is not a Muslim city where police cannot enter. More children do not die in bathtubs than by firearms. The Affordable Care Act does not have death panels. There is no QAnon. Ilhan Omar never called for the surveillance of white men, nor did she ever praise Al Qaeda. Interference in the 2016 election was not a hoax and neither is climate change. Neither has NASA fudged temperature data nor did the Bureau of Labor Statistics fudge employment numbers. The federal government was never going to take an individual's firearms away and windfarms kill fewer birds than cats. I could go on.
7
I admit the past 2 years have polarized me. When I see crowds chanting “Send her back” I think the people chanting this are as racist and ignorant as the man encouraging them. Being polarized does not mean being misinformed.
6
"Strangers In Their Own Land" grounded your views over two years ago. You might want to read the book. That we read through our own narratives is not new.
Sorry, Ross, but it's not stories that divide us.
It's our president.
And there's just no way to get around that fact.
11
The problem is right wing media is telling a "story" and not the truth. A fact check of Fox proves that it frequently lies or shades the truth. I am more than willing to listebn to a different narrative just not one predicated on fabrication.
15
When the "other side" practices and supports intellectual dishonesty it is impossible to understand or care about what they say.
10
This seems to be the key passage: "But seeing our disagreements through the lens of narrative might get us closer to a crucial insight — which is that in a big, diverse and complicated society, MULTIPLE NARRATIVES CAN ALL BE TRUE AT ONCE." [caps added by me]
In other words, let's not worry so much about objective truth - what is actually going on in the world - but on people's subjective interpretations of the truth.
This strikes me as a complete copout. Because the relevant facts of today - on climate change, immigration, racism, abortion, income inequality, you name it - are on the side of Democrats, Republicans would rather focus on narratives now (well, except in the few cases where the facts happen to be on their side).
Not only is it absurd to suggest that the facts don't really matter, but the particular narrative pushed by Republicans is also extremely unappealing. It is a story preaching racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, religious hypocrisy, and corporate greed. Not very uplifting even as a piece of fiction.
Contrary to what Douthat suggests, narratives also aren't at all suited for reducing polarization. Religions, for example, are basically different narratives, yet throughout human history few things have polarized - and killed - people more than religion.
The only language we all have in common is science. Scientific facts are true, or false, no matter who you are, where you are, and what you believe.
10
Just today, I saw a bumper sticker that read “I don’t trust the liberal media.” How much do those few words convey?
Dialogue and considering other perspectives are important, but how can it work when one party flat out refuses to even believe the other?
3
By this I mean the heart of polarization is often not a disagreement about the facts of a particular narrative, but about whether that story is somehow representative — or whether it’s just one tale among many in our teeming society, and doesn’t stand for anything larger than itself.
To answer you question the story clearly doesn't stand for anything larger than itself. And with so many things to write about you choose this??
3
Strange: not the freaky story Douthat uses to illustrate his article, but his blithe waving away of 'conservative' news sources producing 'alternative facts,' or, that is to say, specific lies, ambiguous falsehoods, and unrecognizable distortions.
This is what normal people mean when they hear the output of Fox commentators, Tucker Carson, right-wing cable screamers, and the arrogant blond presidential staffer who introduced us to 'alternative facts' and dares anyone to hold her accountable for her Hatch Act violations.
6
I thought a distinction between left and right-leaners was that righties tend to rely on their personal gut feelings - with the most obvious expression of 'disgust' - the curled lip
while lefties tend to rely on their intellect - seeking fairness and the rigth thing to do for the wider society
which is easily run roughshod over by selfish tax-avoiding folks like the current temporary POTUS on the throne of contempt.
9
Over the last forty years right wing media personalities and Fox News have turned Republican politics into a religious experience. Trump rallies are euphoric events where his followers go to worship and Trump goes to be worshipped. They’re insiders. Have special insight and special access to information about deeper, hidden realities that us Democrats just don’t get.
But conservatives don’t read articles like this one. Liberals do. Liberals scratch their heads, wince at the mountains of lies Republicans tell, and then wonder how they can get through to them.
I think it’s ironic that Trumpers will tell you they’re for “freedom,” when their ability to think freely, that is, question their narrative, is non existent.
10
Maybe you over-intellectualize the narrative, Mr. Douthat.
Maybe, for the president and his cadre, hate and cruelty are the point. Maybe they are very comfortable with the idea of ruling and fracturing the nation by Twitter--and all the minimalist and mindless thought that implies.
This presidency has not been about resolving or tolerating difference. It has been to stoke fear, vengeance and the ideas of inevitable political warfare. It has been about building a following, the needs of the nation being towards the bottom of the list of concerns.
11
"Alternative facts" are not a matter of emphasis. They are outright lies.
For example, Trump's characterization of the refugees at our southern border as criminals, rapists, gangsters, and a few good people. Or the dministration's denial that there is a climate crisis caused by human beings while it suppresses reports by the government's own scientists that say the contrary.
This is not about being right-leaning or left-leaning. This is about fundamental dishonesty and contempt for the truth.
9
Each side doesn't WANT to hear the other side's point of view. They have to be paid to attend focus groups in order to hear it. What's more, the media benefits from a simple black hat, white hat narrative. So .. good luck with that!
1
There are human beings suffering because of trump and his base and the freedom caucus.
Full stop.
4
Thoughtful piece and mildly therapeutic in practice but it hardly recognizes the 800 pound canary incessantly tweeting like a fire breathing dragon from its White House perch (cave?). His wholly unnecessary, unsolicited, sizzling hot takes on all manner of in-the-moment “controversy” cannot be graciously reflected on from his overbearing perspective. To attempt do so would be maddening.
3
I almost feel sorry for Mr. Douthat.
He probably has a family, a mortgage to pay, kids and college tuition to save for.
He has to make a living.
So he gives these kinds of columns with false equivalencies.
But I feel more sorry for our country and what Republicans are doing to it.
9
When it comes to right wing media, the problem isn't only that its use of alternative facts is essentially a misrepresentation of their significance, it's that the right wing media intentionally and repeatedly presents outright falsehoods.
Sometimes it's black and white, as when the geniuses on Fox and Friends repeatedly claim that the Russia investigation was instigated by the Steele report - months after many sources, including the-then GOP controlled House Intel committee said otherwise. And how many times did Hannity push the story that the murdered DNC staffer was killed by, um, Hillary?
Sometimes, it's a coy ignorance and intentional failure to do even a cursory investigation regarding claims Fox finds rant-worthy? For example, Fox pushed outrage at the "fact" that an Obama trip to India was costing $200 million, citing some Indian news outlet. Of course, to get a comment from the administration that this "fact" was untrue would have poured cold water on this manufactured outrage.
The implied "equality" of the left and right in this regard when it comes to the media just ain't so.
So, maybe a good place to start to "de-polarize" is to start by doing whatever it takes to stop the right wing media from spewing its false and hateful propaganda, which inflames and polarizes a good portion of the country.
9
Sorry Ross, but my efforts to overcome my liberal "polarization" tend to stall out on topics like Revolutionary War airports, Fred Trump's birth in Germany, and the Bowling Green Massacre.
8
I don't watch Fox News. Do they even report on climate change except to call it a hoax? It's the greatest issue facing humanity. It's science. It's fact-based. It shouldn't be up for debate.
7
Ross, you need a wake up call. Your column should be dated to 2015. Most anyone can easily agree with the basic principle that we need to "disagree without being disagreeable" and open our minds and listen to different points of view. Nor would I disagree that some who oppose Trump and racism have lost their way at the risk of "becoming what they behold". What I can't agree with is the apparent equivalence you draw between the left, e.g. "The Squad" and Trumpian white nationalism. Donald Trump and his minions cynically exploiting race and xenophobia to divide the country for political gain, along with their alliance with foreign despots to the detriment of our country, has no equivalent on the left. While American leftists can be "radical" in supporting medicare for all or decriminalizing illegal immigration, its hard to find anything that equates to the toxic brew of Trump's politics. Your op-ed might apply to the American political scene pre-Trump, but not now.
5
Politics and religion are similar in that adherents see and believe what they want to believe based upon ideology, not facts. How do we see the other side's position on a topic if they simply state: "this is what I believe." I heard Rush state that he did not believe God would allow harm to come to the planet! For me, there is no civil response to such a statement.
Filtering every action, statement, or proposal through a conservative-liberal lens is insane and has produced the incivility we find ourselves today. When watching Fox News I listen to their fair and balanced news (1-2 mins), then suffer through the remainder of the program's deploring innuendo and what ifs about stupid liberal motivations. How does one discuss with someone on the other side when they fall back on: the liberals want to take my guns, Obama was born in Kenya, get over Hilary, the elite wants me to change, etc. and conservatives have and apparently will do and say anything to win an election or appoint a conservative judge. Both liberals and conservatives (should it not be democrats and republicans?) have self-selected based on their beliefs and preferences and IMHO discussing positions with the other side, unless both parties are sincere and can agree on the facts of the situation, will not lead to more civility in our society.
5
Mr.Douthat, Your colleague, Nicholas Kristof, is telling a story today that you really need to hear about access to healthcare among women in West Virginia. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/opinion/sunday/women-health-trump.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=OpEd%20Columnists
2
By the time I figured out what a "woke progressivism that ruthlessly exploits the administration's ideological subservience" meant (I never really did), I had lost interest in this admittedly Byzantine article.
2
Spare me the false relativism. One side in this debate is MUCH more prone to believe obviously false things (such as Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya) and disbelieve obviously true ones (such as the climate is changing).
Even the one lie I always thought liberals were more prone to believe in—anti-vaccination propaganda—has now infected the Right.
Yes the narratives pushed by the Left sometimes drive me crazy. But it’s mainly the Right who is now getting BASIC FACTS wrong (perhaps taking cues from their role model, Donald Trump). Maybe Mr. Douthat needs to come to that basic realization before lecturing us about narratives.
10
Our planet is burning. America's conservative party has actively obstructed action and many of its members, including Trump, have engaged in denial narratives worthy of a Goebbels. When history judges Douthat's right wing colleagues, the judgment will be scathing. And it won't be about the nuances of Professor Hay's paternity problems.
5
The nation is not going to “...de-polarize...”. It just isn’t. The differences are so extreme that it is an open. question whether the Union will hang together. The Red-Staters are determined to rule and there is no chance that the 550 Blue Counties, which generate 2/3 of GDP, will agree to fund the Government long-term if we are going to be ruled by white-supremecist tribes from the countryside.
5
Propaganda is the currency of fear and misinformation, the daily bread of Fox at night - Hannity et. al, and Breitbart. As left as even MSNBC, it is difficult to discern propagandists. Those easily swayed by propaganda, such as Trump's base, are simply manipulated regardless of facts. Hence, ridiculous concepts such as Conway's alternate facts. I hope that is not what Douthat is recommending we consider.
5
It is valuable to be able to see things from several points of view. On debate teams in school, I would always try to be able to argue both sides convincingly. This taught me, among other things, the inherent lack of value in depending on logic or emotional appeal in forming my own values. We are uniquely able, as a species to manipulate our own minds to validate sometimes unconscious impulses and prejudices. It is therefore important to engage in what I think of as "meta-critical thinking" whereby we explore our values at a deeper level than mere intellect.
On the other hand, how many times does the boy need to cry "wolf!!" before you stop believing him?
There is a line, particularly in journalism, where editorial bias crosses from spin into partisanship. Our NYT rarely crosses that line, whereas Fox news seems to have left it behind completely, venturing into the region of becoming a cult.
5
Oh Ross, here you go again with the false equivalences. To compare the Fox propaganda network to any MSM news source (except maybe CNN) is absurd. I'm more of a centrist, so a lot of times I really don't agree with the more woke views expressed in the NYT or Washington Post. But I can take it or leave it, as can any other reader. And in the NYT I can read other viewpoints to the right of me, like yours and David Brooks, that I can take or leave. There is a range of opinion.
Fox, on the other hand is fairly monolithically the other way. And almost every single story or opinion piece on Fox, unless its about a local car crash, is either a bald faced lie or such an incredible distortion of fact that its as good as a lie.
Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, etc are not journalists. They are propagandists.
8
I'm not going to read the original story, but from here it sounds "one off"—this can't possibly be a common occurrence.
Sorry folks, this essay hits the bull's eye. Read it and think about it.
2
The left and right certainly have their preferred methods of interpretation, but that isn't what divides us. The Mueller report in any previous time in our history would have provided sufficient warrant for impeachment. This is not a matter of interpretive modes. The fact set is dismissed by the right. We are not talking about Clintonian casuistry (what is the meaning of "is"). Our president is a crook, a liar, and a bigot. Again, not a matter of interpretation. The congressional Republicans have their own fact set, and this is a tragedy of our time.
6
Mr. Douthat attempts much the same con as described in the New Yorker, preying upon his liberal readers' unquestioned belief in relativism, a relativism he would savage in most any other context:
"[S]eeing our disagreements through the lens of narrative might get us closer to a crucial insight - which is that in a big, diverse and complicated society, multiple narratives can all be true at once."
Our cherished diversity! Take that bait and you might end believing there were “very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville after all. No. It's not that multiple narratives can all be true at once. Liberal relativism is fatally flawed. It's that multiple narratives can all be persuasive at once to the respective audiences they help carve up.
One needs a larger frame than liberal relativism to reckon with the workings of ideology in a diverse society. One does indeed need facts, not in cherry-picked isolation, but in larger frame, too. One can't simply put all views on the equally-true table and expect a Kumbaya moment but for those pesky "basic moral and philosophical commitments" that "inevitably divide us," presumably also equally true once one's gone down the liberal relativism rabbit hole.
That larger frame is difficult to specify analytically, though we have all experienced it. It is Common Sense: the humbling sense that prevails in emergencies, big and small, where we must deal with each other, face to face in the situation we confront, leaving no one behind.
1
Ross Douthat shows his hand again. First, let's dispense with the notion that the left is only upset with the right for reporting facts and then spinning them rightward. The right actually also reports actual apocryphal news stories (typically about muslims, migrants, etc) to peddle their narrative; the examples are too numerous to list, but I think the most despicable was the reporting suggesting that the Quebec Mosque shooting was perpetrated by a Muslim in the hours after the incident. They do these things in addition to obfuscating the context of real stories of crimes committed by immigrants etc. Ross no doubt would respond that the right has just a legitimate a claim that the left misses the wider context in stories like that of Prof Hay, but that is merely projection, a cynical attempt to place the two sides on equal footing. The reason that the left doesn't see the Hay incident as an example of PC gone amok is that it obviously isn't, and the tweets that Ross links two reveal an asymmetry between the left and the right in terms of the degree to which the poles are consumed by brain rot. The "lefty" tweet was a starkly accurate prediction of what happened in the wake of this story (i.e. that the right lost its mind yet again), and the "righty" tweet was an example of that prediction coming to light. The Hay story is complicated, and coming away with "gee, PC culture has gone too far!" reveals a profound lack of sophistication.
5
The problem with much right wing media is a willingness to reason backwards. The desire to land on a conservative message leads them to pick and choose the facts.
To be sure there are many on the Left willing to do this. But it is the overriding method of a powerful Right wing media. In fact, it is kit journalism at all. It is propaganda.
I occasionally view Facebook pages of right-leaning people I know. What I find is that their sources are either faith-based (meaning there are no facts presented) or they take their position in opposition to what comes from the liberals. The number of times that I have seen a position justified by it being in opposition to a liberal position is beyond my ability to count.
Most of the time I see a desire from the Right to not want to include “others” in any form of decision-making; a feeling like this is a white country (normal) and why are we trying to change it. This is particularly disturbing.
I will admit that liberals have frequently gone overboard in depicting a prejudicial act as one that ends in branding the actor a “rascist.” This, too, is disturbing. I don’t think liberals understand how divisive this year. It is the overriding fuel providing strength to Trump and his legion.
By now I think it’s clear that Mr. Trump is a racist in every sense of the word. However, every day I see the word “racist” being thrown around to such a degree that pushback is to be expected.
5
In one recent episode, Trump went on the rampage about "...Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place..."
That does bring up a common, every densely populated area, significant problem. Cities have enlarged populations of rats, bed bugs, cockroaches, urban wildlife, insect pests, nuisance wildlife, human-wildlife conflict, animal welfare, humane wildlife control...Good bugs and bad bugs.
We are losing our beneficial pollinating bees and good wildlife at the expense of bad insects and unbalanced animals populations.
Here is the rub. It begs the need for national government organizations to manage, eradication or support, and to foster the best hospitable to life populations. Unfortunately Republicans and Trump/McConnell administration block regulations and environmental government programs.
My brother married the daughter of the Postmaster-General of Indianapolis in 1966. Her family owned a very large commercial corn farm with a large kitchen garden and orchard. I was age 10 then from a Boston suburb. Nights there in farm country were magical. I'd never had fresh, not frozen, peas. Those peas were heavenly, the apple pie was truly amazing.
But the best was the fireflies that danced and lit up the night. I reminded my niece of them recently. She goes back often, I have never been back. She told me the fireflies are gone now. Decades of pesticides.
3
Is this a way of saying fake news. Let's see, it's fake news the Russians invaded our election, it's fake news that global warming is not happening, it's fake news that the crowd size for Trump was less than Obama and on and on. Yes what we have here is really an agreement on the facts and just view them differently.
6
That sex story... I view it through the lens of all the sexual exploitation and flim-flam that women have been subject to since the dawn of time. The guy got trapped by his own people-pleasing and desire to appear as a good person, and he got taken by con artists.
The only thing particularly progressive about it is that the man felt he had to people-please at all. Women are indoctrinated to do that regardless of ideology, and get taken for a lot of nasty rides as a result.
My solution would be to teach everyone how to spot a con artist, and how to get out if they don't spot him or her quickly enough. Saying "let's let guys be meaner to women" may address that one particular problem, but it doesn't address sexual con artistry more generally.
1
The anecdote Mr. Douthat offers is weak tea that does not support the rest of the column. Not everything is viewed through partisan lens, just the nation's federal and state politics. People who are all conservative or all liberal are far and few between, most are various degrees of both plus a healthy dose of independent thought. The media prefers two camps, the better to get advertising dollars.
3
Tell me this, Ross. I'm a (cis-male) gay person. How am I supposed to take a narrative that tells me I don't deserve the basic civil rights to hold a job or to rent an apartment (as I wouldn't have in 29 of the 50 states) seriously, and, given that, how am I supposed to take anything else in the "conservative" narrative seriously?
I await your column on this. When you write it, concentrate on sexual orientation.
4
By coincidence this morning I tried Mr. Douthat's idea of reading a conservative news outlet's take on on events. The reporting by Fox News of the Mueller testimony on Wednesday did nothing to persuade me to give credit to this news outlet. The questions posed to Director Mueller by Republicans were often flat-out untruths, involved unsubstantiated conspiracy myths - or, even better, substantiated by convicted perjurers, or the flew in the face of the Special Prosecutor's opening statements (e.g. the origins of the Russia election meddling probe.) Fox not only failed to point out these inaccuracies - but they went on to champion them. Forgive me Mr. Douthat, but does my appreciation for high quality journalism (they now have high profile Republicans on the payroll at Fox as "Contributors!")preclude me from seeing "both sides?" YES, on issues such as immigration - I find the NY Times doesn't report so much as it advocates for any type of immigrant. This saddens me, but overall I filter this out - so I can enjoy journalism in pursuit of the objective truth.
3
It's not the partisanship, per se, but the tone of the partisanship.
Two events changed Republicans from conservatives to reactionaries:
1. The passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Acts by a coalition of Northern & Midwestern Republicans and all Democrats, except the Southern.
2. The defeat by Goldwater Republicans of Rockefeller Republicans.
Donald Trump, like Ronald Reagan (Goldwater’s inheritor) and his “I believe in states’ rights” and “Cadillac driving welfare queens”, etc., has the “courage” to say, and do, what today's Republicans think.
To quote Bruce Bartlett in a past NYT Op-Ed (July 21, 2016):
”The Republican Party today is basically a coalition of grievances united by one thing: hatred. Hatred of immigrants, hatred of minorities, hatred of intellectuals, hatred of gays, feminists and many other groups too numerous to mention. What binds them together is hatred of Democrats because they are welcoming to every group that Republicans reject.”
8
The reason the stories divided the right and left is the left bases their decisions on facts while the right uses anything that fits their narrative, and make up their own facts and reality.
5
If one can read the Mueller report and come away with “Trump did not commit a crime”, then you have lost me. That sir says it all. That is not just spin. And with the Professor, don’t let any bias temper your discussions about something that seems wrong. People get duped into scams pure and simply because they are prone to being duped. There political leaning means nothing. If it smells rotten, it is.
7
The Press bears a major portion of the blame for this "mis representative" communication. Journalists have decided to expand "human interest" stories into major pronouncements about issues rather than deal with "numbers" and other boring facts which don't attract a crowd. There are now whole schools of news writing that teach how to use "human interest" as the major lens for the news viewer/reader.
The information , analysis, and verification of good research have a crucial point , specially for a society that being fed by lies, intense propaganda about everything and everyone. Giving the alternative a false information about many aspects of human life, health -education , history ...is a serious problem.The best example is Trump. The media wants profit, like Fox , their CEOs found that lies daily basis gives an unimaginable profits, and changes for political gains , even if the insults are racism, xenophobia, misogyny racism or domestic terrorism. They doing it because they can. Our freedom became a weapon against reasoning facts, about the true. The freedom became destructive. We only started this campaign. I warned journalists to be very honest with the public do your job, try to make a difference like the journalists that risk their life in wars time.Your job change lives, We are going to applaud you if you deserve it.
This piece exemplifies the false equivalence of both-sides-ism that right-leaning media figures absolutely love to trumpet these days.
But actually, this isn't a matter of choosing between two different, but equivalent world-views. One of these two world-views is objectively more underhanded in its argumentation. If you sat down and quantified the number of instances of overgeneralization, false equivalence (which—again—you're guilty of committing here), false correlation, false causation, etc. etc. etc., mainstream right-wing media would be miles beyond most left-wing media sources.
All those studies coming out that say that the GOP is the equivalent of an extremist party on the political spectrum? They aren't just making stuff up. One side (the right wing) has gone off the rails. One side (the left wing) hasn't (yet).
All that is to say, it's not a matter of simply converting from one paradigm to another. If I were tasked with taking a collection of MSNBC stories and converting them to Fox material, I'd have to lace them with bad argumentation and deceptive rhetoric in the service of all the special interest groups and political figures that Fox aligns itself with.
That's not to say that there aren't left-wing outlets guilty of questionable or underhanded argumentation, by the way. There are plenty. But you're comparing apples and oranges here.
The stories that divide us are all our political “journalists” and opinion writers ever show us. When was the last time you heard about all the agreement in this country over secure borders, better health care, and the fact that all men and women are created equal? The stories that divide us are used for political gain, they are supposed to divide us, and we hear little else.
Its a big question of how to mitigate viewpoints. For example, to me, WWII veterans were the first Antifa or anti fascist. Our grandfathers fought for our freedom we have today.I love democracy and have personally benefited from our stable government. Dictatorships never look fun to me. So, it saddens me that the USA right uses fascist ideology.
Fascist tactics seem to work, blaming minorities, immigrants or others (the others are the women mentioned in this article), for our troubles of crime and poverty. This cloud avoids facing the real problems that a hoax happened, as in this article: or an aging population and the high costs of health and education by a government.
Speaking to how this manipulations works, and how Trump won by 75K electoral votes in the Midwest, in areas heavily targeted by Russian fake attack ads on facebook. I saw these ads in real time during the election and would write, this is a Russian troll ad in the comments. Some people totally took them as real and did not question their source or content.
The Trump campaign had embedded facebook staff in their campaign and were well aware of the ads. Of course collusion was found inconclusive. Although there have been reports that Manafort personally met with the Russians and gave them the information of these electoral college areas heavily targeted. So fascist type propaganda worked in the last election. I saw a new word the other day. Trump truth. Look manipulation is polarizing and it works.
2
That's not what I think of as alternative facts. I think of those as lies, which is what they are. Like the size of an inauguration crowd. Nobody disputes that an illegal immigrant did kill the woman in CA. But all the facts about gun deaths won't change the alternative fact that guns in the home make you safer. There are facts and there are lies. There are many words for lies, such as prevaricate. Alternative facts are prevarification.
I am old enough to remember when Republicans were pro-FBI and anti-Putin.
That seems so quaint and a long time ago. Circa 2016.
2
...and taking this one step further... What happens when a right-leaning person finds herself face-to-face with a situation that calls on her to accept her prior interpretation, or adopt the lefty perspective? Ditto for the left-leaning folks--how would one respond when faced with having to make an actual trade-off in order to hew to their original belief? From what I have seen, it is the right-leaning folks whose behavior, when push comes to shove, is more divorced from their rhetoric.
Ross Douthat's advice on this topic applies well to the abortion debate. The narratives that resonate most with me concern women I have known about who, with guilt and regret, chose abortion as the way out of pregnancies they felt they could not go through with. In my opinion, neither I nor anybody else has a right to judge or try to impede such decisions. But I know sincere and reasonable people who see pregnancies from the point of view of the unborn fetus who has no say in the termination of its existence. That is also a story one needs to hear; it, too, contains truth. My problem is with abortion opponents who simply call abortions murder. For me, the term "murderer” calls to mind a person very different from the women I have known who had abortions. It closes off any other narrative.
2
You know, on any given street corner there are crazy people arguing.
It doesn't mean anything. It's just what people do to pass the time.
Liberals espouse autonomy, equality of opportunity, and the protection of individual rights.
What do conservatives stand for these days? Bigotry, fear and hate?
1
I agree mostly with your column but I think you missed the the point of the Vox article linked in your article.
The Vox article indicates that the more biased you are politically, the more likely you are to be wrong in how you remember facts or how you select facts to learn about.
The fallacy of this opinion piece is that it ignores that most people do react on an issue by issue manner.
Trump's policy of kidnapping immigrant children to deter future immigration is abhorrent to many regardless of their political position. Where is the argument that this practice is acceptable?
With regard to global warming there is no disputing the fact that the vast majority of qualified scientists around the world agree that it's a serious threat to humanity. Why would one stand with the 3% of scientists who disagree?
When it comes to abortion, what exactly would Douthat tell pro choice people that might change their opinion? The belief that abortion is murder equates fetuses with babies. Believing that life begins at conception is a religious belief, one that you either believe or not. No amount of listening to pro life arguments can convince a non believer otherwise.
Traditional conservative belief is that everyone should know their place, including women and gays. What is the argument that they don't deserve equal rights?
America's tradition is that we have been a country that accepts people from all around the world, people of different races and cultures. It's what has made America great. What is the argument to close our borders to only white, educated people?
I would love to see Douthat dedicate a column in support of so called "conservative" ideas that are in conflict with progressive ideas. I think doing so would expose him as a hypocrite.
One woman saying to another in a supermarket almost three years ago: Hillary Clinton shot someone. The other woman replied she never heard about it - so did I.
The strange woman's reply was, "You don't think they'd tell you."
That's a story that divided me from the Trump Repub party supporters. It's the weirdest, perhaps, but there are countless other stories that divide many of us from THEM forever and a day!
2
Your claim about the Left's claims that we see the right as using "alternative facts" just touches the iceberg. The GOP has lost all touch with reality and will call black white if it suits their argument.
One only has to look to the outlandish claims about the Mueller investigation to see this is true. And these outlandish claims aren't just the providence of fringe groups on the internet- they're being propagated by the President himself along with his cronies in congress and the Fox Propaganda network.
"Indeed, studies suggest that the most factually informed voters are also reliably the most partisan."
Why shouldn't this be the case? After all, there are many questions where there is overwhelming data on one side. As an extreme case. I am a mathematician, but you don't have to be a mathematician to know 2 + 3 = 5. If someone tries to tell me 2 + 3 = 23, I will be extremely partisan.
More examples:
1. AOC did not say, "soldiers are overpaid."
2. Neither Ilhan Omar nor Rashida Tlaib ever supported Al Qaeda.
3. The universal government run health care systems countries produce better results at half the per person cost of our system.
4. All 6 times we practiced "fiscal responsibility" & paid down the national debt significantly, we fell into one of our 6 terrible depressions.
5. Trump did not start talking "very quickly" after the crowd started chanting"send her back."
6. Immigrants are less likely to commit a crime than citizens.
7. The federal debt may increase a lot during a long period of great prosperity.
8. Thru the Federal Reserve, the federal government can create as much money as it needs out of thin air. It can never go bankrupt.
9. The US leads the developed word in deaths per 100,000 that could have been prevented by medical treatment.
10 The denial of any hearing in the Senate of the nomination of Merrick Garland was unprecedented in all of US history.
And so on.
These are all facts known by well informed persons. Why shouldn't they be partisan?
5
Wait a minute–lies are lies, though experienced liars can fancy them up some to make them harder to distinguish. This is why fact-checkers is an extremely useful profession nowdays.
It’s also one of the things that Trump manages to get away with. He brazenly lies about things that are either easily proven to be lies, or are clearly and obviously untrue and it is clear that he brazenly does not care if anyone notices. This must be something he learned during his stint with professional wrestling, where the truth of the endeavor is beside the point.
To the degree that any news outlet mixes reporting with commentary, I see that as a problem. There’s nothing wrong with a news outlet offering commentary, but it needs to be clear which is which. This principle means that there should not be any need to wonder about the truthfulness of the reporting: it must be true or be called out as an egregious violation.
What’s more important than the truth of what a reporter writes or says, is what they have elected to leave out. This is where the real bias occurs. If you report something that Trump says, but leave out the fact that it has been shown to be a lie, that is tantamount to lying and should be called out.
Stopping reading, watching any news outlet, would also help de-polarize my mind. Manipulative peddling is never to be doubt.
A year back I thought I might read Hillbilly Elegy to learn more about the other side. 20 pages in I realized these were the circumstances of my youth. I “grew up” with and in that. There, but for the major influence of a high school, Korean War, Marine Corps veteran, history teacher, go I. Thank you, Mr. Cox! With borrowing and scholarships, I “went away to school”, as folks called it back there, back then. Then followed the direction of my friend and mentor into Vietnam. I earned three GI Bill degrees and taught high school and college for 34 years. I am told I was lucky. The only lucky part of it was a teacher who inspired me. The rest is a story of deferred gratification, a vision, and hard work. OK, so what? So...education. Some of the dumbest people I know are also the best educated. But, those pieces of paper, that we cuss and sweat, and go into debt to earn, open doors that are closed to those without them. I travel back in time once a year to put flowers on my folk’s graves. The town is drying up, but the cast of characters is basically the same. The only growth industry is the funeral business, as most of my old friends die too young. I returned the book...Mr. Cox wasn’t in it.
Douthat's example doesn't resonate at all. Frankly in my liberal world, you would find the full range of responses. Not all of us have sympathy for this professor
1
False equivalency.
The purpose of the 4th Estate is to inform the public about what a country's most powerful people are up to, by reporting what takes place between politicians, individuals, public agencies, private citizens, and corporate leaders, especially when their relationships intersect with legislation, influence peddling, corruption, and crimes.
Powerful people, usu. a subset of our wealthiest citizens, most of whom are Republican, resent the attention and have the ability and ‘access' to combat it. They’d prefer to cut deals, lobby, and court influence unmolested, in secret. The press in a free society can't afford them this luxury precisely because its entire raison d’être is to shine light on that which the powerful seek to hide.
Bristling from the attention, Republicans created a straw man out of the press, denigrating it as liberal, left wing, hopelessly biased. No longer a defender of freedom and truth, it became post-modern putty in the hands of Frank Luntz and the Kochs. We got talk radio, Fox, Sinclair, propaganda masquerading as journalism, as counterweights to supposed liberal media bias. But unlike mainstream outlets, which seek an audience for the facts, data, and analysis they earnestly deem relevant, rightwing media disingenuously mine facts and data for a political (Republican) agenda.
They serve plutocrats, the 1%—and seek nothing less than power for its own sake at the expense of the country’s general welfare.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
1
I acknowledge the writer's observation on the degree of representation based on the facts related to the story. I offer this to augment the oft quoted "You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts."
A number of factors contribute to meaning in language and they range from, grammar, meaning of words, meaningful sentences by speakers (eg., cooperative,) a discernment of claims or suggestions made by the speaker (eg., apophasis, the rhetorical cousin of irony,) and certain special features of language use.
Words have a dual function, "use," and "mention," in language and modern day branding centers on confusing the listener/reader on the distinction between "use" and "mention." The speaker/writer may also intentionally construct a message so that a confusion is likely.
A subtle example of "use" / "mention," an inferential fallacy in modern logic, is found in the statement "That is a false fact."
The breakdown of the statement is that facts simply are. Facts are neither true of false.
What is true or false is how the speaker/writer processes the facts and then articulates the speaker's beliefs through statements based on those facts.
It is then up to listener/reader to determine whether the beliefs statements are true of false, and also whether there is a third position.
1
If I was a conservative, I’d be trying to get my party and its mouthpieces to tell stories that people need to hear, and not the drivel that emanates from the White House and Fox News daily. I’d be calling them out daily if they failed to tell the stories that not only matter but unite us. I’d write columns asking the other side to listen AFTER I’ve made some headway on the above.
No, you were quite right that it’s just something that some people did, not representative nor significant.
On the other hand, it is significant to equate this story with the tragedy of poor immigrants. The right loves to wave away those ethical details easily with a conflation to a larger meaning, when it’s really all about each individual’s suffering.
2
I admire the author for trying to preserve some sort of middle ground and trying to find ways to bridge the gap, with an appeal to common sense and logic.
1
I read you every week I get your horror over what Trump has done to your brand of Conservative ideology but it is obvious that many of these alleged Conservatives are defined by the words first four letters. One only had to watch them eat their own in Mueller to understand clearly they only lust for power and cling to the morally leaking vessel that is Trump's regime. Sooner or later you know it will be over for them. Trump is 74 He will not live or remain in office forever and when it is over the collaborators will not be forgiven so easily (and they know know it) they need only to look at history to perceive their potential fates. Sadly it will take many innocent reputations and family members with them in disgrace. The country will take generations to regain the respect we once had.
4
Mr. Douthat-
I think you are genuinely on to something- something important and maybe even crucial.
I applied to graduate school with an idea for a news platform that would lead with an issue- then tell the left and right perspectives on the issue and then illuminate what lies between those perspectives and have links to get further involved.
I was accepted and then steered toward notions like ‘the funnel of purchase’ and roi’s - bleak.
I was not trying to become a merchant- but to promote media literacy and ignite genuine interest in our democracy.
Where is the grad program for that course of study, please?
1
Sometimes when you view a right leaning vs. left leaning cable TV station it appears that you are viewing a news event from a very different perspective. You come to your own conclusion as to which version to believe. It is also interesting to note that these stations focus heavily on one news item over another. They tend to repeat the same news story over and over again. It tends to become tedious and you find yourself tuning the station out. They all do this.
There is definitely a bias from the various cable TV stations and people seem to chose the one that fits their political stance. Some stations are more inclined to have guests present both sides of a sorry and they are the ones with the highest ratings. I have one station in mind which I regularly view because they are fair in their reporting compared to the other two. They also tend to lean more conservatively as I do. Their ratings also beat the competition every night of the week. They have found a strategy that works and stick with it. You cannot beat success.
Alternative facts of alternative interpretations of facts? Whose truth? Our postmodern universe says that facts are dependent upon interpretations of facts linked to positions of power and politics. Our distrust of institutions says that presenters of facts are biased. These perspectives began on the left, so it's no surprise that those on the right are using the same rationale for their interpretations.
"In God We Trust - All Others Bring Data" is a phrase us consultants use, supposedly originated by UPS management. But humans are story-dwellers more than data-dwellers, and tend to blow up the significance of stories more than data would support. Thus the carbon levels in the atmosphere, alarmingly high and leading towards climate chaos already, aren't a story that grabs people.
The brilliant ecologist Garret Hardin said (1985) that we need to be literate - e.g. knowing what the words mean. And numerate - e.g. knowing what the numbers mean. And ecolate - which means you always think in whole systems by asking: "And then what?". If people can't well handle data compared to stories, asking "And then what?" at least furthers the intelligence of the conversation.
And we must recognize the inherent nastiness in drawing general conclusions from stories, as we are apt to do without mental discipline - the nastiness of racism, sexism and all other kinds of generalizations we make from a story that sets back civilization to being less civil, and more tribal of "us and them" predilection.
Please give me a great country where, as MLK Jr. said, people are judged solely by the content of their character. If so, few people would actually vote for reelecting Trump, IMHO. Several lies per day is all you need to know to say no thanks!
2
As I age, I value more and more the public school education I got (high school class of ‘69). Civics class divided us randomly into parties with committees who wrote bills and shepherded them through to a vote, so I learned the value of my citizenship. Debate club stealthily determined our biases, then assigned us to the opposite opinion on an issue so we might learn to think objectively; ours was capital punishment. Drawing class taught us to sometimes ignore our lying eyes (perception) and see the facts (light and shadow) in order to grasp what we’re seeing on the way to conquering perspective. We learned about ancient civilizations and other religions, read a novel in a foreign language, and learned the Latin and Germanic roots of the English language. (Remember the Humanities?) Spelling and grammar were absolute and could sink a well-reasoned essay into an F grade.
The most important thing my parents imparted to me was a love of reading and an insatiable curiosity. Well-written fiction can immerse the reader in the lives of others and deepen empathy. Sharing love with other species can offer a glimpse of Eden, and gardening allows participation in everyday Miracles. My sense of Right and Wrong transcends religious dogma. My favorite radio and TV media are Public, with no commercial agenda; I recognized Social Media immediately as corporate surveillance and never joined.
Most importantly, my Critical Thinking skills help break down Faith-based opinions like Douthat’s.
14
I suggest Mr Douthat apply his thesis to the recent attempt by the Trump Administration to add a citizenship question to the census. Should we waste time trying to understand the rationale of the Administration for the question when they don't believe their own argument?
8
“It’s not that full de-polarization is ever possible; basic moral and philosophical commitments inevitably divide us. But seeing our disagreements through the lens of narrative might get us closer to a crucial insight — which is that in a big, diverse and complicated society, multiple narratives can all be true at once.”
Huh? So many words in attempt to make a case for what is impossible. A narrative can be true or false owing to the comprehension and articulation of the one reporting it, and opinions will surely vary. The importance attached to the subject will also vary, based on one’s priorities.
When the substance of the issue is obvious and plainly documented, the facts are evident. For example, we are seeing actual images of living human beings packed shoulder to shoulder in cages for days on end without access to means of sanitation and nutrition, by what philosophical or even political mindset would different narratives be true simultaneously? There is unlikely to be depolarization between those who feel shock and disgust and those who feel they deserve it for being there. Such issues are at the root of the political divide between sides, and there is no way to report them in a neutral way for the sake of finding comity. Until and unless we get a lessening of the tensions caused by dysfunctional leadership and a return to common purpose among our citizens, we will have instability.
3
The false equivalency embraced by the much of the mainstream media is in itself a distortion and is to blame for the perception that mainstream media is biased. When you just put up battling soundbites from each side with only vague context, audiences are left confused and frustrated. Of course people are more drawn to newscasts that paint narratives and draw conclusions. Right wing media figured this out a long time ago. Mainstream news needs to return to the standards of Edward R. Murrow, who looked objectively but wasn’t afraid to draw conclusions.
10
We are all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, age, religion or psychographic profile.
The Republican Kremlin alliance decided to attempt to fragment a nation of immigrants who grew strong, prosperous and powerful from its diversity derived from merit.
Too often we are disaggregated through identity politics to dissension and division. This plays right into the Republican Kremlin alliance of fragmentation.
But despite the PR campaign and Facebook dollars spent, we are all Americans.
The last immigrant to take the pledge of citizenship and allegiance to the US is as valued and important to the nation as the Mayflower pilgrims.
Democrats, Independents, and those Republicans left who care about Freedom and Democracy, must reject the GOP Kremlin alliance and their despotic tactics.
The clueless will wait until the equivalent of Trump's plutocrats mirror Putin's oligarchs, and freedom and democracy disappear.
Ask any tourist to Eastern Europe and Russia what their take is on the respective populations. The former are happy to have the Soviet yolk lifted, while the latter Russian citizens lack joy, contentment, or any sense of humanity.
Russian leaders are thieves, and their citizens move though a life of misery and toil as a result.
9
@David Parsons
So "we" are all Americans except the Republicans, who are not.
The old fashioned word "stereotyping" would have sufficed, Mr. Douthat. Most of us learned the pitfalls of ascribing group characteristics in our youth. the'right leaning' appelation which you self apply is nothing more than a form of stereotype.
3
When Mitch McConnell blocks Congress from acting to stop Russia from subverting our democracy it is not because he accepts some narrative that liberals have trouble understanding. Ross and conservatives in general are finding themselves forced into increasingly desperate, contorted apologetics to avoid dealing with the ugly reality their political naivety has delivered to us all.
17
So part of your solution to polarization involves Trump voters using their imaginations to look at fact-based news stories and sincerely apply a liberal perspective to them?
Ummm, have you ever talked to a Trump voter? They prefer Trump's lies on Twitter over fact-based news and they only use their imaginations to concoct conspiracy theories about liberals.
26
The notion that all "educated, or just intelligent, people" all have the same views is absurd.
"Facts" do not exist in isolation from the methods of interpretation applied to them.
A close look at the history of science, or culture, shows that intellectuals are in a constant internecine struggle against each other for many reasons.
Only those in politics, who were once called "lumpers' , as opposed to "splitters" [I would call them "reductionists"], could possibly be unaware of, or unconcerned by, that fact.
Disciplinary frames of reference, disciplinary standards, sub-disciplinary traditions, framing of the questions asked, the problems these questions address and the standards of judgement applied to the "facts" are of great concern.
This is not a new observation.
The ideas of Thomas Kuhn, concerning competing "paradigms" in science and the intense following discourse in the philosophy of science, would be a good place to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
Another perspective, from anthropology. that of the late and very controversial, Marvin Harris , offers another, a cultural, perspective on the great variety of ideas within one discipline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Harris
1
I wonder how various sides of the partisan divide would react to Roger Cohen's July 26 column, "Trump's Inhumanity Before a Victim of Rape." I was horrified by the description of how President Trump treated and reacted to Nadia Murad and her story of mass rape of the Yazidi women by ISIS and the murder of her mother and brothers by ISIS.
I simply cannot accept that anyone with any set of morals would not be horrified by Ms. Murad's ordeal. And, I cannot accept that there is another side to the story of how President Trump acted during his meeting with her.
10
@Richard Zaunbrecher
Well if you looked into it you would see that Cohen's description was not accurate and entirely the result of his own preconceptions.
One way to depolarize this nation is to have a fair process. Ask yourself, how would Republicans have reacted had their candidate lost the 2000 and 2016 elections despite winning the popular vote? How would the Fox News crowd have responded to having to their candidates having to win a greater percentage of votes in the House to counteract the impact of gerrymandering to maintain a majority? How would the GOP have responded to the Senate, where Democrats represent a far greater number of people, yet have watched the federal courts, specifically the Supreme Court, be turned into an annex of the Federalist Society by the “majority”?
I understand fully the US is not a democracy. But please, spare me the psychology and stop acting as though the polarization of US politics, likely at its worse since the 1850s, is somehow a pox on both house. This has been an asymmetric process, one roughly initiated by Newt Gingrich and his “take no prisoners” politics in the mid 1990s, continued by Fox, and now carried to new heights by President Trump. There simply is not a liberal equivalent to that chain.
21
@Paul
There's no equivalent if your starting point is the mid 1990s, and ignore the gerrymandering that occurs on the Democratic side as well - not the least of which is through supporting the representation of undocumented people.
Perhaps you need to accept that conservative judges are appointed and conservative-leaning people are elected (regardless of party) because America is a conservative nation, despite you pretending it's otherwise.
Maybe you need to remember the needlessly conservative Clinton presidency, not the liberal Clinton campaign.
Maybe you need to remember that both times when Hillary was running for president, universal healthcare and $15 min wage was derided as a preposterous pipe dream, and something that's not even worth aiming for - naturally because of the evil Republicans, not her lack of spine and conviction that it's the right thing. "We are not Sweden," she said with derision at the debates.
Most Democrats are right wingers by international standards, i.e. neoliberals.
And then there's the issue of taking things personally that aren't.
2
It ain't just stories that divide us...it's truth vs mendacity.
Yeah, okay Ross. Sure...MSM doesn't report the same stories that right wing media emphasizes. That's because MSM wants to sell stories to the greatest number of people, while right wing media wants to keep their base happy.
Another difference is that liberals prefer the truth, while right wingers prefer lies that confirm their biases. On the few occasions that Trump has told the truth, the pushback from his base has been swift and severe. What's a con man to do when the marks want 100% baloney with no truth allowed?
Sure, political correctness on steroids has invaded the left wing...I won't call them liberals as they don't call themselves liberals. Bad as that is, it's better than the lies and false narratives the right wing/Trump's base has adopted.
And that is my bottom line. I wouldn't mind right wing media if they at least told the truth about stories that support their bias, but so often that just blatantly lie. There is no integrity remaining on the right with the possible exception of a few never Trumpers.
11
@rumpleSS
There is nothing truthful about the shameless editorializing of even the most mundane economic indicators.
When you can't even report on the GDP growth statistic without taking a jab at Trump, you are no longer peddling truth.
This appears to be another specious attempt at false equivalency, that if only we would listen to the other side we would understand them and all could come together in one great compromise.
But there are not two sides to lying, racism, voter suppression, white nationalism and a host of other social and political issues. There aren’t two sides to corporations and the wealthy paying little or no taxes, while Average Joes like me pay full freight to a federal treasury whose revenues are declining because billionaires get to keep more. There aren’t two sides to the corruption and numerous violations of the law by Trump and his cronies.
Nice try, Ross.
22
Too much television, too much social media. All driven by the profit motive, not the truth motive. And all too easy.
Remember those olden days of yore when, if you had an opinion on something, you wrote a letter to the editor. You had to get an envelope, a stamp, put it into the mail, wait a few days for a call from the paper to make sure it was you who wrote the letter, and a week later you would see it in the paper?
Now? We are bombarded with people's complaints, opinions, stories, anger, victimization, "facts," etc. And instead of hearing from people face to face (which creates an entirely different type of communication and stories), or hearing from people who have the patience to write a letter to the editor, we get too much from angry, impulsive, and attention-seeking people.......constantly.
It is Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message" on steroids.
And that medium is intoxicating, and toxic.
4
Ross, in a perfect world, your argument would make sense. Sure, progressives tend to be strident and inclined to zero tolerance of differing viewpoints, but consider what they are up against. The vast majority of conservatives are content to tolerate a so-called leader who violates Christian "family values" as long as Mitch McConnell and the GOP can pack the federal courts with incompetent, partisan right wing judges hand picked by the Federalist Society. Exactly what is the other side's narrative in this case? Silly me, I thought justices were supposed to be impartial and guided by the law and the U.S. Constitution. Then there's the full frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. Does the other side seek a world in which women's rights resemble the dystopian nightmare of The Handmaid's Tale? What about fiscal conservatism? Decades of taunting tax and spend Democrats fly out the window the minute Republicans have an opportunity to pass sweeping tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and powerful. What's the narrative for that, again? Ever since Fox News went on the air, America has been getting a steady dose of the other side's narrative, based on fiction, not facts, provoking irrational fears that stoke the fires of racism and intolerance, under the Orwellian mantra of "Fair and Balanced" journalism. So I'm done trying to see the other side's narrative until conservatives like yourself acknowledge that your side went off the rails a long time ago.
17
No Ross, the "fake media" that conservatives deride is virtually any platform other than Fox, Breitbart and a handful of others which routinely peddle stories that are provably and demonstrably false ... following Trump's example. Overstating the significance of this blizzard of lies is hardly akin to embellishment. There can be no misreading the pernicious effect of "alternative facts", and a Presidency sustained by them.
The only antidote is truth seeking, and that should never divide us. Sadly, it has ...
12
It is possible to disagree about an interpretation of the facts while remaining in good faith. It is not possible to do so when the very fact themselves are wildly at odds, when the perceived reality of one side is utterly incompatible with that of the other. How do you debate (or compromise) with someone who insists that the Mueller report "exonerates" donald trump when it plainly states otherwise? How do you accept a point of view which insists that the Earth is 6000 years old as even worth discussing? How do you acknowledge a perspective that sees a white police officer shoot a fleeing black man in the back and finds it justified?
The problem is not a lack of imagination, an inability to see a radically other notion of reality as respectable. The problem is that the radically other notion of reality is insane in hat it denies demonstrable hard facts.
9
Remember the "death panels"?
And 8 years of "Obama is coming to take your guns."
Then there was the 8 years of Republicans relentlessly railing against Obama and the debt.
The most significant legislation so far is the Ryan / McConnell / Trump tax cut.
The deficit will increase from $600 Billion to $1 Trillion.
The projected ten year increase in the debt is $12 Trillion which is $80,000 per tax payer.
Every Republican senator voted for it. Not one Democratic senator voted for it.
I wouldn't mind if Trump supporters got fleeced but the rest of the country is getting fleeced, too.
Mr. Douthat, do you have anything to say about that?
12
I am so tired of the bipolar political narrative. Has everyone forgotten there are more than two ways to think? There is no aisle running down the middle of America. There is no "other side." It's all made up by the two major political parties. Get over it and wake up to reality.
1
This is why I have been reading both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal on a daily basis since 1979.
I need a broad spectrum of well-written reporting and opinion to reflect on.
I don't want to be in an 'echo chamber'.
Unfortunately, most Americans seem to prefer their chosen 'echo chamber'.
Or am I missing something here?
1
True. Conservatives and Liberals don't understand one another. Both have differing concepts of evil.
Conservative's consciousness of evil pretty much follows the Bible which leads to stability and rationality. Liberals, on the other hand, are influenced by changing perceptions of political correctness which is necessarily unstable and inherently irrational, e.g., transgenderism.
We need to hear more about the differences between Liberals and Conservatives. We must find a way to penetrate the wall that separates us.
1
Another good piece from Douthat. The least bias writer on these pages. In my opinion anyway.
It is not just how "news" is interpreted by readers. It is how it is presented by the source. Publications from both ends of the spectrum present isolated incidents as exemplary. This is the standard model for a Times news piece and de rigueur on the editorial and oped pages. Sure, some other papers do the same, that's how they draw readers who want to see what the believe confirmed. As Douthat points out, there are plenty of facts to go around. Facts that the left and right believe about each other are likely as not all true.
Read and watch widely and observe your own environment. Try some new sources.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/
1
Just the other day I saw two stories posted by friends of mine on social media. One was that Rep. Ilhan Omar had married her brother (a complete lie,) and the other was the altered video of Nancy Pelosi which made her appear drunk while giving a speech (again, a lie.) These are not other points of view--they are outright lies made up to make a politician look reprehensible--and they are the stories that divide us.
945
@George Rowland
We can thank Lee Atwater and Karl Rove for setting the trend of Republican cheap tricks, trump is the master.
59
@George Rowland
The Russians may have interfered in our elections using similar posts to the ones described here.
But what about our own interference in our own elections?
24
@George Rowland
And they aren't what this article is talking about
18
I think too many of us have surrendered our ability to think, to be critical consumers of information, and to come to our own conclusions.
Politicians use divisive tactics to fire up and enrage their bases. I am more dismayed that such a thing as a base exists at all. A base to me signifies as mindless mob, easily led, easily persuaded, and always ready if you feed them the right red meat.
For too many, party politics are like supporting your favorite sports team, no brain is necessary, just cheer loud and often.
Maybe, we have lost the art of thinking through a situation or a problem, and we have become too quick to resort to knee-jerk reaction. Interestingly, the word "jerk" in "knee-jerk" is catching my attention.
There is an art to building a persuasive argument. Good arguments formed on both sides of an issue can help to find some common ground, what we used to call a "compromise." And to compromise is not an act of weakness, it is an act of intelligent and constructive problem solving. Maybe this is something we need to teach more of in our schools, the act of reaching a compromise.
177
@Ed
Excellent, Ed. And I think no one need read any farther than your essay to find those sorely missed and sorely needed elements of basic wisdom.
Shouting and over-talking is a waste of time and always has been. But when two people agree to discuss an issue in search of common ground, to present facts to support their theses and agree to allow the other fellow to have his say without interruption, and to respond to one another's arguments in a civil fashion, compromise can almost always be reached.
In fact, it very often happens that they discover so much common ground that there was no need to be argumentative in the first place.
- Critical thinking
- Avoidance of confirmation bias
- Self-examination to root out so-called "base" beliefs
- Don't eschew healthy skepticism
31
@CPMariner
An ever slight suggestion: Include rational thinking along with critical.
13
@Ed Pirie
I'll take truth-seeking over compromise any day when someone spews about death panels .. or .. rapist immigrant invaders ... or mexico paying for the Wall .. or tax cuts paying for themselves ...
You should as well ...
20
This assumes that those on "the other side" are self-aware enough to know that they are viewing the world through the lens of "their narrative" and that they are open minded enough to see and understand the narrative of "your side". If this were the case, there would be no need for this column because polarization would be an impossibility.
105
This is presented as a "point of view issue" but that is not what this is. There are matters of opinion and matters of fact.
Climate change is the perfect example. There is a group of people who see strong evidence of human-caused climate change and the negative effects and want to do something about it. Some in that group see it as an important issue, others see it as the most important issue. There are varying ideas about how to remedy the situation, many based scientific principles.
There is a group of people who do not see that that way. What they really want to say is climate change may be happening and human causes, but profits are more important to us. They do not say that though. They dispute the facts, attack the messengers, sow doubt using falsified science, misquotes of scientists, and media echo chambers.
There may actually be an economic case for not addressing climate change via carbon reduction - maybe moving everyone to Antarctica may be cheaper... but the "alternative" side doesn't present any facts to back up their opinion and they have no interest doing so. So why bother trying to compromise? It's clear they don't have evidence to back up their claims, or they would use it.
You can show me a picture or recording of an nearly empty Washington mall on Jan 20th 2017 and tell me it is the largest crowd ever assembled for such an event. I know that it is just not true. Don't confuse your opinion or your desire with the evidence before you.
422
@CB
I feel as you do--and that is the downfall of those of us who depend on facts and data. Those of us who want to make decisions based on facts are willing to consider whether, economically, it might be better just to move away from the coastlines and/or expand our national budget to cover the expense of more extreme weather patterns. While we're busy pondering the issue, the 'alternative facts' people laugh at us--they have no interest in seriously considering the effects of industrialization--they prefer to insist that scientists are extremists making this stuff up because of some political agenda. That strategy works for the 'alternative facts' brigade because there are a whole lot of people out there whose critical thinking skills are simply nonexistent.
I became concerned when I read these words: "multiple narratives can all be true at once." People like Ross are supposed to represent the best of right-leaning thinking and I find him lacking. Yes, 97% of scientists concurring on climate change means that 3% are not so sure. By the same token, yes, some immigrants commit crimes and yes, Antifa can have a violent edge, and yes, there once was a 'welfare queen.' Those things, while all 'true,' require perspective. Perspective is a necessary component of those 'critical thinking skills' I mentioned earlier.
So, I guess people like you and me are now to be labeled 'polarized.' I'm fine with that.
72
@CB
Actually, what Ross writes about is particularly germane to climate change. Look at how zealots have treated anyone with a simple question? They have ridiculed them. Whoever came up with the insulting term, "Deniers", set back the cause a decade. And whoever said "The science is settled" deserves to be banished. Anyone with a shred of common sense understands that debate is healthy and skepticism is always warranted.
Climate change affects everyone. The issue isn't "owned" by purists, despite the fact that they have anointed themselves gatekeepers only allowing in the most ardent followers.
16
@AACNY
Yes, I see your point. 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are impacting the climate and as is already apparent, those effects are happening faster and to a greater degree than many of the conservative estimates predicted.
The problem, is that even when presented with increasingly dire evidence, one side refuses to engage in a real debate. I believe that is the basis of the term denier. The fact that the 3% of scientists who are owned by the extraction industries even exist, and have any legitimate say, is a testament to our corrupt corporatocracy
To favor the survival of life on earth, and the health, safety and the ability of all people to pursue happiness isn't a PURIST thing...but rather a reality thing.
77
The biggest story of our day is global warming, but you would not know that listening to the other side's narrative. There is consensus among the world's climate scientists that burning fossil fuels is overheating the planet which will have catastrophic consequences, but Fox News gives nearly 70% of its airtime on global warming to science deniers. One study found that:
"In the United States, a coordinated climate denial movement has used Fox News to effectively spread its message discrediting climate science. Coverage on Fox News is overwhelmingly dismissive of climate change and disparaging toward climate science and scientists ... [which] fuel confusion and apathy among the general U.S. public and foster opinion extremity among strong partisans."
So, Fox says climate science is a hoax and so its viewers -- Republicans -- oppose all efforts to reduce pollution, let alone a Green New Deal moon-shot to switch to clean energy. Instead, President Trump busy killing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.
As a result of Fox News's "perspective" it's likely too late to stop global warming. Paris recently broke its heat record by 4 degrees F, and scientists say the rate of change is itself increasing. Because of this and other blatant Fox News lies I see no benefit whatsoever to seeing their perspective. They are dangerous. They are harming us and our children's future. It is incomprehensible and, I think, unforgivable.
239
@Sherry My brother is a Fox News enthusiast. We disagree on global warming. I told him I am not smarter than the vast majority of climate scientists who think this is a real danger. He disputed the majority, so I asked him to give me a list of the ones who don't think there is climate change. He produced a list of 100 from some right-wing media. I check the first 3. Number 1 was on Exxon's payroll. Number 2 was a discredited phony. Number 3 had switched his opinion 5 times for whatever reasons; some quack I assume. I refused to look further. That is the essence of the right's argument against climate change.
59
@Sherry Ahme. The Senate, under McConnell put the Green New Deal to a vote. Result: 57 no, 43 ‘present’
Failed
3
@Sherry
What is amazing to me is that Sean Hannity has children.
Doesn't he care about the world he will be leaving for his children and grandchildren?
And for your brother, even the oil companies acknowledge climate change is real and caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
Rex Tillerson also has children and grandchildren to worry about.
19
There are important issues, such as climate change, crony capitalism, healthcare cost, etc and then there are issues at the edge of social interactions which are academically interesting, perhaps, and even indicative of the prominence of the visceral leanings. It seems to me that the goal of those who would have us ignore the first set of issues is to condemn us to believe that the the social side is what we should be concerned about. More the fool us.
Moreover, it has become fashionable to blame neo-liberalism for all our economic woes, but this is a term which essentially condemns liberalism, in its dual meanings, to being the enemy both on the social and economic front. Thus conservatism, or more properly, the natural tendency of unregulated capitalism towards destructive monopoly, escapes any criticism. We need to be on our guard not just for our prejudices but, perhaps more importantly, the propagandized terminology through which we describe the lens of our experience.
66
This is so typical of the right leaning false equivalence. And instead of choosing one admittedly weird story, choose last week's story about Robert Mueller testifying. On the one hand the mainstream media (ie, the NYTimes) reported what he actually said and their opinion of how he said it. It was not all flattering and did not overemphasize the criminal acts that might have been committed. Then there was Fox, which treated Trump's tweets as gospel and tried to shred Mueller's credibility and continually lied that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
There is a reason (not the only one but a very important one) that people I know who are Trumper's continue to believe in him and it's that they consider Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox crew as dispassionate and truthful journalists. They are not. I have one friend who says he watches Fox and CNN to achieve that magical balance. The problem is that you can't balance lies with truth that might have a slight leftward lean. The lies are still lies. CNN may emphasize one approach more heavily than another but it doesn't intentionally lie. Fox does.
7
If one can believe that there is a willful god that cares what we do and has ultimate control over everything, and then shape one’s life as if such a belief (aka “a faith”) were a fact not a comforting myth, then one can easily turn whatever one wants to believe into facts, regardless of whether such “facts” are real or imagined. If I don’t want to believe that global warming is being exacerbated by human activity, then I can ignore the facts because I have faith that god is either too nice to allow for such a catastrophe or too vengeful not to make us pay for our sins. If I want to believe that some groups of humans are inferior to my group so that I can exploit their weaknesses, then it’s god’s will that I do so. If I have what I need and you don’t it’s your fault. If unfettered capitalism has allowed me to get super rich, then it is the best system for everyone and anyone can do what I have done. Such are the myths we use to justify our injustices. It is our ability to turn our emotional needs into self-serving so-called facts and these so-called facts into myths that allows us to become the ogres we are capable of being. There is nothing wrong with listening to the stories of those with whom we disagree, but don’t tell me your story is real just because you want to believe it.
3
Hard to do but worth trying - so what's next? Lead the charge on implementation Russ.
When the FCC killed The Fairness Doctrine we were doomed. Free speech without mandated debate or rebuttal has not been free, it has cost us everything
269
@middledge We can't rely on institutions to depolarize us, we have to develop that capacity within ourselves. If you and I try to see each other's side and discuss issues in a civil way, we not only benefit ourselves, but set the example for everyone watching.
5
@middledge, and let’s not forget who killed the Fairness Doctrine. That would be Ronald Reagan and his FCC chairman Mark Fowler.
25
FOX News is a cable channel, not broadcast on the airwaves. It would not be subject to FCC regulation. Just saying. Meanwhile, the so-called liberal media report facts, including all the Wikileaks dumps of stolen emails, Comey’s last-minute shot at HRC, and all the Benghazi hearings.
9
Many years ago, as an experiment, I listened to nothing but FOX news and Right Wing talk radio in prior to the 2004 election. I was interested in why many of my acquaintances were being whisked away to the Right Wing bubble. It was a difficult and painful process, but I did learn a few things as I waded through the musings of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Ingraham, etc. First: Anchors and hosts will repeat the same story throughout the day, like a constant menacing drumbeat. Second: There is a constant atmosphere and sound of high volume hysteria and outrage. Third: Lies are repeated quickly and constantly until they spread like wildfire are perceived as substantial and truthful. (This was, after all, the days of "Swiftboating", surely one of the most despicable acts of political sabotage ever visited on a Democratic candidate who also happened to be a decorated war veteran--thanks Karl Rove). And finally: No matter what the outrage of the day, it absolutely MUST be the fault of "liberals" and the "media". So sorry, Mr. Douthat, there is nothing to "learned" from Right Wing media. In fact, most of the blame for our current sorry state of affairs can be traced back to the Right Wing media. They have poisoned the well of political discourse. And by the way: Remember "Air America"? No of course you don't--because normal well adjusted people do not get up every day and make their living by demonizing half of the population. That is the work of sociopaths.
522
@mscan Best post on this blog! Spot on!
43
Excellent post. Ross perpetuates the false equivalency. It is objectively FALSE.
48
@mscan
Years ago, I was in horror of what I heard of Rush Limbaugh. I decided that to be fair, I needed to watch his old TV show to actually hear his side. Wow! I loved him. He was a funny genius and reminded me of one of my favorite ex-boyfriends.
Then he had he had a show on something that was in my area of expertise. OMG. He was not showing these scientific facts from another viewpoint—he was making up verifiable facts and spinning stories in his made-up world.
I wanted to continue watching him because he was so entertaining, but I stopped. I was afraid that on most of subjects, I might believe his false-facts and pass them on like verbal viruses.
47
first just an observation: a good lawyer has to see both sides all the time to best serve his client's interests. Second, you let the right off too easily re alternative facts. Trump et al lie: eg his inaugural crowd wasnt bigger than Obama's, he did encourage the chant send them back, and Mueller did not exonerate him. These are not alternative facts, they are lies. What is even more discouraging is that any time spent with wsj, fox, Limbaugh or Bret Stephens right here, reveals that they all live and breathe in an alternative universe right out of bizzaro world or 1984.
192
@Rhporter The problem with your point about Mueller is that there's a bigger falsehood lurking in the background: the idea that prosecutors ever "exonerate" anyone. Mueller did not find evidence proving that Trump colluded with Russia. Mueller did not exonerate Trump; Mueller did not exonerate you or me, either. You, me, and Trump are all in the same boat: there's no evidence proving any of us colluded with Russia. There doesn't need to be, because we all three are presumed innocent.
If I ran around saying, "Rhporter is probably a traitor because Mueller didn't exonerate him/her," you'd see the problem. Trump's claim to have been exonerated may be false in some sense, but it is in response to a much bigger and more dangerous lie.
6
The rights Warming climate denial in the face of global scientific consensus and peer reviewed study is a alternative fact pure and simple.
4
Wouldn't "the most factually informed voters" be people like college professors, scientists, journalists, and educated people in general? And aren't those groups the ones routinely demonized as "liberal"? Maybe there is a relationship between facts and partisanship that is entirely valid. Or, as many of us have been saying for years now, "Yes, facts are liberal." The current best example is climate change; which partisan position is most factually based? And yes, one does have to exercise the imagination to justify the policies and positions of the Republican Party under Trump.
493
@Eric Caine
Everyone you list have formal education. It appears that you do not think it is possible to be intelligent and have facts if you do not have a formal education, please correct me if I am wrong. I know many people that are self taught and have much more factual knowledge than anyone else I know. I also know many people with formal educations that quote me facebook "news" as their source of information.
Again please correct me if I am wrong, but to me it seems like you have a significant bias against those you have deemed to be "uneducated".
21
I agree with you to an extent, professors, scientists, ( others who lean left) etc. are largely intelligent and exceedingly well informed. However, with a certain degree of education and the related lifestyle, a degree of detachment takes form. College professors for example, highly educated. But if you teach at Dartmouth and live in rural New Hampshire what do you know about crime in Philadelphia where I come from? What do you know about the plight of the working class in Texas, who competes for jobs with illegal immigrants willing to work for a lower wage?
I have seen immense detachment from reality among people who are highly intelligent and well educated, but inexperienced when it comes to real world problems, particularly urban violence, which is often perpetrated by people of color.
For what it is worth, I am an attorney ( so my education would place me in the educated group you discuss) who is moderate, but I often vote Democrat.
Still, I think you should be more careful to not reflexively equate education with being well versed in key issues.
54
@SH - as all of us who are educated know, education teaches you how to analyze and evaluate. It's just part of formal education. It also requires that you spend years studying something--all the ins and outs, pluses and minuses, etc. For almost everybody, it takes formal education to require yourself to do that over extended periods.
33
A trend in journalism is the portrait story: go to the place, find someone there who's involved & get their story. It's an engaging approach but I think it feeds Douthat's observation. To me it's not news.
But Ross, "alternative facts" are not the little things you've reference. Alternative facts are big thing patently false: trading partners are paying the tariffs, Mexico is paying for the wall, NO nuclear threat is over, tax reform benefited the middle class, citizenship question was to improve voting access etc
143
As a guy who agrees with Ross much of the time, I am not a big consumer of conservative media. Mostly NYT, NPR, and a variety of podcasts. Nor am I a big commenter on articles, but here I am... My life and family are about as politically polarized as possible, very sadly. I often share conservative evaluations of the media I do take in, when it appears to be editorializing in ways I find to be unwarranted, and that is usually for reasons of fact that occur at much deeper levels than this media churn — things like the actual nature of gender and biology, of purpose and tradition, of economics or religion. I truly appreciate it when a good narrative moves me to see something true that stands outside my current perspective, forcing me to change my mind. What I don't appreciate is when a narrative is made normative and pushed relentlessly with no basis in deeper truths — or in conscious iconoclasm. Given that this, and not the contents of news outlets, is what divides us more tectonically, the much-discussed dividedness of the moment may be more about a shallowness exacerbated by media pace. Truth is slow, even if its dissemination and narration has become a breakneck competition.
And that is why I think that, for example, both narratives on Robert Mueller are irrelevant. Boring and old and refusing to play partisan ball? Sounds like my kind of guy. I'm going to go read Hans Urs von Balthasar and ignore Facebook.
14
Increasingly, I am of the opinion that the only way to de-polarize this country and find some shared facts and experiences is to reinstate conscription service. It might also be the only way to re-install a sense of patriotism and shared mission as the current President, armed with alternative facts and Fox news, has worked 24/7 to divide us.
64
No. Conscription teaches militarism, not patriotism.
Patriotism is not silly lapel pins and Toby Keith song (definitely no relation to me). Patriotism is about doing the right thing to make America a better place, not by indoctrinating young kids that America should bully other countries, or the military is never wrong.
You want conscription? Require every kid to do a couple years of community service or Peace Corps.
2
“The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.” - Hannah Arendt
Mr Douthat's conception of polarisation is self-contained and relational. Both liberals and far-right conservatives fundamentally reject the other's conception of the world, and so are ipso facto polar with regards to each other. Mr Douthat's focus on understanding the 'other side's' narrative preserves that isolation, because it maintains that attempting to apply context or external, objective measurement criteria is actually just the application of biases.
This is the premise, I think, of his statement that "the heart of polarization is often not a disagreement about the facts of a particular narrative, but about whether that story is somehow representative". To "depolarise", (which Mr Douthat seems to think is a good idea, without explaining why, or what the end state would look like), we must consider any given fact's 'representative-ness' to be the product of a political narrative, not a quantifiable and objective element independent of any narrative. Truth is always 'someone's truth', not the truth.
It's essentially the concept of 'Fair and Balanced': A viewpoint has equal worth to all others solely because it exists.
1
@Chris
I have to take issue with, “A viewpoint has equal worth to all others solely because it exists.” The viewpoint that the Earth is flat, and all the photographs from space are fakes, does not have equal worth with the viewpoint that the Earth is, essentially, round.
The viewpoint that climate change is either not happening or that it is not human caused, is not equal to the opposite that it is happening and human caused. One has substantially better grounding than the other.
The viewpoint that the Easter Bunny goes around hiding eggs that little children find, is not the equal of the viewpoint that some person put the eggs there for the children to find.
These are not “Fair and Balanced” issues. When it comes to fair and balanced, overwhelming evidence outweighs overwhelming belief.
7
@Chris How is gravity simply my truth .
Although it is true that multiple narratives may be true it does not follow that all narratives are true. Some are blatantly false.
12
The point of this column makes some sense, but in comparing right vs. left media, Mr. Douthat goes off the rails with a false equivalency. I buy into both sides are biased, however just listening to the Senators in the Mueller hearing spouting right-wing conspiracy theories that came right from Faux News, et. al. demonstrates the difference. The are few to no alternate facts in the "liberal media," as opposed to an abundance of virtual propaganda coming from the right. That is the difference.
19
There is a good point here about how humans organize their reality through narratives, and a moment of political and economic turmoil can exploit that practice. Douthat commits that very practice here. He suggests that "right-leaning" people will be angered because "facts" of a mainstream news source aren't presented as part of a conspiracy theory; and a "left-leaning" person condemns "alternative facts" when Douthat says they are actually just facts that the "liberal" thinks shouldn't be given much weight. So, in trying to analyze the "problem," Douthat has committed the problem: he reads something from his point of view in order to create a narrative that confirms his desires: that "alternative facts" are just that: alternative facts -- not, in fact, myths or lies -- and that "liberals" simply don't want to admit when they're wrong. Douthat's piece takes us right back to the core of the problem, not through his analysis, but through his demonstrated problematic thinking. Douthat is constructing a polarized and polarizing narrative about mythical "liberals" and "conservatives", as if there's a machine that spurts one or the other out into existence, and then they go through life with "liberal" glasses or "conservative" glasses. As if there aren't layers of differences in experience that shape differences in philosophy and morals that need to be addressed: such as a belief in who has the right to live or die, and how that decision gets made.
2
No one decides on an issue with logic based on facts. Everyone decides emotionally and then uses the "right" facts to justify their position. The Greeks wrote about this character trait in humans in the story of Glaucon and invisibility
3
@Douglas
Perhaps you do this, but please don't tar the rest of us with this brush.
2
I go out of my way to read and listen to both the left and right. Often I am amazed at how they are dealing with two very different realities. Interestingly, I'm puzzled right now with how neither the left or the right seems to be questioning whether Tlaib is a woman of color I suspect that in all the studies that provide data breakdowns (like home-ownership) by race that she would be in the white category. How then does it happen that all 4 women in the squad are called women of color?
1
@JEG My experience with people who say "I read and listen to both sides" is that this is code for "I am a Fox News watcher who buys into their propaganda, but occasionally I turn on CNN."
2
@JEG the Honorable Representative Tlaib is most definitely a person of color. Both her parents are Palestinian. Indigenous peoples of the Levant are far darker skinned that those of Europe, especially northern Europe. There are however light-skinned exceptions among people in this region due to the influx of Europeans over the millennia for trade and military invasions. Home ownership has ZERO bearing on determining if someone is a person "of color."
2
Basic agreement with some of Mr. Douthat's point here, but he forgets that many voters are capable of weighing anecdotes and news and coming to a conclusion that one partisan side is more truthful/reality based/honest than others. On the whole, I find the progressive side to be much more informed by facts than the conservative side.
To use one example the author pointed out: yes, I know that undocumented immigrants commit crimes, but I also know that on the whole, these folks are more law abiding than average US born citizens (groups like Pew point this out). And I know that Obama focused on deporting criminals vs. asylum seekers, and he deported more than either Bush or Trump. I also recognize the sad, unhealthy and immoral strategy used by Fox and conservatives in general of highlighting an immigrant crime anecdote with no context in order to demonize other humans for political gain. In addition, this strategy scares "old white people" - it may be good political strategy but in my judgement in its spiritually and ethically wrong - as well as less factual than a balanced approach would be.
Global warming is probably the most obvious example of the conservatives ignoring reality for political purposes.
20
@wts
True, except you fail to mention how progressives almost always refer to undocumented "illegal" immigrants as immigrants "legal," and as law abiding even though they are all breaking the law. As someone who rarely watches Fox but frequently msnbc, pbs, etc., I have long noticed the same nonsense that you accuse Fox of. By the way, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, and the basic 6PM news does match your characterization.
There is a fundamental difference between regarding Authoritarian Reasoning (what is true is what the person you accept as The Authority says is true) as the preferred way to get at the truth of things, or regarding Analytic Reasoning (what is most likely true is what the Laws of Reason show is most likely true).
In any situation, unseen laws will be operating. In many, though not all, situations Analytic Reasoning (often called Critical Thinking) is the best God-given tool we have for understanding what is actually going on and for seeing our best options.
The problem is that for almost all of us, as children we are first conditioned to understand and accept Authoritarian Reasoning which has only two simple Laws: 1) Do what The Authority tells you to do, and 2) Accept as true what The Authority says is true.
Only later, as we become more mature, we may start learning about the Laws of Analytic Reasoning. But understanding those laws requires conscious intention
and effort. Additionally, and depending on upbringing, schooling, and local culture, such efforts may be actively discouraged.
For many, their first experience of training in analytic reasoning may come in college, should they be so fortunate. Happily, for those not so fortunate, but willing to make the effort, courses and trainings in Critical Thinking abound.
4
Ross, this morning I read a story in Vox that detailed the Ohio legislature's shipping of public money to failing nuclear and coal-fired power plants. Also documented is the millions in "campaign contributions" legislators have received from the company that runs those plants.
When 97% (or more; I would bet that this is an old number that we still use) of climate scientists agree that the planet is suffering from man-made climate change, and one news filter alternately batters that opinion and denies that such an opinion exists, this is no longer reality through a different filter; no, this is propaganda on behalf of those who will profit in the short term to the detriment of our descendants.
Have you noticed, Ross, how many on your side of the fence spend so much time excusing the falsehoods and vitriol that emanates from your immediate area? It's too bad that the right wing isn't made up of a whole bunch of Edmund Burke acolytes; instead, you have cast your lot with Kim Davis and cross burners.
By giving intellectual cover to those among us who exhibit the worst instincts, you are far more culpable than you think.
76
@Jack Mahoney
Vox
Left Bias
"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
1
Exhibit A of the hate-spewer calling the others hate-spewers.
Like low turnout elections? Like an increasing hyper-polarized dysfunctional country increasing headed toward settling our differences through violence instead of dialogue?
This is how that looks...
I watch Fox News occasionally to see how they report the news and I pretend they represent my views. I verbalize this out loud and listen to myself. I realize I sound like a character from "Greater Tuna."
13
This is a good observation, Mr. Douthat.
But we should also consider the benefits of hyper-partisanship. For example, the Progressive press and the Progressive politicians constantly barrage us with tales of the perfidy of Trump. Rather than silently taking these hyper-criticisms (as George W. Bush did), Trump hits back -- with hyper-partisan attacks on the Progressive press (see, the "failing" NY Times) and Progressive politicians (see his tweets today's Elijah Cummings and Nancy Pelosi), which reveal their weaknesses (e.g., the lawlessness of Baltimore and San Francisco). And the general public benefits -- it sees the flaws of Trump and it sees the flaws of his critics. Mission accomplished.
4
Douthat tries to make the case that we would all benefit by expanding the width of our political reading to include more reports that oppose our political preferences. It seems like a modest proposal, but I don't think the US still meets the many and varied definitions of a "democracy," especially with regard to "free speech." A Texas law now in effect stipulates that I cannot contract to do business with Texas, unless I promise never to boycott Israel (vis. Texas tribune/2019/05/09). Simply the fact that this law exists in any part of the US means the game is over, and there's not much left to salvage. I have come to this conclusion with some sorrow. I dutifully served for several years in the military and spent most of the rest of my life in Academia, teaching thousands of grad and undergrad students. Once upon a time I had great hope for the US. But when I see a requirement in any state or federal law that I must not boycott Israel, I see it as the thin edge of the wedge. It's bad enough that my taxes fund Israel; my political convictions are not for sale.
14
Do we get the facts? I have asked how would the cost of our present medical insurance system compare to Medicare for all. That is all government, private employer and individual contributions. Not a peep. And how will it affect the stock market. You know those retirement plans and 401k's.
There's also a problem with people with Cadillac plans thinking Obama care gave everyone a Cadillac plan. They also think Medicare is a Cadillac plan.
Although the press has been honest about people not wanting to give up what they have, they are not being honest about how it will affect the election.
Don't worry Bernie is taking a bus up too Canada with people who need insulin to survive. It's ten times cheaper there. Wouldn't it be cool if it was a school bus with a psychedelic paint job? Why not just give them CBD oil? That'll work.
Actually, "alternate facts" are quite often nothing more than easily proven lies. One's proclivities and contexts are frequently barriers, how absolute they are varies, that are more significant than education, training, and first- person experiences. It's still amazing to me that many with Ivy League degrees, including and especially with graduate and law degrees, are closed to the honest self-reflection, critical thinking, and openness to discussion that might be expected of them. Instead, their credentials are used to bludgeon those with whom they disagree and, coupled with personal behaviors they wear comfortably, rudely talk (or shout) over others or simply don't listen and repeat their positions or the approved mantra of the moment. The happy and productive exchanges we once took for granted are increasingly rare. They were predicated on shared values, values we now seem to not share. This divide, this vigorously defended barrier, is now deliberate and quite firmly entrenched, and one wonders what this situation portends and whether the barrier will ever be breached.
4
I would have to disagree with the statement "the heart of polarization is often not a disagreement about the facts of a particular narrative" I am often amazed how people both right and left cherry pick facts or a statement without context and create a half truth.
5
Having an honest discussion about any given issue should be welcomed. But it has to be based on the truth, and this, on reality as is, not as any of us imagines it, given our propensity towards 'confirmation bias' (once you believe in something, it may become mighty difficult to change your opinion, no matter how credible the source of a story debunking your version). Now, I am a permanent resident in these United States, hence, non-partisan; and yet, as an ordinary tax-paying guy, am always interested in seeing a functioning social democracy serve everybody's interests. But when you watch only "Fox Noise", with rare exceptions, you get distorted views of reality, always favoring our liar in-chief, no matter how outrageous his claims, Hannity-style, that can only be called partisan propaganda. The danger? THat when he is telling the truth ( even a broken clock is right twice a day), it stops being credible. This democracy depends on a free press to inform us as best it can; for that to occur, we must trust it's fairness. And seeing the other side must be part of it, provided you are not talking nonsense (alternative facts).
7
With the evidence that college-educated folks are less accurate about the views of those they disagree with, not more, we might ask what happened in our public schools and universities that this essential skill Ross describes has atrophied and thereby threatened our society’s future.
5
@James
I've spent many years teaching the evolutionary sciences, and now and again I stumble across some religion-based attempt to explain changes over time and space of living populations of plants and animals. My response to such events is not to study more widely the many non-scientific literature on this subject, it is simply to find the crucial point at which the author of the article moves from biological mechanics to metaphysics. Similarly, if I taught cosmology I would not start by trying to reject Einstein's model of relativity. Part of becoming successful in the academic world is the ability quickly to separate the wheat from the chaff.
7
An excellent essay. I expect most comments will be of the "Yes, but..." sort that pretend to agree and then descend into a condemnation of their political adversaries. That is the state of things in America at present. May we all remember, once again, to respect our neighbors and seek understanding.
5
Polarization makes it difficult to see that opposite views to our own may have some merit and does indeed color how we interpret facts. However, please spare us the equivalence between left and right. Any such discussion must start by acknowledging that bad faith and mendacity is far more prevalent in right wing media outlets, alternative fact are mainly promoted by Trump and his acolytes. Take for example the Squad, the favorite target of the right, they may on occasion use fiery and provocative language but they are not making up stuff nor promoting conspiracy theories. How is one to weigh the >10,000 lies that have been blurted in Trump's tweets and speeches vs all the speeches by Democratic leaders, never mind the Squad? Such a continuous stream of lies prevents those sick of Trump and his defenders to see any kernel of truth hidden among the flotsam.
17
Neither side seems to really care about the facts. If they did, there would be bipartisan agreement on what to do with the Mueller findings. Given the fact that there was tampering, we would be focused on the need to better secure our election processes. Instead, we are focused on the sideshow narrative of impeachment versus exoneration. Focusing on the narrative. rather than agreeing on facts that would justify actions, is partisan politics at work (and good for news ratings, too).
5
@Mark, well, here is a fact. The Democratic House has passed multiple election security bills. All have been blocked from coming before the Senate by McConnell. It is hard to see how multiple narratives can be spun around this.
29
Surprisingly, this column devolves into relativism. While it is well and good to keep an open mind and to listen to an adversary, there ought to be an effort to explain the existence and reproduction of the prevailing “narratives” (the word du jour) by rooting them in social structure. The superstructure is the product of the base, as someone disfavored here in America once argued. Douthat, however, does not undertake this kind of sociology of knowledge analysis. Without one there’s no way to evaluate the competing “narratives.”
2
@Mel
No, the facts are concrete. But are they typical or atypical of the whole?
Jonathan Haidt's 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" covers this topic in detail, from the viewpoint of moral psychology. Emotion and intuition carry 90% of our beliefs and opinions -- while only 10% are driven by intellect and reason. He uses the metaphor of the large and powerful elephant (90%) with the intellectual rider (10%) -- you can see why reason has such a minor effect on changing another person's thinking.
I agree that it is valuable to see the other side, even to develop some empathy for those with opposing views. But we are so deep in our own well, as are others, that drawing a drop of water from another one is an incredible obstacle. The left is no better at this than the right.
Even if Trump is defeated in 2020, his legacy of racist hate and nationalist fervor will still exist. Perhaps a new type of leader will be able to begin instilling a mindset that allows just a little more tolerance and understanding -- right now, though, that seems like a utopian fantasy.
7
Good advice Mr Douthat,
More empathy, understanding and willingness to listen are sorely need in America.
Thanks!
8
Yes, there are 2 sides to an issue. There is the right side and there is the wrong side. Conservatives, though they may be right generally choose the wrong process which invariably leads to a wrongful ending. It was right to confront Saddam Hussein but the process, led wrongly, resulted in disaster. My observation leads me to believe liberals tend to extrapolate the myriad of paths their actions may proceed before acting and the conservatives tend to act without thinking. Conservatives grab the hammer and look for things to bang...liberals study the issues until the solution becomes so complicated no one can follow. Let’s find the middle and walk slowly.
9
Over the years, from my college protests years to now living in an upscale retirement community I have become more conservative---still a liberal my nature and voting record, but, much more open to the concerns and policies of business. And in my conversations with my conservative neighbors I will acknowledge that marketplace goals and practices do have value, that there are areas where we are over regulated, and, yes, government, at times, is more of a problem than a solution. So far go good in the conversation. Where I get lost in the conservative story is in three conservative narratives: first, they have no give in their narrative---they are absolutists --all market solutions are good, all deregulation is good (oh, they are upset about the Max 8) all immigrants are bad; 2) absolute denial of science--except when it comes to medicine--at least they admit that cancer is cancer; 3) the emotion in the narrative--they don't necessarily yell at me, but in their voice there is a deep disdain/hatred for both any liberal policy and individuals promoting that policy--in that emotion, what troubles me, is there is no humanity expressed---there are after all women and children in those cages; there are after all individuals in our country who cannot afford proper medical care..I could go on, but name a human problem, and the response in their narrative is: "they deserve it."
54
" . But seeing our disagreements through the lens of narrative might get us closer to a crucial insight — which is that in a big, diverse and complicated society, multiple narratives can all be true at once."
Does that go for issues like abortion and slavery as well?
5
The "studies suggest that the most factually informed voters are also reliably the most partisan" line really jumps out at me. So I clicked the link and read the Vox article. Try it yourself before relying on my interpretation, but at best, Ross is implying that more information makes you more partisan; my read is that it says that being partisan makes you seek more information (that "confirmation bias" thing).
But the basic issue is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. It's just a story. And as Plato said, those who tell the stories rule society.
9
Mr. Douthat, the current right-wing has little worth understanding. I thoroughly believe that I should understand issues from various perspectives, but when the opposite perspective is not based on facts I really have a hard time trying to understand. That is the current problem. Progressives, generally use facts, although there are definitely exceptions, and right-leaners, use fear and myth that has been so ingrained into the minds of their minions. I am sorry "conservatives" but the vast majority of people on welfare are not out to hurt the government and most immigrants are not murderers and thieves. The US has itself partially to blame for the immigration crisis and poverty rates around the country. We have a history that must be addressed in order to live properly in the modern era, yet "conservatives" do not want to live with uncomfortable facts. Ultimately, how am I supposed to support the current Republican Party when it has turned over its leadership to a man that has no moral compass?
25
Yes, I understand the spectrum that we view our lives and the world may be slightly distorted, but we are living in an age of outrageous lies daily. The megaphone is too loud that we are unable to stop, breath, ask questions or learn. We are polarized and force-feed nonsense, meaning we are unable to discern the truth. The truth is the common baseline to build information and knowledge on, without truth what do we have?
In many ways it is the very role of the Fourth Estate, your job, to ask for us How, Why, Where and When. These are the crucial answers for the population to form knowledge and understanding on, the truth. Certainly, that is not the job of Fox Entertainment, their job is to rile the masses and stoke fear.
4
De-polarizing cult members or revolutionary cells sounds a lot conversion therapy to me. A practice now banned in 16 states I think. These quasi-medical practitioners are hired to "deprogram" homosexual minors from conservative religious families.
It's sort of like "A Clock Work Orange" for LQBTQ. Obviously, finding the truth in the other side isn't necessarily a good thing. A point we should keep in mind when evaluating opposing opinions. Bias is impossible to eradicate. However, bias is not always equivalent.
I think that's the main argument leveled against conservative reporting. As bizarre as the Hay story is, there's no liberal equivalent for Alex Jones. Most recently Jones is claiming the plaintiffs in his Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit planted child pornography in the data he revealed before the court.
Jones isn't even the first of his kind either. He's not even unique. He's part of a professional archetype embraced in the conservative landscape. Talk about exaggerated significance. The facts don't even need to be facts.
Take the much more moderate example of climate change. According to conservatives, climate change is a hoax. Alternatively, if climate change is real, it's nothing to worry about. And yet, preventing and mitigating climate change IS the conservative argument. Somehow no amount of science can convince conservatives. That's not a reality I want to step into. It's dangerous and unhealthy.
17
@Andy What? You cannot change sexual orientation (this is why conversion therapy should be banned everywhere), but ideologies may change. Your analogy is really wrong, and a disservice to the LGTB+ community.
@Andy
I agree with what you say except for the fact that you portray Alex Jones as some kind of outlier. The entire GOP is now mouthing conspiracy theories as crazy as his, starting at the top with Trump.
2
One mental trick I use is skepticism. It's tiresome but with every article I read I ask myself, what isn't being mentioned, did they present the other side or just a strawman, can I tell what the author's personal opinion is? Another thing I've been doing is trying to look at an issue or a story from the exact opposite perspective. A divorce lawyer once told me "there are two sides to most stories" good to keep in mind. Much of my own partisan perspective I've found wanting, not on every issue and every story but on many.
7
@somsai I don’t seem to have enough imagination to use these excellent techniques, so I just wait for stories to develop over time: more facts come out and more voices join in. I reject any headlines that are in the form of questions as premature speculation, not news.
@somsai....."there are two sides to most stories" …..And not infrequently one side is supported by science and facts and the other by strongly held beliefs and wishful thinking.
1
Some of us are comparatively good at doing this kind of self-examination and recognizing the beliefs that form the narrative reading of events. From this viewpoint the conclusion is a different one. What is perceived as the polarization of the center-left is largely the result of conservatives adopting an approach in which the narrative defines which snippets of reality are revealed, which is fundamentally different than what he describes as the liberal tendency, which is to present reality but without contextualizing it in a narrative that seems right to a conservative. People applying these different "techniques" will appear to mirror each other, as each party objects to the picture seen by the other. Douthat focuses on this mirroring effect and suggests that we can both escape from the mirror, but what really has to happen is for the conservatives to escape from the narrative-driven approach to reality that forces everyone else to enter into this state of seemingly symmetrical objection. Yes, anyone can fall into the same trap, but that is currently not the case regarding the non-extreme parts of the left spectrum; having reality-divorced opponents tends to encourage sobriety out of disgust at what the others are doing. Brooks and Douthat are blind to this out of a generally laudable disposition to see shortcomings and fallacies in all sides they can relate to, which apparently makes them unable to ever say that one side is flat-out wrong without implicating the other.
3
This may be true of people that are predisposed towards 'left' or 'right' thinking. Also, it's important to remember that stories fed by the media are often tailored to extract maximum financial benefits. However, it's important to define what is 'left' or 'right'. At this point 'left' is defined by folks that are pro-America and anti-foreign interference. The 'left' would like to see a safety net for those that our down on their luck while recognizing the merits of those at the very top (they are unlikely to confuse elites and elitists). The 'right' is now defined by the belief that the end justifies the means in political victory. The right is defined by the belief that if you're wealthy and powerful, you're in a group that can also claim victimhood, just as well as someone who's impoverished and without influence.
5
Your suggestion is supported by research - having people create arguments that support opinions opposite to their own moves them towards those arguments, even opinions based on false data.
How to teach people to discriminate between opinion and fact is a more difficult task.
3
Living in an echo chamber is unhelpful.
The reason some of us read your columns and David Brooks' and even guest op-ed writers such as John Bolton ("To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran") is to get the views of people who are not center-left or left leaning. Sometimes I find reading about (or listening to) the other views worthwhile.
Perhaps it is my age (early 60s), but I find the conservative media quite misleading and not nearly as "fun" as it used to be. I used to religiously watch Bill Buckley's "Firing Line." Bill was as conservative as they come, but not as quite "in your face" as some of the figures currently gracing the TV screens on conservative outlets such as Fox. You couldn't pay me enough to watch Sean Hannity or some of the others.
Reaction of one of the participants of Jusin Amash's Townhall summarizes the dishonesty of conservative media. She was “surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump.
I hadn’t heard that before. I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."
Trump's support among Republicans apparently increased after he told four Congresswomen to go home. Perhaps they are living in an echo chamber.
Is the country better served by conservative media? That is the question.
17
Why do I suspect that the response will be "Sure, you're right but...[fill-in-the-reason-why-the-other-side-is worse]"?
4
It sound superficially like a good idea, forcing partisans to report stories that are suggested by the other "wing". But then comes the false equivalency of Laura Ingraham and Rachel Maddow. Sure, they are polar political opposites, but they're also intellectual opposites. And of course, one came to her views through hate, and the other through reason and education.
Yes, stories are spun, or viewed through partisan lenses, or even just run for the number of eyeballs they will distract. But only Roger Ailes could create an entire universe of Soviet style lies and propaganda in the service of a cause, and there has NEVER been a progressive equivalent, and never will be.
73
@dave /agree: "there never has been a progressive equivalent, and never will be."
I find the creation and running of Fox News to be genius, the whole thing bringing to mind a wealthy Bond villain’s master organization to masquerade as a news agency while consistently, intentionally and reliably functioning like a well-oiled propaganda machine.
My elderly politically conservative neighbor exemplifies how successful they are - routinely spouting off “facts” from Hannity’s talk show as if it was vetted news.
The original (and to this day unmatched) fake news organization, Faux blends opinion and news in a manner that most readers/viewers will not catch. Jon Stewart routinely called them out for years on effectively *inventing news* by the Faux News noting that “some sources say” having been taken directly from Faux opinion talk show hosts earlier in the day.
However, what Faux does is not technically illegal. It is just incredibly unethical, spending the capitol of the public trust in Journalism and the 4th estate until most people think all news is just different people’s opinion and alternative facts.
It’s truly horrific and now we live in the land that Faux News built, along with a President that takes full advantage of it.
24
Choice of story is important. For two years The Times of London has reported on transgender up to four times a week, and published stories in which the only basis for "newsworthiness" is that a trans woman might be made to look ridiculous or bad. The aim is to foment hate and fear against trans women.
Different narratives may be true yet misleading, if a broader narrative is ignored. As a British person I find the way the police appear to treat members of the public in the US incomprehensible. There are various discernable narratives, none of which give a full picture.
So, how can I choose a narrative?
6
America has always been polarized, it arose from polarization. The only thing that keeps us from totally unraveling is from time to time effective communicators come along to set us straight.
But, it never lasts.
We've become toxic with partisanship for all the reasons stated in the comments below (and above). What's different in our modern times is the ability to bury our faces in a device we hold in our hands that fills our brains with a steady stream of whatever is the "crack du jour" that catches our fancy.
It wasn't until I had to admit the liberalism I loved has gone off the rails just as much as the conservatism I hated. It took reading or listening to folks like Ross that I was able to see what was wrong on my side of the fence and could start working to fix it.
I hear you and thank you and hope your prescription is picked up by your fellow conservatives also.
16
This is essentially the "Golden Mean" argument, which guides a democracy well - but only when partisans on both sides base their arguments on the best available evidence.
The best available evidence right now includes the fact that Russia tampered with out elections, and the Donald Trump obstructed justice.
Republicans show no effort to find a "Golden Mean". Rather, they just hope that their base buys all the lies and doesn't mind their refusal to engage in governing.
40
This is a brilliant piece of writing and thinking - absolutely first-rate.
In some cases, extreme events like this Bruce Hay tragedy are unrepresentative and offer no broad messages, or they may vividly display the major flaws in modern society. This particular human tragedy is a bit of both.
This tragedy certainly illustrates how Harvard University, once our greatest university, has gone institutionally insane with political correctness.
16
@Peter Johnson
Thanks for your reply. It beautifully illustrates the author’s point.
12
@Peter Johnson
It's particularly sad to see traditional institutions of enlightenment engaging in the equivalent of faddish enlightenment. They look silly and to have lost their way.
4
@Peter Johnson Only if you think Bruce Hay = Harvard University. But why would you think that?
2
Ross is mostly right and I like his idea on how to begin to overcome excess polarity: imagine how a reporter with the opposite persuasion would cover the same story. I’m not sure that facts and narrative are always separable. Sometimes they can blur into each other. But it’s OK to keep that as a working hypothesis until and if ever we make it out of the current level of polarization. It’s more than just a lack of “imagination,” though. I’m coming to believe confirmation bias is almost as strong a force of nature as denial. There are also mindset barriers, excess loyalty to tribes, lack of priority to critical thinking skills and practice, lack of awareness of non-mainstream alternatives. Of course, we can’t leave out the context of the adversarial culture we have now—in spades—some participants of which seem to like things the way are, even if it’s continuing to sink our society. A biggie, though, is the “can” in his “crucial insight…in a big, diverse and complicated society, multiple narratives can all be true at once.” This may or may not be true on an issue-by-issue basis. And even when true, it’s not usually going to be obvious. So it’s going to take curiosity, suspension of disbelief, some persistence and effort to even ask and pursue the right question. Ross’ “step back a bit” approach is terrific but needs to be built upon. So is the podcast he does with a liberal and even bigger liberal, although even that admirable representation sometimes leave out facts/narratives.
6
@Matt Polsky
"I’m coming to believe confirmation bias is almost as strong a force of nature as denial."
Indeed.
The polarization started with Nixon's "Southern Strategy". Attaining political power by opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act was loathsome. Arguing that states' should be able to determine whom votes and how registration and voting is conducted is a shadow of how this nation was built on the tolerance of human slavery.
Until the right in America addresses the fundamental racism that is the bedrock of this nation polarization will continue and become worse.
12
@Brad - I’m afraid it started long before Nixon, as a reading of most any account of early American history will bear out.
8
In the same way I expect Fox news stories to glorify conservative values and disdain acts by liberals, I also recognize CNN's penchant for horrifying headlines and finger-wagging stories. News today presents not facts but prognostications. Analysis obscures everything. Neither side is immune from the temptation to tell us how to look at today's facts.
It is a challenge to absorb the facts and weigh the analysis with a grain of salt, but I do the best I can.
12
@Honey
Good point.
The "news" broadcast for public consumption is often reports of what might happen. The run up to the event is treated like a weather forecast. The pundits are always talking about threatening tornadoes, then render their opinion that the storm wasn't as bad as they thought. Meanwhile, the actual event glides off into the darkness like the iceberg that sank the Titanic.
1
@Honey
I think this is a false analogy. We have a history formed as much by Tom Paine, who was a full fledged Jacobin, James Callender, who was a libeler, and Madison, Hamilton, John Jay et al. Yellow journalism sent us to war in 1898. Hearst and similarly situated publishers venerated Hitler. Rabble rousers like Father Caughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith spewed hate to a constituency similar to the cult of the Trump personality today.
Fox is less a news organization than it is a propaganda machine.
The Hays case is not symptomatic of anything other than fraud.
3
I don't agree with you most of the time. But this time is special: the false equivalences and poor examples made me gasp.
The Hays story is simply too bizarre to serve any purpose in this debate. The essay went downhill from there.
161
I’d argue it started downhill and then plummeted down a vertical cliff
2
True political partisans are generally hopeless causes. There's no effective deprograming. No ranch in New Mexico you can send them to tend cattle and take the expensive cure. When it does happen that they come around to their opponent's view they often fall very hard, taking up the mantle of their new cause with the zeal of the most embarrassing sort of recent religious convert. Always one extreme to the next. So, no, in this dime-novel narrative, however imaginatively set in Cambridge, we will not find the tonic to take the edge off partisanship.
6
I was going to write this in response to Roger Cohen's OpEd but since its comments are closed, I figure it is apropos here as well.
I'm definitely not a Trump supporter and I lean in on my bleeding heart progressive side than my conservative one. I also think he's in way over his head. However, I arrived at a different conclusion than Roger WRT the video he writes about.
Trump seemed reasonably engaged in talking to Murad. He didn't seem to be aware of who she was, true. But he heard her story. He interrupted her to ask "Where are they now" when she was talking about her brothers just before she said they were dead (so the exchange doesn't exactly proceed the way Cohen writes it). And then when he said he knew the area well, I don't believe he was referring to Sinjar but really the areas controlled by ISIS. He did appear to show some empathy, while he talked in a soft voice and he did seem a bit pained. He also asks about the Nobel Prize to give her a platform to speak; he clearly states that.
I watched the video thinking it would be as Cohen described, which would not be a surprise since I've seen Trump make callous remarks before, but that is not how it turned out. IMO, the only way I could arrive at Cohen's interpretation is if I was completely unwilling to give Trump the person any benefit of the doubt.
I'm writing this because we shouldn't let our anger towards the policies of this administration dehumanise the man, since in doing so we dehumanise ourselves.
12
@RamS
It's true. With trump, not many people believe what he says anymore, for good reason. The good ship Integrity sailed out of trump harbor a long time ago, carrying truth and compassion with it.
Respect has ro be earned and once lost is difficult to regain.
6
@RamS
We need to stick to what factually happened, no doubt about it. However, in Trump’s case, and after 3 years of listening to what he says and what he does, one in 100 examples doesn't prove that any empathy is there. He is a con man, plain and simple, and is often trying to use TV to try to soften his image, only to show in the next appearance that he actually doesn’t get it.
3
@RamS
Who the haters see is not the entirety of Trump. Yes, he's crude and callous, but he's also very attentive to people and often extremely happy to use his Office to help. This is why he was so happy to sign the First Step Act. He listened to Van Jones, now a big fan, and others and learned how the prison system harshly and unfairly treated African-Americans. He was ridiculed for having Kardashian there but that was just anger talking. It's his lack of political ideology that allowed him to promote and sign the prison reform act. And his decency.
1
Sometimes, reading the other side’s narratives make me more polarized. In the past, you had the free market right which stressed individual freedom versus the social democratic left which stressed equality. These conflicting values are both important for having a good society and should be kept in balance so that reading the other side’s point of view gave you a new perspective.
Now, the right is being taken over by nationalists who reject both individual freedom and equality. I read many right-wing publications and come away shocked that people can actually believe this stuff and get angry about how America, the richest and most powerful country in human history, is somehow being taken advantage of by poor third-worlders. Their narrative resembles that of feudal aristocrats enraged at the loss of their ancestral privileges, sometimes with a bit of racism for good measure. I have nothing but disdain for this narrative and reading it pushes me further to the left than I ever thought I would have gone.
65
@Aoy
Divide and conquer. Right wing facts, fox, trump, memes, social media, fear of OTHER, are all distractions. That is why it is a 24/7 barrage. Keep the proles preoccupied with who to blame for their lot in life.
Everyone need to read 1984 again.
3
This was one odd ball situation. I don't know why or how anyone can draw conclusions about anything from it. Part of our polarization problem is that people see the extremes and never realize that they are extreme.
23
I agree, in the spirit of Taylor Swift—a grifter’s gonna grift, a hater’s gonna hate.
This is the second appeal for even handedness or open mindedness I have read in today's NY Times. The other was from the Editorial Board about why congress was not acting to protect our elections. Both are wrong. In America today, we have the Republican Party trying to steal political control of the country by any means available and being helped in those efforts by Russians. That's the news, and that is what any loyal American should be saying.
115
@rawebb1, I am more worried about my healthcare premiums and the dirty city, San Francisco, where I work. Time to get past Trump and the Russians and deal with issues that impact the financial bottom line for most working class people.
19
@Bug Off And as long as we have Trump and a McConnell controlled Senate your health premiums will likely continue to spiral upward. That's directly related to my working-class bottom line. In regard to "the dirty city", I suggest you and like-minded citizens of SF contact the mayor and your city council members.
6
Dear Bug Off, you can’t possibly think health care distribution/availability/affordability in the US is going to improve if Ronald McDonald gets re-elected.
4
I don't mind sitting down and talking with people who hold differing opinions then myself. That's called conversation and at its best, problem solving. Used effectively, problem solving can lead to another lost art, consensus. Oh, what a quaint idea you say. Unfortunately, the examples that get popular coverage these days tend to pander to glitz, sensationalism and red meat. The discussions have become strings of oratory laced with barbs, insults and too often outright falsehoods. In the world of regular people of all stripes, honest debate happens everyday. Isn't that quaint?
2
“The most factually informed people are reliably the most partisan”
I think you misunderstood the study which actually suggested that “the most informed people are reliably the most partisan”. Unless you assume that everyone has his/her own facts. If we assume though, that facts are of less disputed kind like in science, then one person’s reality is real and different from other person’s fake reality. Global warming is the exhibit one.
What I am driving at is that we, and particularly conservatives, do like to use the optics of liberal versus conservative narrative. This itself is skewing the debate, deepens the divide and grossly undermines any attempt to get to the bottom of the problem at hand.
The Mueller hearings this week may be a good example. His testimony has been pretty devastating for Trump, including Mueller assertion that the president may be indicted after he leaves the office. Huge win for democrats. On the other hand his monotonic answers were interpreted as weak and visually unconvincing. Huge win for republicans. Now, tell me Mr Douthat where is the bottom line (the truth) in all this? Is it in the Mueller TV performance or is it in what he actually found, and verbally confirmed, with his investigation?
It is often quite difficult to dig out actual facts in many of our disagreements. But if we don’t even try to do that, any debate is meaningless, everything is the matter of optics and prone to propaganda.
26
Geeze - fellow commentariat, Ross isn't wrong this time.
I'm pretty left-leaning. But I find it quite useful for my own information to listen to Brett and Chris, sometimes Shep, to get a sense of how actual news plays from the other side. And I learn things that my preferred sources aren't even covering, especially outside Washington and TrumpWars.
It's a really good idea. And you can do it without the commentary block.
11
I think the narrative that is forgotten or not strategically addressed is many voters have turned the divisive and splitting rhetoric off (including the news channels); and will simply vote for a candidate based on what issues are important to them, eg, healthcare, border security, etc. I believe this upcoming election will be unpredictable.
3
What we need to think critically for ourselves and not as partisans is more information, not more imagination as you suggest. We decry the hate-filled emphasis on crimes committed by illegal immigrants because we know crucial additional facts that Trump and Fox don't mention, namely that while every grouping of millions of people will inevitably include some criminality, illegal immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes against us than American citizens are, an unsurprising result for people who live in fear of deportation and therefore have a particularly strong incentive to stay out of trouble. We disdain the emphasis on Antifa violence not because we condone or ignore it but because we know some key additional facts, in particular that it represents a tiny sliver of liberal activism at sites like Charlotesville while a huge torch-bearing group marching "Jew will not replace us" represents a menacing presence that we rightly fear. The "alternative facts" expression itself was thrown out as justification for something we disdain because we know some actual facts, namely that the claim of the largest inaugural crowd ever was nonsense based on simple comparison to the crowd at the inauguration that immediately preceded it. It is precisely the facts of issue X or Y or Z, not some flight of imagination, that underpin our thinking for ourselves. Yes, being factually informed makes me more more partisan. Sorry, that's just where the facts lead.
16
@KAN We really ignore antifa in larger political discussions because we know they're a bunch of punks who have no connection to electoral politics. If they trash a Starbucks, they get arrested by Democratic local governments as well as by Republican ones. Nobody backs them up.
Republicans try to make them representative of Democrats more broadly, but Democrats know it isn't true. Whereas certain Republicans actually invite white supremacists to their events. An individual Republican can disavow that, of course, but the party as a whole is not policing the boundary that keeps the thugs out.
2
"whether that story is somehow representative — or whether it’s just one tale among many in our teeming society, and doesn’t stand for anything"
Douthat finds appealing the idea of "Oh, never mind that anyway," as response to a troublesome example.
He suggests we dismiss a specific of a problem, in favor of pre-conceived notions.
He covers that in language about understanding the other side, but he doesn't in fact suggest understanding anything.
"somewhere, on some issue, people with whom you disagree are telling a story that you really need to hear," but not this one, not this time.
Where does that take him? "Never mind that, understand me."
5
Lying to one's advantage is nothing new.
What is new is that hardly anyone has a notion about what is true and what is not anymore.
This has come to be the way of things because people don't read books or newspapers these days. Their ideas and opinions are governed by the talking heads they attend to on electronic screens. Newscasters don't read either; they get their "stuff" canned.
Misinformation and propaganda disguised as fact make for "fake news".
Holding a book or newspaper in hand gives the right distance from the subject to reflect and form one's own opinion.
Moreover, the media shameless takes advantage of the universal state of ignorance so we wind up questioning our own sanity or rational understanding of events and people. These days gaslighting is the global pastime.
Why? Because we have succumbed enmasse to having our reality shaped by narratives bent on deceiving us ignorant viewers who do not read.
No one has the time while bent over their devices to read much more than a twitter or tweet. Technology has played into the hands of the great deceivers and we are on different sides of the fence; those who have a reading education and still read and those who look at the news and get captured by the images and sound bites.
Most of us on either side have our minds made up and look for validity in the "news".
You cannot properly reflect on the other sides' views if you are constantly pumped full of hatred and offense by such as Fox News. Commentspace ends
5
Oh, grandpa. I’m reading your comment on an electronic device. Does this mean I am not reading? Does the format render me incapable of critical thinking - or is it merely a different way to engage? There are even studies that show that Twitter users become better writers over time; the cramped format teaches them to be clearer, more precise and efficient with language. I don’t disparage anyone’s learning style (I find that listening to the news or a podcast over breakfast on my smart home device is also an effective way for me to learn.) The issue is not the medium. The issue is the message: is it factual, is it honest, is it unbiased?
1
@Discernie, So tune in tomorrow for more stories of intrigue, desire and passions unbound on "The Commentspace Ends."
@Discernie " Multiple narratives can all be true..."
They rarely are, Mr. Douthat, except in the Kellyanne twisted notion of reality.
1
"How seeing the other side’s narrative can de-polarize your mind."
"And nothing should temper partisanship more than an awareness that somewhere, on some issue, people with whom you disagree are telling a story that you really need to hear."
Could that be the reason I still subscribe to and read the NYT (or ha-Aretz)?
Don't overdo it, Mr. Douthat. Knowledge from different sources is just knowledge; it does not often change ideology.
4
There was a similar piece to this in WaPo today. Serious question: does, say, the editorial page of the WSJ regularly urge its readership to consider the liberal point of view? Are Trump supporters ever urged to consider why so many people are horrified by his presidency?
I can’t even count the number of books and articles I’ve read on the travails of Trump’s base. But it feels like this is an entirely one-sided exercise.
I do however, do my best to consider the other point of view, not because I agree with it, but because it helps to know your opponent. I could very easily write a magazine full of Trumpish headlines. I get the mindset, But I do not agree with it, and I won’t be lulled into inaction just because there are nice, sincere people on the other side of the political divide. I believe my ideas are better. It really is that simple.
Don’t hate. Act.
33
@Mercury S
I can't speak to all of the WSJ. I've seen lots of articles that call out Trump. It isn't the same as FOX.
@Mercury S
Hatred and action should go together
Lying to one's advantage is nothing new.
What is new is that hardly anyone has a notion about what is true and what is not anymore.
This has come to be the way of things because people don't read books or newspapers these days. Their ideas and opinions are governed by the talking heads they attend to on electronic screens. Newscasters don't read either; they get their "stuff" canned.
Misinformation and propaganda disguised as fact make for "fake news".
Holding a book or newspaper in hand gives the right distance from the subject to reflect and form one's own opinion.
Moreover, the media shameless takes advantage of the universal state of ignorance so we wind up questioning our own sanity or rational understanding of events and people. These days gaslighting is the global pastime.
Why? Because we have succumbed enmasse to having our reality shaped by narratives bent on deceiving us ignorant viewers who do not read.
No one has the time while bent over their devices to read much more than a twitter or tweet. Technology has played into the hands of the great deceivers and we are on different sides of the fence; those who have a reading education and still read and those who look at the news and get captured by the images and sound bites.
Most of us on either side have our minds made up and look for validity in the "news".
You cannot properly reflect on the other sides' views if you are constantly pumped full of hatred and offense by such as Fox News. Commentspace ends
2
Why would it be valid logic to generalize from Hay's singular case to an entire ideology, either right or left? Trying to imagine how "the other side" would slant the story misses the point. All humans will initially make emotional leaps that fit their ideology. The trick is not to compare "the other side's" irrationality with one's own, but rather to examine whether one's own irrational leap has a basis in fact and logic and to temper the emotion accordingly.
9
I haven't read the story, but it clearly is about a man being conned by dishonest people. Not about being gay, straight, transgender, left wing or right wing. If the grifters were heterosexuals no one, either left-leaning or right-leaning, would think it was about anything else. Anyone can be honest or dishonest. As to the media not writing interesting stories that seem to legitimize a conservative worldview, it seems clear that at this point in time it would be hard to do so. It wasn't always. But for the time being conservatives have lost their credibility by not standing up for our democracy against those who want to take it from us. Our cries for their help have fallen on deaf ears, are construed as accusations or as partisan attempts to win in a game. Meanwhile they are allowing white supremacists and other unwholesome people to call themselves "conservatives." If they can start standing up for the belief in democracy that unites us as Americans they will get their credibility back and the word "conservative" will regain its meaning. But for now they've lost it.
60
While all sides "angle" the news, only one side repeats blatant lies, and one president who sources his lies with "a lot of people are saying," and " a lot of people are telling me" and goes on to personally attack and insult people he disagrees with.
This toxic approach to propaganda---er, "facts," is not conducive to empathetic discourse.
36
Rather than talk in generalities, I'd rather talk about this time in history in the United States. Nothing larger.
Here at this time, the only way to depolarize the country is to eliminate the poles. This polarization was inevitable in a 2-party system, and it is going to end one way or another. Everything does.
Trump seems willing to push it to disaster. Trump is helping the trade situation, even though his motivations and instincts are not well aligned with the causes of the problem. But the Democrats chose to make this primarily about race because the wealthy backers can't admit their wrongs, and they'd rather use race against the people rather than admit they are acting in evil ways.
Now Trump has turned full blown Redneck. He seems capable of destroying everything all at the same time in an attempt to save himself, and now he's feeling all powerful.
He's placed himself in the same situation with ex-intelligence that JFK placed himself in.
Everyone that's ever held the office and spoke publicly admits that 'it can happen here'.
He's looking more and more like a ticking time bomb. This country is complicated as all of them are. If history proves anything it is that no POTUS is as powerful as this one thinks he is.
7
I’m not sure how this story has a liberal or conservative view. It appears that Mr. Hay was scammed by a couple of women. The fact that one is a lesbian and the other transgender seem to be irrelevant. If the allegations are true, they deserve to go to prison.
I also don’t see how that leads into the proposition that I should consider the other side’s point of view. As long as the other side ties itself to a leader who lies constantly, has committed multiple cases of obstruction of justice while in office, commits horrendous human rights abuses, and is unbelievably incompetent in his job while being uninterested in doing better, they have nothing to offer. Let them acknowledge the above facts, and then we can talk.
We have a majority leader of the Senate who stole a Supreme Court seat and is proud of it, who blatantly refuses to consider legislation to make elections fairer and safe from tampering, and I am supposed to consider his viewpoint? Anything for political advantage is what I see.
My country is in danger of losing its democratic roots because a minority party will do anything to maintain power, even including accepting a foreign power’s interference, and you want to write about a man who got scammed by a couple of non-traditional women? Get out of here.
313
@HG
You've nailed this. Thank you.
9
Completely agree @HG
7
It is difficult for me to get beyond *why* Bruce Hay would even think he had fathered a child with one of the con women. I see much more here than mere partisan blinders. Having declared this incident as a ‘paternity-trap’ tells me more about the author than about the varying perceptions of people reading the story.
7
@Lottie Jane Great point. I can't imagine a Harvard Law Professor doesn't know how babies get made or how birth control works. How exactly was he "trapped" into paternity? Was he raped?
Does someone telling a story that I really need to hear include a Presidential candidate running a secret child pornography ring in the basement of a Washington DC pizzeria?
There are stories, Ross, and then there are STORIES. As in, pure fiction, created for no other purpose than to hoodwink the gullible and get them to act in ways that are to the detriment of both themselves and whole classes of people who the storytellers would like to see marginalized.
39
Sadly, nothing stokes partisanship more than an awareness that everywhere, on every issue, people with whom you disagree are telling a story that is full of outrageous, intentional, malicious lies. And that other people, with whom you might otherwise find common ground, and who know the stories to be lies, nonetheless vouch for their truth. As in the Cold War, the two sides, while superficially balanced, are not equal in their moral evil.
21
As a physician I have worked in red, purple and blue states.
Everyone knows Trump is a crook. Reagan convinced the right to lack faith in government. The left and independents follow the facts. The right wingers don't. Smart, well-educated people on the right get all their "facts" from Fox News. They know it isn't true, but they love believing their side is winning. After World War II, there was an accepted truth. Which side you were on depended on what was emphasized. Fox News has changed the dynamics. It has created an alternative universe where the right is always right.
94
@WR
Tried checking the Fox news site for a while after the 2016 election to understand how we came to this point. Came to realize my clicks were only feeding the beast.
@WR,
One of the problems with "facts" is they don't always represent "truth." Back in the Reagan era, I'd be willing to bet that "factually," there was some welfare recipient, somewhere who was driving a Cadillac - but the whole "welfare Cadillac" meme wasn't the truth.
Today, I'm sure we can find cases of illegal immigrants who have committed rape or murder. It's a fact, but it isn't describing the larger truth that most illegal immigrants are law-abiding and hard-working.
The problem isn't necessarily a lack of "facts," but of reporting that takes extreme cases and implicitly or explicitly presents them as "typical."
Unfortunately, our own straight-shooting, objective NYT is also guilty. How many stories about student loans lead with a couple of anecdotes about young folks with six-figure student loans who can't find a job that pays $25K/year? Factual? Yes. Typical? No. But the reporting implies that it IS typical - because the writer has a point of view.
In those same stories, when they cite figures on average student loan balances, how prominently do they mention that this average (usually) excludes students who have no student loans? Not often - again, because the writer has a point of view.
You maintain the left and independents follow the facts. But, how often do you question whether the facts you're reading in the Times really represent the true story, as opposed to just being the anecdotes that confirm the opinion you had going in?
3
My experience has been that left-leaning and right-leaning can get the facts straight or right regarding an event or story. They both come to know the cast of characters and the events that occur and how it all ends. However, disagreements occur when interpreting the meaning of the story.
You say "that in a big, diverse and complicated society, multiple narratives can all be true at once." My take is that two folks that are poles apart politically or religiously or philosophically can get all the facts in a story right and can agree on the facts, but the meaning of what they saw or read becomes the source of contention and division.
There are a number of examples that I think everyone can point to, but the ones that come to my mind are many of the stories in the Scriptures where the prophet from Galilee heals someone on the Sabbath. All preset witness the healing and could tell the same story to anyone willing to listen--who was present, what was done, how it all ended. However, one group will see it only as a violation of the Sabbath commandment, not as an act of mercy liberating someone from a condition that oppresses and destroys. For one group the healer is the hero, the one mediating the mercy of their God. For the other group that witnessed the very same event, he is one that breaks a sacred law and is guilty of a serious offense. The division among those present that follows the act of liberation has nothing to do with the facts but what it all means.
8
@Robert Stewart
You are absolutely right on this- this awareness comes when you take the time to really listen and engage with people of the opposing side-
2
For over 45 years I had a friendship with a person who considers himself a Republican/Libertarian. He did not vote for Trump (he said) but over the last twenty years he has found it more and more difficult to make what I consider ethical or moral decisions. He insists that it is important to understand “the other side.”
While I agree, I also think it is important to be consistent about your values without overstepping someone else’s rights. As a Libertarian he supports a woman’s right to abortion until the third trimester. What he cannot admit is that well over 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks and third trimester abortions are overwhelmingly for medical reasons that are none of the state’s business but are the essence of medical care for the woman. So, he is a faux Libertarian.
Likewise, although he has seen pictures of the suffering at the border, when pressed he tells me that they “broke the law.” When corrected that there is no law broken in applying for immigration, he repeats the broken law mantra. Ultimately, he is unable to conclude that what we are doing is unethical and immoral treatment no matter the reason he gives.
He does not go along with much of what Trump does, but he favors the financial choices and the reduction of regulations. He ignores or disputes the many ways in which Trump violates the Constitution and hollows out government. I see his side and I recognize it as destructive of our democracy. When will you see the other side?
30
@B. Rothman Your friend knows that the whole world can't walk in here.
3
@B. Rothman.... "it is important to understand “the other side.” …..Please explain how you understand the other side of a vulgar bigoted narcissist.
I have the advantage of spending about half my time in rural Republican land and the other half in solid Democratic Atlanta, and interact frequently with both. Know what, both are great to be with. We differ and agree on a myriad of subjects but respect each other. And enjoy each other's company.
You see Maddow, Ingraham, Wallace, etc just don't matter. At all. They're just background noise. And we don't read about some person at Harvard with some problem. We have our own to sort through.
21
@cherrylog754. A pity then that your Republican electeds and others are, and have been, operating to deny the right to vote to large swaths of people in Georgia. Background noise, I guess, unless it’s your vote that is denied.
The problem is that conservatives, by their own admission, no longer live in a reality-based world. Their worldview is based on ideology free from the burden of facts.
100
Neither party walks on the ground. Dems and traditional Repubs remain in earthly orbit, no feet on the planet, but still at the Earth. This season though, the Trumpians are far into outer space (as are UK Tories.)
1
Facts exist. Alternative facts do not exist, but they persist.
Propaganda consists of facts, alternative facts, images, distortions, lies and fantasies selected and combined artfully to reinforce the listeners opinions, beliefs and prejudices.
There is a awful lot of propaganda to wade through.
44
@OldBoatMan yes...facts exist. Some are favorable to a particular world view and some aren't and are derided as "alternative." What they *mean* is totally dependent on the lense they are viewed through. That's Ross' point.
4
@Mike a. Your definition of alternative facts is at odds with its origin. Kelly Conway popularized the term when she used it used to defend false statements about the size of the crowds at Trump’s inauguration. In my opinion that makes alternative facts a false or misleading narrative if not a bald-faced lie.
22
And then, Mike, there are facts that are just facts. For example: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is up. Burning fossil fuels creates CO2. Humans have added billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The physics of CO2 are well understood; it is transparent to visible light, but relatively opaque to infrared light.
All of these are not facts intended to support a particular worldview. They are, simply, facts.
Science has constructed a compelling narrative offering a mechanism and predictions concerning the consequences of our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Any explanation for our warming planet that ignores these facts, mechanisms and predictions.... well, now you have “facts” designed very deliberately to support a particular worldview.
23
This is why I converse with conservative friends and am basically an independent politically, despite being very liberal. I think the fatal flaw in the world today is leader worship. Partisans defend everything their leaders do, even if it is morally heinous. This deification of very flawed leaders was considered imperial cultism in ancient days. Today it is presidential politics.
17
@David It is not just leader worship - it is celebrity worship. I have never understood the human need to glorify a single human for the work done by many, standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.
22
@David, agree. However a few of the newer Dem candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard appear to be more opened minded and question both sides. She seems to be flexible and intelligent. Have been disappointed some of the lower ranking candidates have not received more publicity.
5
@David
I would disagree. Many Trump supporters, like myself, don't worship their political leaders. We don't get our intellectual scintillation or spiritual leadership from them. In fact, they are the last people we would turn to for that kind of fulfillment. Obama's words, while lovely, were just words. We look at actions.
Trump's supporters don't defend his words, they support his actions. They are sick of politicians and politics. They wanted someone who would do what he said he'd do. To do a job and not fulfill some deeply rooted emotional needs. The bottom line is he delivers. To them he is neither a deity nor vainglorious leader. He was hired to do a job, nothing more.
3
Ross, I got a call this morning from a relative who's pro-Trump asking me about why Antifa was doing something or other. I said that I hadn't heard anything about Antifa and I was surprised that he was even asking about them.
I guess that Fox dragged that dead horse out, in an effort to distract from the horrific scenes at the border and McConnell's decision to leave the nation defenseless against Russian electoral interference in 2020.
Unfortunately, this relative is not much of a reader, and so I couldn't realistically expect him to read the "Pay or Die" story in this weekend's Times, the story relating the horrors of living in Honduras under a corrupt and ineffective regime, and a President every bit as amoral as our own. How sad is it that I equally couldn't expect Fox to explain to its audience why so many migrants are running for their lives, what America's role in their plight might be, and what we could do to help stabilize their country, instead of proposing to build the wall that Roger Stone came up with as a campaign prop for El Trumpo.
Shaping narrative is incredibly important. I always argue that Democrats must learn to do a better job of this. I can sometimes disagree with the emphasis of a narrative that is being pushed by the mainstream media, particularly when it touches on alternative approaches to spirituality - but I cannot for the life of me identify many instances where it has been caught pulling stuff out of its backside like Fox does.
189
@Matthew Carnicelli
So you didn't hear about the gay conservative blogger who was beaten up by Antifa? Hard to believe. Perhaps you should reconsider your news sources. If he hadn't been a conservative this would likely have been highly publicized as a hate crime.
2
Nice try Ross but the problem with right wing media is not perception, interpretation or nuance, it is bald face lying. The kind of lying that can leave a consumer more susceptible, more accepting and more forgiving of those lies. The kind of marathon lying that sets the stage for a political figure who lies 7 to 9 times a day depending on how often he opens his mouth to speak. The kind of lies that deny recorded evidence, scientific facts and common sense. The kind of repeated lying that no longer takes the listener's sense of intelligence, fairness or sanity into consideration. That kind of lying can only exist where religion, partisanship and magical thinking take over cognitive discernment. News can be edited in such a way that the slant can be evident but Trump could only happen in the Republican Party. Call it self awareness, self survival or self esteem but a Democrat needs the truth in order to form an opinion. Republicans have the same opinion no matter the truth.
645
@Rick Gage Exactly right Rick. Ross' false equivalence is a theater of the absurd. His claim that Right Wing news isn't lying, just emphasizing different priorities, cannot pass the straight face test and Ross of course knows it. The very photograph accompanying the story shows the Fox news (sic) banner stating that the Mueller Report concluded that Trump did not commit a crime. That is a lie. The Mueller Report specially stated that it could not exonerate Trump from having committed a crime and only an antiquated Department of Justice policy which bewilderingly holds that the President cannot be indicted led Mueller to not stating an opinion on whether or not he committed a crime. That is fact.
The Fox news (sic) banner is not fact; it is a lie. Ross of course knows this but maybe didn't realize his whole column would be contradicted by a photograph and caption in the article. I'm sure he wishes that he would have editorial control of the photos but that would mean an admission he was not being truthful.
Ross -- one side lies and lies and lies again, and it's not the liberal side. Stop making disingenuous arguments and you might find the truth shall set you free.
244
@Rick Gage. I remember Ross trying to dance on the head of the pin of the Catholic Church scandal. Who was telling the truth? And in the end, he continued to support the Church, whose hierarchy stood by for years while thousands of innocents were abused.
This Hay story is maddeningly chopped up and yet Douthat wants to use it to prove something about mass media and left and right?
Go back to the drawing board. This column is a complete flop in all ways that are meaningful.
149
@B. Rothman
Nice try is right. Excellent comments all.
This piece comes as close as Douthat can to fair and balanced but one need only remember that right-learners who support Trump—and not all do—are victims of an international, ongoing and multi-faceted scam to see Ross’ travesty of political discourse for the distraction it is.
What is the real cautionary tale here? And who are the dangerous grifters all Americans should be concerned with at present?
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
16
My gut tells me that this story of Bruce Hay is a story not of a gullible law professor but of gullible journalists. The behaviors of everyone involved here, including the 'anti-hero' Hay and the 'hero' wife-ex-wife Zacks, seem wildly eccentric and deeply destructive in bizarrely co-dependent ways. Further digging may well reveal that Hay's role is more complex and dark than the recounting we have heard of this week of the pitiably, passive and burned SJW male protagonist. All of these people need serious help for terribly dysfunctional behavior, not to mention their poor children.
7
I belong to a book group on social media where no one is allowed to mention politics nor religion. It has members from all over the world. Amazing that when you take politics and religion out of the narrative, that we all get along splendidly and find we enjoy each other's company.
The "stories which divide us" are viewed through the lens of our beliefs and value systems. Perhaps if partisan politics were taken out of the narrative of news media stories, we would find ourselves less divided.
Many, many years ago television news media reported the daily news stories in a straight forward, factual manner and in fifteen minutes. The daily news was watched and listened to for information, and not entertainment. We had our differences politically then certainly, but we were not whipped into a frenzy of partisan politics which deeply divides us today by a news media more interested in twisting a story to suit a political point of view, than a straight forward reporting of facts. However, we cannot put that genie back into the bottle, and I fear partisanship engendering entertainment news will win over factual reporting. In fact it already has. It is part of the reason we have an entertainer, rather than a president residing in the White House.
Divide and conquer has won the day. I do not think that is going to change for generations to come. I wish I were more optimistic.
20
Sure - as stories get more complicated and byzantine, the possibility for different ways of telling them grows.
But so what? The big story this week wasn't about Hay. (Until I read this article, I'd never even heard of him.) It was what the pic at the top appears to be about: Mueller, and, if this picture is about those hearings, the claim that Trump did not commit a crime.
I watched the hearings. What I saw was Democrats assembling a series of stories in which the President committed a series of felonies - ones we knew about, and a few new possibilities about perjury and erasing communications.
As they told their stories, step by step, Mueller said things like, "That's generally correct."
The Republicans, on the other hand, did nothing to get Mueller to assent to a different story, or damage Mueller's credibility or findings.
If one takes Mueller seriously - and it looks like everyone questioning him did, to some extent - there was only one viable story to come out.
Different people assemble their facts into different kinds of stories. True.
But each set of facts can only be built into a limited number of stories before they lose connection with reality.
So sure, I can see that the Hay example could be read to show that certain kinds of university liberalism have gone off the deep end - that's one possibility.
But the real story this week - one that's much more important - is that the President committed crimes, and his party has no taste for justice.
259
@Steve J.
Worse than trying to smear Meuller or not asking questions about the report, GOP/Trump party members continued to spread conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation and the political leanings of investigators. I am not even aware of any left conspiracy theories. I wish I knew some. I would love to spout them off at trump supporters and spread them around on the internet and blindly believe in them. Seems to work for republicans.
38
"And nothing should temper partisanship more than an awareness that somewhere, on some issue, people with whom you disagree are telling a story that you really need to hear."
Only if they contain easily checked facts. Why should I listen to somethingbased on a conspiracy theory or a version of events that can't be verified by reputable sources and "try to hear the other side out?"
There's a difference between honest disagreement and two "versions" of truth. The first maybe can be bridged with sincere attempts at discussion and debate, the second doesn't exist because somebody is lying and/or gaslighting.
Disagreements are based on opinions, but from the size of a crowd to conditions at the border--both easily photographed events--truth is verifiable. If insistence on truth is called "partisanship," well, we're in far worse shape than I thought.
335
@ChristineMcM
I recall how resistant commenters here were to the idea that Obama had lied about keeping our doctors. Everyone bent over backwards to explain away what has since been labeled Politifact's "Lie of the Year."
Certainly, this fact was easily checked. People lost their plans, doctors and hospitals. Yet Obama supporters had their "truth" and they were not about to relent.
Ross is absolutely right.
6
@AACNY Another example of making up facts and coloring them. Obama did not deliberately lie, he did not understand that when you change private insurers you often end up in a different network. The basic problem is that hospitals and doctors can decide whether or not to accept people insured by some company. And the important fact about ACA is that many more people were able to get insurance that they could not afford before. No, will not relent in my statement that the US was better off after ACA than before. It would have been more effective with a public option but given the solid opposition from Republicans and insurance companies it could not pass.
34
@AACNY
As Serban said, it was not a lie.
But even if it was, what does it say that 3 years after Obama left an 8 year term in which far right populists keep repeating 2 statements (you can keep your doctor, and you didn't build that), neither of which are lies, whenever anyone mentions Trump's 10,000 lies (and counting).
This is the thinking of a cult member, not a rational human being.
40
I've found the best way to anti-polarize someone, preferably a stranger, is usually through a chance meeting in which an accidental conversation is started and soon leads to expressing myself while allowing the other person to do the same while ultimately each of us respectfully agrees to disagree after understanding our respective points of view. Quite often this happens while I'm traveling and so is the other person. Each of us
might not have burst the other's bubble, but at least we've allowed ourselves, spontaneously, to have a conversation based on listening to instead of talking at someone else.
Your opportunity to try this technique could be right around the corner!
listen
6
For alternative facts, I NEVER "really mean" that "the right-wing media reports on real facts" but then "overstates or misreads their significance".
For me alternative facts, whether from the left or the right, are real lies, not mistaken predictions or erroneous logical extensions. So, that Trump had an inauguration is a real fact. That the crowds were much larger than any in history is clearly shown by many photographs to be an alternative fact.
29
Driving around the East Coast recently while researching a book, I’ve been privy to overheard conversations in diners, read earnest letters- to-the- editor in local papers, and had chances to chat with old friends and strangers alike. There are many commonalities- lots of love for the country, lots of despair about it, lots of disgust that our elected officials are bought and paid for. The common views- need to address income inequality, fix our roads, fund our schools, stop having a giant military and endless wars. Who in Washington actually gives a fig about “ we, the people”, most everyone says. Many honestly believe Trump does, others are contemplating emigration. It’s a rich tapestry, with flickers of hope but not much more than that, sorry to say.
20
I was raised in a home,where at Sunday dinner, we had to correctly answer current event questions. NYTines, Philadelphia Inquirer, the local paper and the national news were our sources. One source was not adequate, reading was fundamental. People now are inclined to source like minded information. If they read at all. I instilled these traditions in my children. Being open to diverse opinions helps them form their own. It would help if we didn’t shout at each other so much and tried actively listening.
10
Putting aside your little story there as an outlier, let's look at the REAL difference between right leaning and left leaning.
The difference is one of human rights and all that is derived.
Most Liberals or just left leaning are not particularly against conservative financial dogma, but they draw the line now when human rights are being usurped at all costs. (especially those of women to have dominion over their own bodies)
We can illustrate a thousand different stories and depict who is gullible and who looks at the proponents and comes up with their own narrative. However, strip away all of that and what you are left with, are again, human rights.
That could mean those derived from law and order, and that there is to be no theft from your articles. It can also mean that there is to be no theft, or harm against your person. This particular aspect seems to be ALWAYS left out when we are talking about the political spectrum (and especially so when trying to have it ''explained'' from one of the right)
If we are to have laws, then they must of course be applicable to everyone, or they are meaningless. Human rights are to be automatically given to everyone upon their first breath, and should not be taken away. (especially by the state)
I could give you lots of little stories about that.
30