Why So Little Interest in Separating Truth from Lies?
At left is the late astronomer Carl Sagan’s theory as to how we came to live in a post-truth world.
Whether or not it’s correct remains to be seen, but one thing’s sure: we certainly do require an explanation as to how we got here. In particular, how is it possible that we reject facts that come into conflict with our most cherished beliefs? How has science itself fallen out of favor? How could our society have elected Donald Trump, a pathological liar, to be the most powerful person on the planet?
Here’s a brief analysis of Trump’s recent op-ed on healthcare, in which 19 blatant falsehoods are revealed for what they are. Can anyone imagine something like this happening as recently as even 10 years ago? Facts used to have currency. Obvious lies brought with them instant and fierce discredit, not only for the lies themselves, but the liar who put them forward.
Those days seem to be gone, and Sagan seems to be suggesting that they’re unlikely to be returning; as he puts it, “Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Craig,
You only have to look at your own distorted partisan tirade to see how far you have strayed from objectivity and “truthfulness” !
You no longer debate, listen, pause to consider, re-evaluate and absorb new information for fear it may contradict your cherished prejudices.
Instead, you have caught the same contagious disease as the mainstream American media. You now substitute sensationalized hyperbolic propaganda, instead of objective reporting.
At least the media, especially print media and TV, have tow valid reasons, Profit and Survival.
Before the candidacy and election of Donald J Trump, the NYT, Washington Post, LA tribune and many other papers were on the verge of bankruptcy and extinction. CNN and NBC (MSNBC) were also in poor shape, with audience numbers in decline.
President Trump is the ‘gift who goes on giving’ for these organizations. Since the election, The New York Times has received a 40% boost in readership, and for the first time in years makes a small profit.
However, profit and survival came a a price. These once respected organizations were forced to transform themselves from objective, impartial, reportors of news, to salacious imitators of Fox.
Perhaps the best explanation of the whole phenomenon, was described by Jim Rutenberg, himself a media columnist for the New York Times;
“If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”
Rutenberg wrote once reporters became “oppositional” to the President in their reporting, and declared the normal standards of fairness or objectivity no longer applied, they ceased being “reporters in the old sense, and gave themselves permission to break all the rules”.
President Trump since boyhood an avid reader of the NYT cover to cover, claimed Rutenberg’s article was “very important because the mainstream media basically admitted that they were frauds.”
The President went on to observe, “that story admitted they didn’t care about journalism anymore, they were just going to write badly. That’s an appalling admission.”
This is the President’s style, maybe wildly hyperbolic on occasion, yet containing much of what the average American considers a sort of rough truth.
Rutenberg column was an astute and honest piece of analysis. The unavoidable takeaway was Donald Trump, in shattering the norms of Presidential politics, had baited the elite news media into abandoning the norms of traditional journalism. The central tenet of which was the posture of neutrality.
The fact so many journalists blamed Trump for abandoning their own principles, is inexcusable.
I suppose it’s hard to blame these media organizations for exploiting a situation which prove immensely popular, invigorating (and most of all profitable), but is it laudable?
Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker journalist, CNN legal analyst and fierce Trump critic, conceded in a speech to Oxford University;
“The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the President, and they’re willing to lie to do it. It’s difficult to draw any other conclusion”.
In a two hour interview with the Washington Post President Trump was asked ;
“What, in your view, is the value to this country of a free and open press?”
The President replied;
“Oh, I think it’s important,” he said. “I think there are few things more important than a free press.”
The Post reporter asked a follow up question as to why he’d disparaged the press as “scum,” “the lowest form of humanity,” “a stain on America,” and “the enemy of the American people” ?
The President relied;
“But see, I don’t consider fake news to be free press, I consider that to be dishonest press.”
When the Washington Post ran the story, the headline by-line read, “Trump seeks to curtail the right to Free Press as “enemies of the American people”!
The attitude of the media is ironic since President Trump is more accessible and transparent in his thinking than any president in living memory.
The President doesn’t “lie” in the sense the press claims. His exaggerations and overly optimistic observations may not be the carefully spin-doctored statements of previous presidents, but that’s just the way he speaks.
He speaks in the style and language of the every-man. His candor is obvious, and while colorful, often contains a rough sort of truth that more careful, politically correct,image conscious politicians conceal.
That’s why his base support is so strong and loyal. They love the fact that he’s awkward and not politically correct. The feel they can trust this President, because for all his faults, he’s not a smooth taking hypocritical weasel.
Your inclusion of Bernie Saunders observations on “facebook” are a good example.
Senator Saunders, claims the President “lied” 19 times !
Really? The President holds a different opinion than Bernie Saunders, but that’s not “lying” ! Bernie Saunders never actually disproves the President’s opinions, merely repeats his own claims as if because he says something, it must be “true”.
Craig, look at your own statements. You claim President Trump is the “Most powerful man on the planet !”
Now that’s simply not true ! He may be the President of the most powerful country, but that’s very different from having personal power.
In almost every way, there are far more powerful international figures who lack the constitutional restraints placed on US Presidents.
Your statement is clearly not true, nor accurate, but is it a “lie” ? Not really, it’s just excited hyperbole.
Why do you find it so easy to forgive your own “lies”, which are really just hyperbole, yet viciously attack others who do exactly the same thing?
Again, I’m reminded of Sermon on the Mount;
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”.