We have often discussed the increasing bias and advocacy in major media in the United States. While cable networks have long catered to political audiences on the left or right, mainstream newspapers and networks now openly frame news to fit a political narrative. With the exception of Fox and a couple of other smaller news outlets, that slant is heavily to the left. What is most striking about this universal shift toward advocacy journalism (including at journalism schools) is that there is no evidence that it is a sustainable approach for the media as an industry. While outfits like NPR allow reporters to actually participate in protests and the New York Times sheds conservative opinions, the new poll shows a sharp and worrisome division in trust in the media. Not surprisingly given the heavy slant of American media, Democrats are largely happy with and trusting of the media. Conversely, Republicans and independents are not. The question is whether the mainstream media can survive and flourish by writing off over half of the country.
The new study from the non-partisan Pew Research Center shows a massive decline in trust among Republicans. Five years ago, 70 percent of Republicans said they had at least some trust in national news organizations. In 2021, that trust is down to just 35 percent.
Conversely, and not surprisingly, 78 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they have “a lot” or “some” trust in the media. When you just ask liberal Democrats, it jumps to 83 percent.
For those looking for echo-journalism that reaffirms their assumptions, liberals are more likely to realize such confirmation bias on networks and cable programs. For conservatives and others (see below), they are largely limited to looking to Fox News and a couple other sites to get the other side of stories. This has worked incredibly well for Fox which has rivaled the national networks in some time slots. However, it is not good in the long run for American media, which is jettisoning much of the country in its coverage. We need healthy and multiple news outlets to give citizens a reliable and trusted body of journalism.
The question is whether news programs can sustain themselves by effectively writing off half of the country. It will require a higher percentage of liberals and Democrats reading and watching these siloed programs.
That does not appear to be the case. Fox News remains the most dominant cable network. (For full disclosure, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox). The recent numbers are staggering.
Fox News Channel (FNC) was rated as holding 94 of the top 100 live telecasts on all of cable TV in August. Fox’s average prime-time audience (2.5 million) is now routinely double MSNBC’s (1.229 million) and triple CNN’s (819,000). In “the demo” of viewers under 55, Fox is also beating the other networks. Thirteen of the top 14 cable-news shows were on FNC.
CNN has dropped in “trust” while Fox has risen. Moreover, CNN has lost 68 percent of its viewership. While all news outfits are down from the heady days of the impeachments and elections, this is a nose-bleed of a drop for any new organization. I still have friends working at CNN and I worked with the network for decades. We need a strong array of news outlets, including different views of stories on opinion programs. This is an industry wide crisis of trust. This poll is bad news for the industry which is based first and foremost on trust.
Moreover, the Pew Research Center released a journalism project entitled How Americans Navigated the News in 2020: A Tumultuous Year in Review that surprised many in showing that more Democrats were watching Fox than assumed by most commentators. As Forbes reported, “the Fox News viewership actually consists of more than just Trump devotees — that, in fact, there are more Democrats on a regular basis watching Fox than you might expect.”
I have been a columnist for three decades and I have worked for NBC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, and Fox as a legal analyst. I have watched with increasing alarm as the media has openly embraced advocacy journalism even in mainstream news reporting. At the same time, we have witnessed the drop in viewership and readership in media outlets overall. Clearly, part of this trend is due to the rise of digital sources and the impact of the Internet. However, fewer people trust the media and the effect of the bias on many programs is to reduce the population of news consumers to roughly half. While national media has always had a liberal slant, the bias is now extreme, obvious, and consistent across platforms. The result is like operating in a country with half of our population by design.
The embrace of advocacy journalism has worked on an individual level for journalists and editors to protect their own positions. However, it could be killing the profession, particularly among non-cable outlets. The fact is that people have become used to echo journalism and it is not likely to change in cable programming (which has always been heavily opinion based in the evenings). Yet, newspapers and outlets like NPR are now openly and consistently biased in coverage from avoiding coverage of some stories to soft-peddling other stories. While NPR remains a massive news organization, it has also experienced declining numbers.
Cable networks will continue to feature more opinion-based news. However, it is the extent of the bias that has led to a stampede of viewers. Viewers now face virtual blackouts of news like the Hunter Biden laptop story on both cable and network shows. At the same time, social media companies are actively banning opposing views on major news stories. That leaves conservative, independent, and just inquisitive viewers with few options for news. Yet, the alienation from much of the country leaves most media outlets dividing up a smaller and smaller pie of news consumers. The new poll suggests that this is not enough to sustain many of our media platforms which may have to return to the center or face starvation on the edges.
As a law professor, I am particularly concerned that the drop in trust will impact our political system. People simply no longer believe what is being reported on sites like NPR or NYT. The result is that it is more difficult to identify what is false or unsupported.
I have worked in the media for almost three decades and, for the first time, I am uncertain of the future for American media for the next decade if these trends continue. At some point, the media will have to recognize that journalism means little if fewer and fewer people want to read it or watch it.
God help us.
Biden says he is going to produce all electricity with zero emissions BY 2020.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/joe-biden-2020-going-make-sure-electricity-zero-emissions-video
And Covid will be gone by 1984.
That means we’re there. I feel so relieved.
A couple of months ago I just decided not to turn the television on. Didn’t know for how long but it took the debacle in Afghanistan to make me want to see it with my own eyes. Glad I did that but now am about ready to turn that machine off again and retreat to books often from the past and some news I dig out for myself. Television is a huge consumer of our time and given the tension in the air, it’s just not healthy never mind accurate.
I gave up my TV several years ago, neither the news or the programing was worth my time.
We do not have our 53” external monitor connected to satellite, TV cable nor internet streaming. Strictly for HDMI computer use. Additionally, no one at home as any social media accounts and it is against our religion to provide web traffic to liberal news media websites. Instead we interact with each other, cook, wash / towel dry dishes by hand in spite of having a dishwasher, chores, read books and pray before bedtime the Liturgy of the Hours / Divine Office as a family.
Getting back to basics has been instrumental for us.
Haven’t had regular or cable TV for decades. Largely left the mainstream media behind 30 years ago as well. I think the last mainstream magazine I bought was a Rolling Stone with The X-Files on the cover back when it originally aired.
Two quick quotes from Tom Stoppard ‘Night and Day’ act 1 (1978);
Milne: No matter how imperfect things are, if you’ve got a free press everything is correctable, and without it everything is concealable.
Ruth: I’m with you on the free press. It’s the newspapers I can’t stand.
Wagner: You don’t care much for the media, do you Ruth?
Ruth: The media. It sounds like a convention of spiritualist.
Facts and how do you discern truth from those facts. What’s the old saying ‘believe half of what you see and nothing you hear’, we could substitute hear with read and be current in today atmosphere of subjective woke media. The left is casting a net far and wide towards their Socialist paradigm, fraught with declension (defined as the condition of decline or moral deterioration). Why should anyone believe the media when they made up falsehoods for the last six year about President Trump’s reign, when they cannot produce facts to support their allegations, use anonymous source statements as truth, and repeat only the woke’s leftist perspective. They like to spew facts they like, and cast doubt on those they do not. The woke press is deceitful, full of half truths and lies to suit their view of America.
I agree with many of JT’s concerns and observations here. I went to journalism school in the 1970s and at the time, we were taught to hunt out the story. Investigative journalism was really pushed and we really competed to dig things up. Citing facts were critical to a good grade, and we saw red edits all over our papers if bias creeped into our reporting.
Now, some of the best stories go begging for someone to cover them at all. There is no curiosity in looking at what’s going on in many fields nor true investigative journalism. The obvious editorializing and one-sided reporting, and covering up of legitimate stories, hasn’t escaped my attention nor that of other people.
For one example of how this has affected our society at the moment, look at what many people who are rejecting vaccines have to say about the reporting or lack thereof.
The talking heads slanting the facts goes all the way back to Viet Nam. The big three considered it their duty to lie in order to end the war.
Iowan, if you think we could’ve won the Vietnam War, you were never paying attention. And that explains your need for rightwing media.
Worst. Reading. Comprehension. Ever.
I major media outlets have long been reporting from the left side of the aisle, but what we see now is quite different. They are advocates of leftist policies and do so openly. They can’t, nor do they think they need to, deny it. At 12:19 pm January 20, 2017, WaPo published that the impeachment of President Trump has already begun. Do the people who wrote and published that article really think we will take their word for it? The following four years WaPo and others did everything they possibly could to get rid of the president. Indeed, these outlets are not properly news organizations. They are propogandists. I long for the days of “media bias.”
The devolution of the MSM into a pure propaganda arm of the DNC and worse has been unrelenting for the last two decades. It long passed the Rubicon; there is no turning back. And yes individuals like me will never defile my eyes watching PBS news programs. I remember the days of McNeil and Leher. They were likely members of the liberal party but there was at least a real attempt at showing some balance. In addition they were actually very thoughtful and judicious in their questions to guests. The current crew is composed of democratic party stalwarts and of mediocre minds at best. Sadly we lost a free press long ago and it would take a counter revolution to bring it back. Most Americans are too apathetic to care.
Thank you, nice comment (so I need not add my own). The only thing that I would add is the presumptuous condescension that MSM and especially NPR and PBS News (think Yamiche Alcindor) exudes, as though anyone disagreeing with or criticizing their coverage is “uninformed,” under-educated, and/or narrow-minded. I remember when those descriptions referred to Democrats…
(please excuse my grammar error, should be “exude” not “exudes”)
Thank you Lin> Your reply is much appreciated
An aspect that wasn’t covered in this piece is the media’s newfound dependence on the radicalized viewers / readers it created. Example: When the NYT tried to be neutral in their reporting of some Trump policy, their subscribers cancelled their subscriptions en masse, and Democrat politicians berated them to “do better.” Which means the media is now financially dependent on the radicalized viewers they created. It’s like economic stagflation, but for the media.
The Media is doing fine. They may have written off a lot of people, but most of those people aren’t valuable viewers anyway. The Media makes their money from advertising allocated by ratings. The valuable viewers are affluent suburbanites – which not coincidently is the only true group of swing voters out there. They are mostly still watching the Media, same as ever. Most people on the Right aren’t even watching TV at all anymore, and they aren’t going back, but the Media doesn’t care. They only care about viewers who respond to advertising and spend money.
This is true, but even advertisers need eyeballs. Irrespective of ideology, they would drop the likes of CNN in a hot minute if their own revenue tanked. Money is their master, plain and simple. ‘BLM? What BLM? All we know is we are operating at a loss.’
Turley says that Republicans complain the most about not trusting non-pro-Trump media, but here’s a sad fact that cannot be escaped: Fox News actually indoctrinates its viewers to disbelieve mainstream media. I check Fox sometimes and watch mainstream media, like NBC, CBS, and ABC, as well as CNN, MSNBC, PBS and others, and guess what? None of the non-Trump media tell viewers not to trust Fox, Breitbart, OAN, News Max or Culture Wars nor does it tell them to distrust science and medicine. Don’t these facts tell you everything you need to know, especially since Turley tries to brag about Fox’s ratings? Fox is nothing but a propaganda outlet for the Trump/Republican party.
And one of the biggest thrusts of this entire piece is the effort, once again, to try to normalize Trump and the Republicans. Trump is the least-patriotic and least-qualified person to ever run for President. No other candidate had the well-earned bad reputation of Trump for lying, cheating, womanizing and failing at business, but when he emerged as the Republican candidate, Republicans forgot all about their conservative roots and values because they have nothing else to offer the American people.
Wow! Natcha has some serious TDS!
People with TDA should be seeing a whole team of mental health professionals.
And they should be medicated.
And not allowed to operate heavy machinery, reproduce, own real estate, or vote.
Please Natcha, for the love of all that is good in the world, tell us you have not reproduced!
Your spawn would be a detriment to society as a whole!
Green Anonymous is baffled that everyone doesn’t love Donald Trump. Like we should still be okay with Trump after January 6. So he dismisses Natasha’s comment as ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome. As though mainstream America believes Q Anon conspiracies!
Poor, poor orange Anonymous @4:41 is so very clueless!
I did not vote in either 2016 nor 2020 as voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil!
And look where we are now.
Mainstream America believes in BlueAnon conspiracies. You know, RUSSIA!RUSSIA!RUSSIA!. 6 Jan insurrection. The recent Rolling Stone fake news.
But that is the clueless Mainstream Americans for you.
I do hope you and your kind keep to COVID mandates, never leave your home, never think for yourself, and never reproduce.
Could you explain why, when prodded to comment, almost all lefties will reply that they would not trust Fox NEWS because it is just a mouthpiece for the conservatives and full of fake news. Now where would so many on the left get that idea unless it was being spoon fed to them by the left media/education industry? Of course there is ingrained hatred of the right that is inculcated in those willing to accept it, the very rabid distrust and hate for much that is traditional America and that phenomenon is not self-generating.
Alma, people who love real journalism have always been revolted by Fox. Fox’s only concern is fighting the Culture Wars. That’s their real business!
No one looking for the Who, What and Where of everyday news events expects to find it on Fox. Nor would they find it on CNN. Cable News is only talking heads screaming at each other.
What a hoot anon !!. “people whom love real journalism”…oh brother lay off the koolaide. People whom like/love real journalism disdain CNN , MSNBC , ABC , CBS , PBS. These outlets of zeig heil propaganda are toads fo ranything ..ANYTHING left of center. These sycophantic propagandakommandos do one thing and one thing well besides lying…they inject partisan screed of left bentism in everything they offer up as alleged journalism. They run interference for cankles McFraud , for senile baizou biden , hunter crackhead biden , Dr silly jilly , and anyone that gets on their yellow painted partisan soap box. They do not even hide their bias. If that’s real journalism to you and your JV team….you need some serious intervention of truth. Notice today that fascista fauci again has been proven a liar and used taxpayer money to indulge in “researching” these lethal corona virus types. But I’d wager your brand still looks the other way and bleets out like a good little trained parrot nothing to see here move along , fauci is god , the coronoa is trumps fault skwauk skwauk ,…..polly want a cracker….
Must rub your leftism bad because Rand Paul is dead on right and has the goods on that apparatchik mass murderer lord fauci.
Plain old unfiltered data, where do you find that these days? Not the Gov, not Media, not academia, where is the unvarnished truth to be found?
Alma Carman,
We have staked our salvation on a fair trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers to search for truth as near as we can humanly determine it.
Yup. On this blog, all three of you.
Define “lefties” for me, please. Are you defining a “Lefty” as someone who sees Trump for what he really is? And, Fox News is NOT a mouthpiece for “conservatives”. Trump devotees and the Republicans who support him are NOT conservatives, because true, traditional conservatives want nothing to do with Trump because he is a liar, a womanizer, a racist, a xenophobe, serial cheater on his wives, and has been sued literally thousands of times for refusing to pay his valid debts. He is arrogant and braggadocious, and his malignant narcissism drives everything he does–for example, the Arizona audit that could not change the outcome of the election. Trump is obsessed with proving that Arizonans love him more than McCain, and so Republicans spend millions trying to prove nonexistent voter fraud. These traits run counter to conservative values, which include humility, personal integrity, honesty, marital fidelity, and respect for others, including those who are of a different race or creed. Conservatives believe in patriotism, too, something Trump abhors. Before Trump, Republicans used to have values in alignment with conservatives, but it is simply the fact that one cannot be a conservative and a Trump disciple, and supporting Trump does involve discipleship–ignoring the lies, ignoring the massive failures of leadership, ignoring how his mishandling of the pandemic allowed it to get out of control, overlooking how he set the stage for withdrawal from Afghanistan to be problematic by drawing down troops from 14,000 to 2,500 and turning loose 5,000 Taliban BEFORE people got out. Then, in true Trump/Fox style, they try to blame Biden. When Trump became the Republican candidate, most (but not all) Republicans chucked their conservative values, and most (but not all) continue to refuse to speak against his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and most importantly, the Big Lie. They downplay the Trump Insurrection that everyone has seen on video and embrace Q Anon. That’s because support for Republicans continues to go down over time. They have no relevant message to appeal to most Americans, so they’ve become the Cult of Trump. Most of them not only don’t speak out against the Texas abortion ban or the refusal by Republican governors to require masks, they actually embrace these things. None of this is “ingrained hatred of the right”. The “rabid distrust and hate” is fomented by the Fox/Trump network that inculcates its viewers to distrust mainstream media and science. Trumpism does not represent “traditional America” or its values, either. You can’t even make a cogent argument that it does. Why not read what real conservatives like Rick Wilson, George F. Will and Bill Kristol have to say about these things?
These traits run counter to conservative values, which include humility, personal integrity, honesty, marital fidelity, and respect for others, including those who are of a different race or creed. Conservatives believe in patriotism, too,
That’s a good start, but that is a very narrow understanding of what conservatives value. Those denote more personal values and the following would be a broader description of American Conservatism:
I begin with the main points of the Sharon Statement, recognized by The New York Times as a “seminal document” of the conservative movement and accepted by many conservatives as the best brief statement of conservative ideals.
We, as young conservatives believe:
– That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
– That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
– That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
– That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
– That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government; and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
– That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: Does it serve the just interests of the United States?
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/what-conservatism
You won’t find any allegiance to a political party. Conservatives aren’t looking for candidates that are angels (they don’t exist), they are looking for candidates will advance those six points.
Olly,
If one does not believe in gods, or Natural law, ipso facto, one is un-American or at least a Liberal?
Nope.
I’m glad to hear it.
Do you believe we have rights that don’t come from government?
Nope.
Then you certainly don’t agree with the text of the Declaration of Independence. To you, the self-evident truths are lies. We are not created equal. we don’t have the right to the security of our lives, our liberty, our property or even to pursue happiness. You would necessarily reject the Bill of Rights. Lastly, if the colonists had no right to declare and fight for independence, then our constitutional form of government, to you, is also illegitimate.
Come to think of it, while man was wandering the wilderness prior to the existence of government, did he not have the right to defend his life, his liberty or his property?
Very well said.
Olly says:
“Then you certainly don’t agree with the text of the Declaration of Independence. To you, the self-evident truths are lies.”
They are true on account of man’s reason not because of a figment of his imagination.
Olly says:
“Come to think of it, while man was wandering the wilderness prior to the existence of government, did he not have the right to defend his life, his liberty or his property?”
In a state of Hobbesian nature, might makes right. Thankfully, we live in a state of law and order by the grace of enlightened men not mythical gods.
They are true on account of man’s reason not because of a figment of his imagination.
Hmm? Make up your mind, either we have rights that preexist government, or we don’t. Which is it? This is not a question of whether God exists or not. Just so you know, I did not believe in God most of my adult life and all of my 20 years in the Navy. I still believed in natural rights because I could reason they existed before any form of government. So, I can easily argue the existence of natural rights with or without a belief in God.
Olly,
There is no inherent meaning in nature, and hence no value in anything unless man imbues them. Civil rights, therefore, are a function of man not nature.
You can quote me on that.
we live in a state of law and order by the grace of enlightened men not mythical gods.
Human physiology functions on a system of law and order. Heart disease, obesity, many cancers, Type II Diabetes, etc exist in large part because men suppress the grace of enlightenment, which is to say, wait for it, the laws of God. Your religion of atheism blinds you
I learned long ago that everything is rooted in the existence of natural rights…period. They exist whether government exists or not. They exist because we exist…period. The issue of how we came into existence, whether it be by the hand of God or out of primordial ooze, does not change the existence of these rights.
Olly claims:
“I learned long ago that everything is rooted in the existence of natural rights…period. They exist whether government exists or not. They exist because we exist…period. The issue of how we came into existence, whether it be by the hand of God or out of primordial ooze, does not change the existence of these rights.”
If not by the hand of gods nor the mind of men, from whence did rights come to be?
You don’t seem to understand man’s relationship with nature. According to your logic, nothing existed until man discovered it.
Olly thinks:
“You don’t seem to understand man’s relationship with nature. According to your logic, nothing existed until man discovered it.”
Unlike you, I believe man created all the gods. By relying upon such illusory phantoms, we abdicate our responsibility to evaluate our own lives and live according to our own conscience.
Unlike you, I believe man created all the gods. By relying upon such illusory phantoms, we abdicate our responsibility to evaluate our own lives and live according to our own conscience.
And yet you’re still dodging the point. You asked, If not by the hand of gods nor the mind of men, from whence did rights come to be?
I answered, According to your logic, nothing existed until man discovered it.
In other words, things exist regardless of man’s awareness of their existence. This is not about how they came into existence.
Honesty requires humility and that ain’t your thing.
Olly says,
“Honesty requires humility and that ain’t your thing.”
That explains why you concede that Trump is not an honest man because he clearly lacks ANY humility!
Seriously, why is it imperative to believe that rights did not originate from the mind of man? Is it your contention that “god-given” rights are what distinguishes our form of government from a totalitarian one?
Seriously, why is it imperative to believe that rights did not originate from the mind of man?
Give it a think. Prior to the enlightenment, rights were whatever those in power said they were. The Taliban would approve of your view on rights.
Is it your contention that “god-given” rights are what distinguishes our form of government from a totalitarian one?
A government establishment specifically for the security of natural rights for all. That would be my contention.
Olly says:
“A government establishment specifically for the security of natural rights for all. That would be my contention.”
Under the Constitution, no “natural right” is inviolate since we can amend the Constitution’s Bill of Rights pursuant to the overriding will of the People.
No “natural right” is sacrosanct.
Under the Constitution, no “natural right” is inviolate since we can amend the Constitution’s Bill of Rights pursuant to the overriding will of the People.
No “natural right” is sacrosanct.
Unalienable, inalienable, means they cannot be legitimately given or taken away. Even if 100% of our citizens agreed for the entire Bill of Rights to be eliminated, the rights would still exist in a disabled state. Not much different than the pre-revolution period.
Damn. This is Civics 101.
Olly says:
“Even if 100% of our citizens agreed for the entire Bill of Rights to be eliminated, the rights would still exist in a disabled state. Not much different than the pre-revolution period.”
Much good those Natural Rights would do you without being codified in our Constitution. Good luck with that argument in our courts of law!
Tell me, are there any “natural rights” that didn’t make it into our Constitution? Did the Framers include all of them? I’m thinking they mistakenly left out the Natural Right of Privacy.
Define “privacy” and why the Bill of Rights does not protect it.
Olly asks:
“Define “privacy” and why the Bill of Rights does not protect it.”
Ever hear of Roe v. Wade?
So you believe a natural right exists to privately do whatever you want to do to another human being? Yeah, no. Not buying it.
Olly asks:
“So you believe a natural right exists to privately do whatever you want to do to another human being? Yeah, no. Not buying it.”
Of course not. The question is do you? Apparently not, since I presume you think Roe was wrongly decided. So, there is no natural right of privacy.
Estovir,
If you need to believe in fairy tales, good luck to you. I don’t.
Silberman: “There is no inherent meaning in nature, and hence no value in anything unless man imbues them. Civil rights, therefore, are a function of man not nature.”
***
Jeff, if you read “The First Farmers’ of Europe” you will see that when agriculture was developed by successive inventions, discoveries and accidents then populations increased and people began living closer together. The habits and instincts of the preceding hunter/gatherer societies did not mesh well with the needs of people in the first villages. Partly by culture but probably also partly by evolutionary changes in behavior some of the sharpest edges were smoothed so villagers weren’t always killing and stealing from each other. Basically we likely domesticated ourselves through evolution just as we domesticated dogs. A wild version of a human probably wasn’t much better or safer company than a wolf.
Rights and laws likely were initially a formalization of existing patterns of behavior compelled by evolved behavior and evolved culture.
In that sense, rights are natural and not man made though they evolved with man; we were the petri dish in which they could grow.
There never was a ‘social contract’ as Rousseau pretended.
A very apt description of the blending of evolution and environmental/social conditions that have produced the various cultural/racial reactions to the human condition.
Young says,
“In that sense, rights are natural and not man made though they evolved with man; we were the petri dish in which they could grow.”
I am not an anthropologist. You may well be right. I often have wondered how animals began to procreate. It was instinctual, not a learned behavior. Similarly, mankind may have had certain instincts, but they evolved through natural selection. I reject the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design.
Estovir, as an agnostic atheist, I can attest that atheism is not a religion. It’s simply a lack of belief in any gods.
You do not believe in most of the gods that others currently or previously believed in. I simply believe in one less than you.
Anonymous,
That’s a good argument. Monotheists are atheists to the multitude of gods that pre-existed theirs! Unlike them, we don’t make any exceptions….
Olly says “things exist regardless of man’s awareness of their existence.”
Some do, and others don’t.
Planets exist regardless of our awareness of them, and regardless of whether we even exist.
But the concept of “planets” is man-made. Marriage is a man-made creation. POTUS is a man-made creation. These things don’t exist if no humans are aware of them.
Rights are a concept, and personally, I do not believe that rights existed before the concept of rights existed. If you believe differently, fine, people often have different opinions. It’s like the debate about whether math is created or discovered, you can debate whether rights are created or discovered.
“Tell me, are there any “natural rights” that didn’t make it into our Constitution?”
Yes, the 9th and 10th note that there are others that were not explicitly outlined.
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Regarding privacy, I would posit that the 3rd Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment all point to privacy as a fundamental right.
With the 3rd Amendment, our homes are private and cannot be encroached upon to by the government to house soldiers (nor can they be searched without a warrant per the fourth).
With the fourth, our papers are private and cannot be searched or seized without good reason and a warrant.
The 9th Amendment further points to privacy because it would exist as a non-enumerated right retained by the people.
The Tenth notes that there are powers held by the states and the people respectively, which means that the Federal government has limits to it and that it should not encroach on the people. Government only gets to do what has been delegated to it, beyond that exists the private lives of people.
Prairie Rose says:
“Regarding privacy, I would posit that the 3rd Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment all point to privacy as a fundamental right.”
You are a Liberal! Conservatives have long rejected the argument that these enumerated rights in the Constitution cast a shadow, or to use the legalese, a “penumbra,” to infer a right of privacy.
Jeff,
“Conservatives have long rejected the argument that these enumerated rights in the Constitution cast a shadow, or to use the legalese, a “penumbra,” to infer a right of privacy.”
In what regard? Citations?
I would classify myself as more of a Classical Liberal or a libertarian-leaning centrist independent.
Prairie Rose,
Just Google it. It’s easy enough to find the reason why Conservatives reject Roe v. Wade as “finding” a right of privacy in the Constitution. This right of privacy jurisprudence did not begin with Roe; it grew out of a line of cases preceding it concerning a person’s privacy.
I tend to agree that there is a right to privacy that is implicit in the Bill of Rights though not explicitly stated as such, but strict constructionists believe that the right of privacy is a judicially created right not found in the Constitution.
“Yup, one [‘Trump has not been honest.’] is not the same as the other [‘Trump is a liar.’]. Two very different statements.”
What is the very significant difference for you Olly?
Aren’t both “not honest” and “liar” referring to someone who knowingly makes false claims?
Jeff clearly disagrees with the Founders of the United States and with freedom from tyranny. Not surprised.
By far the most influential writings emerged from the pen of scholar John Locke.
He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.
These views were most fully developed in Locke’s famous Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government, and they were so radical that he never dared sign his name to it. He acknowledged authorship only in his will. Locke’s writings did much to inspire the libertarian ideals of the American Revolution. This, in turn, set an example which inspired people throughout Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
Thomas Jefferson ranked Locke, along with Locke’s compatriot Algernon Sidney, as the most important thinkers on liberty. Locke helped inspire Thomas Paine’s radical ideas about revolution. Locke fired up George Mason. From Locke, James Madison drew his most fundamental principles of liberty and government. Locke’s writings were part of Benjamin Franklin’s self-education, and John Adams believed that both girls and boys should learn about Locke. The French philosopher Voltaire called Locke “the man of the greatest wisdom. What he has not seen clearly, I despair of ever seeing.”
https://fee.org/articles/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/
Speaking of Voltaire, he stated:
“écrasez l’infâme”
which translates to “let us crush the evil thing”, referring to abuses of the people by royalty and the clergy, and the superstition and intolerance that the clergy bred within the people.
Voltaire was correct.
Voltaire was correct.
He was. You’ve ignorantly cherry-picked a quote without considering the context of his philosophy.
Men are blind and very unfortunate to prefer one sect absurd, bloody, supported by executioners and surrounded by stakes, a sect that may be approved only by those to whom it gives power and wealth, a sect that n is received in only a small part of the world, a simple and universal religion, by the admission of Christ-was the religion of the human race time of Seth, Enoch and Noah …
“What will we do instead? you say: What! a ferocious animal has sucked the blood of my relatives: I tell you to get rid of this beast, and you ask me what will make up! You ask me, you, a hundred times more odious than the pagan priests, who were content with their ceremonies and sacrifices, which claimed the spirits with chain point of dogma, quine never fought their power to judges, who did not introduce no discord among men, you have the front to ask what to put in place of your tales! My answer: God, truth, virtue, laws, punishments and rewards. Preach probity and not dogma. Be the priests of God and not a one man.
https://www.the-philosophy.com/voltaire-philosophy
Olly,
“I’ve never understood why anyone would argue against inalienable rights.”
There are a lot of reasons, none of which I agree with. But that isn’t JS’s question/challenge. He’s not challenging the *consequences* of denying individual rights or “natural” rights. He’s asking a foundational question (which is a good one): What is the *source* of those rights? What are the underlying premises? Based on what do you derive the concept of “natural” or individual rights? If the foundation is not God or the government, then what is it?
Incidentally, that foundation was not provided by the Founders. They were not philosophers or political philosophers. They pretty much took for granted the concept of “individual rights,” then erected a (brilliant) system of government based on that presupposition. However, a system based on a creaky foundation is doomed to crumble — as ours has over the last 200 years.
It is not enough to argue that individual rights are “natural” or that they are based on “natural law.” Scientific laws (from Galileo through DNA) are “natural.” But pointing out that fact is not an argument that they are true. And it is not a foundation for those particular theories.
The only proper foundation for individual rights (and the only way to answer JS’s question) is by providing a proper *moral* foundation — and that foundation is the code of rational egoism.
P.S. It was nice to read a high level, civilized debate on this blog. Thanks for allowing me to participate.
P.S. It was nice to read a high level, civilized debate on this blog. Thanks for allowing me to participate.
No, thank you for your insights. I do recognize the importance of the question where do natural rights come from? My statement that I’ve never understand why anyone would argue against them is rooted in the answer. I’m attaching two links to a two part essay on the subject that is far more eloquent than I’ve been. I believe Self-interest is the answer. To argue against natural rights is to argue against your own natural instincts of self-preservation. There is nothing logical in that.
Self‐preservation has been posited by many philosophers as the ultimate source of natural rights. True, a god has sometimes been thrown into the moral mix (as the source of moral obligation), but a god was never demanded by the moral logic of natural rights. This was understood even by some early defenders of rights, such as Emer de Vattel (1714–1777), a highly influential Swiss philosopher of international law who was especially popular in the American colonies. Vattel argued that self‐interest, and self‐interest alone, is the source and rationale of rights. God played no essential role in this and similar philosophies of natural rights.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/justification-natural-rights
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/where-do-rights-come
Olly,
I was a philosophy major in college and wrote a dissertation on the “Definition of Punishment,” so I’m hardly adverse to philosophical conversations. I was drawn to Existentialism which explains my general attitude nowadays. I look forward to reading your reference.
How would you describe what existentialism means to you? I for one struggle to understand it.
I look forward to discussing those references as well.
Olly says:
“How would you describe what existentialism means to you? I for one struggle to understand it.”
I’d rather not but say we did. I could not add to what you can learn on your own on Google. I suppose I was attracted to Existentialism because my Dartmouth professor of Philosophy held office hours at the bar in the local pub! He not only taught Existentialism, he practiced it!
Sam quoting Olly:
“I’ve never understood why anyone would argue against inalienable rights.”
I’m not arguing against them. I’m questioning their existence. In any event, you can’t argue in a court of law, “But your honor, what about my client’s Natural Rights?” I think he would look at you rather quizzically.
“. . . from whence did rights come to be?”
He’s asking an astute question. And if one cannot answer it, then one does not have a firm foundation for the concept of inalienable, individual rights.
Sam,
I’ve never understood why anyone would argue against inalienable rights. What would be the consequences of winning the argument? Now all rights come from government. And of course whatever the government gives, they can take away. But you say, they would never take my property. They would never take away my liberty. They would never prevent me from speaking, or assembling, or protesting. They would never spy on me. They would never conduct on search on me without a warra.. That has to be as unenlightened imaginable. The answer reminds me of what Sir Thomas More said in A Man For All Seasons:
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Olly,
Great movie, “A Man for All Seasons.” Had Sir Thomas Moore, brilliant and logical as he was, knew then what science has since discovered about cosmology, he would have rejected the convenient but ludicrous notion of God’s laws.
Seems like your head has been totally brainwashed. Is there an independent thought somewhere in that ramble?
Does Natacha ever stop to think that Fox is more popular because the American people are voting with their TV remotes. When they see Natacha’s soul sister Rachel Maddox on the screen they push the Fox number. Fox would not have the viewership that they have if Democrats were not tuning in. It must be very painful for Natacha in a tiny moment of sanity to admit that she might be wrong. It passes quickly. Way to quickly.
Thinkthrough, many of us think that CNN is as stupid as Fox. It’s just stupid with a liberal slant.
Anonymous, both CNN and Fox have retracted news stories. You can Google Fox retractions and CNN retractions. I leave it up to you to determine which mistakes have been more egregious. I must offer the worst of the liberal transgressions. It’s known as RussiaGate and they kept repeating it for four years. Equalizing the actions of Fox and CNN is not a well thought out premise. Your “liberal slant” evaluation minimizes the gravity of CNN’s proven propaganda.
Yes Natacha, You say Trump is a failure at business. From Google: Trump net worth in 2021 is 2.4 billion. You should be such a failure. Don’t you understand that when you make statements that are blatantly untrue you undermine all credibility that you once may have had? Your hate is so intense that your reason has disappeared.
You know, if you watched something other than Fox, you might know that Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, TESTIFIED under the penalties for perjury, that Trump cooks the books–he inflates the values of things to juice up his Forbes ratings while downplaying the values for tax purposes. He keeps 2 sets of books. This is just one of the matters the N.Y. Attorney General’s Office is investigating. And, if he gets indicted, look for the Fox/Trump network to claim it is politically-motivated. Trump used the inflated numbers to borrow money–lying about the value of collateral. Loan applications to FDIC-covered financial institutions are signed under the penalties for perjury. We taxpayers make good deposits up to a certain amount if a bank goes under. Trump took 6 business bankruptcies because his father wasn’t able to bail him out financially any more after coming down with dementia. He’s been looking for loans overseas because US banks won’t lend to him–too many defaults. So, where did you get the information about your hero’s “net worth”?
Tell us again about your genetic tree. Skip to the gory part and spill your guts (pun intended) about your rituals adoring the sun god Huitzilopochtli. Do you use catsup or mustard with your cannibalism? just saying!
😀
**** Human Sacrifice: Why the Aztecs Practiced This Gory Ritual ****
In addition to slicing out the hearts of victims and spilling their blood on temple altars, the Aztecs likely also practiced a form of ritual cannibalism.
In addition to slicing out the hearts of victims and spilling their blood on the temple altar, it’s believed that the Aztecs also practiced a form of ritual cannibalism. The victim’s bodies, after being relieved of their heads, were likely gifted to nobleman and other distinguished community members. Sixteenth-century illustrations depict body parts being cooked in large pots and archeologists have identified telltale butcher marks on the bones of human remains in Aztec sites around Mexico City.
While it was long theorized that Aztecs only engaged in ritual cannibalism during times of famine, another explanation is that consuming the flesh of a person offered to the gods was like communing with the gods, themselves. As off-putting as it sounds, Verano says that ritual cannibalism most likely existed among the Aztecs and would have been considered not only normal, but a great honor.
https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion
Trump is the least-patriotic and least-qualified person to ever run for President.
Except Obama right?
Then compare President Trump to Dementia Joe. If holding elected office built qualifications Biden would be the best. Performance is the standard. All the promises made by Joe have evaporated. Joe promised to restore the US in the international community. But Great Britian has stated they need to focus on foriegn affairs and fill the vacuum created by Joe. The President that has abandoned the internationial community and walked away from decades old agreements.
And the handleing of Covid is much worse than when he took over.
Of Course Republicans Feel MSM Is Biased!
That’s The Trump Effect
Those PEW Research numbers mirror the extreme polarization that Donald Trump has constantly stoked. Trump declared war on MSM in the earliest days of his primary campaign. During his White House years, Trump attacked mainstream media on a daily basis.
Pew Research could also find that trust in our elections has hit an all-time low. Trust in public health officials has more than likely plunged. More Americans than ever probably doubt the effectiveness of NATO. Trump spent 4 years attacking a range of institutions.
No wonder Trump was widely suspected of being a stooge for Putin! No one president attacked our institutions as methodically as Trump. Though in all fairness to Trump, polarization began long before he took office. And Fox News was the main source of polarization. Trump, in fact, was the monster Fox News spent 20 years creating.
So when Johnathan Turley tells us that mainstream media is failing the country, it’s like having BLM tell us they oppose riots and looting. Consider the source! Turley is shameless apologist for Trump who frequently appears on Fox. What’s more, one notices that Turley’s Op Ed pieces are no longer carried by The Washington Post. Perhaps that has angered Turley and provoked him to step up his attacks on MSM.
Anonymous, so now it’s Trumps fault that the left wing media is biased. I guess the devil made them do it.
Anonymous says:
“one notices that Turley’s Op Ed pieces are no longer carried by The Washington Post. Perhaps that has angered Turley and provoked him to step up his attacks on MSM.”
When Turley joined Fox News, he knew that there was no going back to working as a legal analyst for the mainstream news such was the contempt- deservedly so- for Fox by his mainstream friends and associates. It’s very telling that Turley stated,
“I still have friends working at CNN…”
The very fact that he uses the word “still” implies that joining Fox usually portends losing your liberal friends. You will note that he did NOT indicate that he retained any friendships at MSNBC or any other media network for which he had worked. We will never know why Turley made the precipitous decision to turn his back on his associates in the mainstream press in order to work for Fox. It may have had nothing to do with politics or ideology; Fox may have simply made him a better monetary offer. After all, having a liberal academic legitimating Fox’s legal narratives lends them more credibility than a conservative legal analyst! Thus, Turley is a very useful asset.
If Turley looses his job at Fox, he knows that he has no future at CNN or MSNBC, for his hypocrisy has cost him his credibility with these networks, never to be regained. Consequently, Turley will defend his employer against its competitors because Fox is all he’s got left.
“one notices that Turley’s Op Ed pieces are no longer carried by The Washington Post.
No longer carried because he keeps exposing the lies pushed by The Washington Post. Glenn Reynolds got booted from Gannet owned US TODAY. Why? Because a diversity of opinion must be eliminated, less the leftist that still have a spark of curiosity might learn something, despite themselves.
I listen to the the media take on SCOTUS turning down the emergency stay asked for concerning the Texas abortion legislation.
It took me more than 24 hours before I saw the analysis over at Volokh. That explanation quoted from the majority, and the dissent, and explained SCOTUS had no action available to them to offer the relief sought. A big difference from the media lie that SCOTUS picked a side in the constitutional question.
Just more of the ongoing lies told by the media
More Americans than ever probably doubt the effectiveness of NATO.
Now why would you believe that? After the NATO leader stated publicly, NATO has NEVER been as strong, effective and focused.
“”We agreed to do more to step up – and now we see the results. By the end of next year, NATO allies will add $100 billion extra toward defense,” he said. “So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact.”
That would be the facts as laid out by NATO Secretary General
“When asked if he was concerned that Trump was “helping Putin splinter NATO,” Stoltenberg said, “What I see is that actually NATO is united because we are able to adapt to deliver. North America and Europe are doing more together now than before.”
“Stoltenberg said Trump is helping “us adapt the alliance, which we need, because we live in a more unpredictable world.”
What did the NYT report
A New York Times report earlier this month said Trump repeatedly told aides he wanted to pull out of the alliance. In response to the report, Democrats pushed for legislation requiring congressional approval of any move to leave NATO.( pay special attention to the unnamed source used to spread the lies)
But the truth is at odds with “media reporting”
Trump has also been criticized for his aggressive approach in insisting America’s “delinquent” allies pay a greater share toward the collective defense agreement. At the summit in July, he demanded the other members “immediately” increase their contributions.
Stoltenberg said the tough approach paid off.
What a great example of how perception reported, is not reality. And the leftists are on the wrong side of the facts….because they believe the media.
You have it completely backwards. Trust in media has been in decline since the 1970s when Gallup first began polling it. It is not a result of Trump, on the contrary, Trumps is a RESULT of it. An objective analysis would more likely conclude that the failures of MSM are the reason for the Trump Presidency.
You hit the nail on the head…Trump and MAGA are a result of a corrupt media/entertainment/education industries brainwashing anyone they can with leftist slanted propaganda.
Alma says:
“You hit the nail on the head…Trump and MAGA are a result of a corrupt media/entertainment/education industries brainwashing anyone they can with leftist slanted propaganda.”
As if MORE lies by Trump and by his lawyers in court will make matters better!
My only reply at this point is to quote Mark Twain: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
You’re not quoting Twain.
https://marktwainstudies.com/the-apocryphal-twain-never-argue-with-stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down-to-their-level-and-beat-you-with-experience/
Whoever said it was absolutely correct, give credit to whomever you choose.
Kevin says:
“An objective analysis would more likely conclude that the failures of MSM are the reason for the Trump Presidency.”
And Trumpism has made the decline of America’s trust in THE media even worse.
Wrong again – The MSM media reaction to Trump – becoming more slanted and outright false in the coverage of Trump, his campaign and his Presidency has accelerated it’s decline into a left-wing echo chamber that has detached itself from facts and impartial reporting of them. Their misrepresentation of his remarks and out right lying about everything Trump has driven a large swath of Americans to seek out alternative sources of information. And this reaction is self-sustaining – the more their audience shrinks, the more the need to report what that audience ‘wants ti hear’, resulting in further deterioration and further tailoring of the news. We are in the midst of a seismic shift in the industry and those who choose a path of deceptive reporting, censoring and stifling opposing views and blatant partisanship are consigning themselves to the fringes. Once they reach that point they will have to pull more into their fringe, exist as a minor player or fade into obscurity.
Kevin:
“We are in the midst of a seismic shift in the industry and those who choose a path of deceptive reporting, censoring and stifling opposing views and blatant partisanship are consigning themselves to the fringes.”
I agree with you there, but we disagree on which side is doing the lying.
Good but the wrong question. Does the media even care that half of the population does not believe or dislikes them?
The answer is NO. Like most leftists they want to enforce conformity and won’t stop until they have rammed their “progressive” agenda down everyone’s throat. After all it’s for your own good, right?
I want a divorce.
antonio
Does the right-wing media even care that half of the population does not believe or dislikes them?
The answer is NO. Like most rightists, they want to enforce conformity and won’t stop until they have rammed their “conservative” agenda down everyone’s throat. After all it’s for your own good, right?
-Anonymous @ 4:07PM,
Wrong.
The vast majority of the right just wants to be left alone to go bout our lives in harmony with nature.
We are not the one forcing CRT on our children. Or in college. Or in the work place.
The Left sees it as their way to . . . enlighten everyone else to their way of thinking.
And if you do not want to be so enlightened, then you are a racists or white supremacists, even if you are black or a minority.
No one is forcing CRT on your children, and the conservatives in Texas are the ones empowering citizens to enforce unconstitutional laws.
For all of our commenters on the left. You can make excuses to your hearts desire. In football there’s a saying. “The tape don’t lie”.
In any business you can’t piss of half your clients and survive.
You can’t double your fees to make up your losses. The press is a good example – They double their fees, print half of what they use to, print paper fewer days each week, receive far less advertisers.
Hell of a way to run a business!
You can add AP to that list of NPR and NYT after that hit piece on their fake news about poison control reporting on ivermectin in Mississippi. Somehow the reporting went form 70% to 1.4%. I believe in Fox after Ive checked other sources
We need more straight news.
-Karen S,
As I said else where, we need more alt-media.
Journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Sharyl Attkisson and more, who stick to real journalistic standards, have a higher faith and confidence with the thinking public than MSM.
When thinking of MSNBC, CNN, et. al, I also think of this. Zappa at his finest
Watch “Tension between progressivism and conservatism (from Livestream #94)” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/UJgVZF0CRiI
Prairie Rose,
I watched this clip. All they were saying is that each side has to recognize the humanity in the other and regard them as the loyal opposition instead of the enemy. That’s all well and good, but if one side is consciously lying, then it is impossible to regard them as acting in good faith. We are beyond the point of arguing over differing honest opinions. We are fighting over which side will determine what is a fact. And in that struggle, the stakes could not be higher.
Before the rise of cableTV and social media, facts were decided largely by our criminal and civil justice system where the rules of evidence and cross-examination subject to perjury had evolved over centuries to get to the truth. Thanks to 24/7 cableTV and social media, the court of public opinion- where there are no rules- has eclipsed our courts of law to determine the facts of a controversy.
There is criminal accountability for lying in court. There is none for lying in public. That is the problem.
Jeff,
“but if one side is consciously lying, then it is impossible to regard them as acting in good faith”
Regular people, I would say, are not really in this category. Some are parrots, some are mistaken, some are seeking truth. The lying is happening at the highest levels. Don’t think it is just “one side”, Mr. Crawdad. Cui bono?
Last thing they’d want is for us to stop bickering and pay attention to their legerdemain.
Prairie Rose,
I eschew the notion of “regular people” like I abhor the concept of “real Americans.” As far as I am concerned, we are all regular Americans whatever we believe.
There can be no truce between the Left and the Right when one side or both are not acting in good faith. Either the election was rigged, or that was a lie. We cannot find common ground until the truth of that is known. So far, it has yet to be proven. Hopefully, we will know soon enough in the outcome of the Defamation lawsuits against Fox News and the Trump lawyers where the truth will be decided.
Then we can move on hopefully.
Jeff,
The outcome of a lawsuit isn’t necessarily the truth or even justice (as in the case of Dredd Scott). It is what could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People aim for the truth to shine forth, but, sometimes such things fall short. Even if truth does get decided, I am not confidant that the media will accurately report on it. People will practically have to listen to the arguments themselves, weigh the evidence themselves, and then consider the judgement themselves to see if justice won out.
“I eschew the notion of ‘regular’ people like I abhor the concept of ‘real Americans.’ As far as I am concerned, we are all regular Americans whatever we believe.”
I agree that we are all created equal. However, there are some who think they are more equal than others.
And, there are ‘those in the know’ and those who are not. I am still trying to decide whether things are split into two or thirds (+?). It is quite the game of thrones, so to speak.
“We cannot find common ground until the truth of that is known.”
That seems overly focused, considering the issue of election integrity is only one of many, many problems. People can disagree about one point but be aligned on others. If people were always completely aligned, life would be pretty boring and there wouldn’t be much to talk about.
“There can be no truce between the Left and the Right when one side or both are not acting in good faith.”
Is there ever a “truce” exactly between the Left and the Right in an overarching sense? Homeostasis is a wavering between “right” and “left”, “up” and “down”. Things run smoothly when massive swings between the two are avoided–as Weinstein noted in the link. By “truce”, do you mean reconciliation or compromise or fair play?
Politically-speaking, while there is the horizontal Left-Right dynamic to consider, there is also the up-down hierarchical element to consider. My friends and neighbors on the Right and Left are more likely acting in good faith, and when they do not act in good faith, that can, in good faith, be brought to their attention. The relational pressures of a local community, or the desire to maintain long-standing relationships, helps keep people a bit more on the straight and narrow, not just their own integrity. The Up-Down hierarchical element introduces complexity into the Left-Right dynamic. Are some (many?) of those higher up the hierarchical ladder participating in disingenuous actions to achieve their own ends? Yep. Are some of them manipulating people’s perceptions of Left-Right dynamics, among other things? Yep.
Edward Bernays and Group Psychology: Manipulating the Masses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOUcXK_7d_c&t=281s
The political uses of fear – Edward Bernays and United Fruit
https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=BI5RSptFAiA
Prairie says:
“The outcome of a lawsuit isn’t necessarily the truth or even justice (as in the case of Dredd Scott). It is what could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People aim for the truth to shine forth, but, sometimes such things fall short.”
The jury system is the best mankind has engineered to discern the truth. Unless you have a better process, I’ll keep my faith in impartial juries and independent judges.
You say, “I agree that we are all created equal. However, there are some who think they are more equal than others.”
Who?
You say:
“We cannot find common ground until the truth of that is known.”
That seems overly focused, considering the issue of election integrity is only one of many, many problems. People can disagree about one point but be aligned on others. If people were always completely aligned, life would be pretty boring and there wouldn’t be much to talk about.”
True, but the let’s begin with resolving whether the election was stolen. If we can’t agree on that point, we cannot have a functioning Democracy.
Jeff,
“You say, “I agree that we are all created equal. However, there are some who think they are more equal than others.”
Who?”
People like Hillary Clinton and her private email and private server and the destruction/wiping of devices. People like Clapper and Brennan who violated our 4th amendment rights and lied with impunity to Congress.
Prairie,
Is that the best you can do? I’m a little disappointed in your one-sided response. Truthfully, you can’t think of ANYONE on the Right who thinks that they are more equal than the rest of us?
Not even Trump who lies through his teeth?
Bush and Gingrich both come to mind, too. As do the leadership of any of the banks bailed out by TARP or the Auto Bailout.
I’m still undecided as to what Trump is/was up to. I am inclined towards cynicism, but I see too many narratives at play.
Now try to get Silberman to admit Biden has been a world-class liar his entire political career. 🤣
Olly,
I admit only that Biden is mentally enfeebled in return for which you conceded that Trump is a liar.
If you want me to admit that Biden has lied, I’m going to need another concession on your part, e.g., Trump is a sexual degenerate.
for which you conceded that Trump is a liar.
Nope, that is a lie. Typical lib, you’re always guilty of what you accuse others of doing. The fact you won’t acknowledge Biden’s lies proves you are a hypocrite.
After quoting me, Olly denied having called Trump a liar:
“for which you conceded that Trump is a liar.”
“Nope, that is a lie. Typical lib, you’re always guilty of what you accuse others of doing.”
——————
The following quote is what Olly had stated to me earlier:
“Now that’s funny. You cannot be honest unless I admit Trump is not honest. Okay, Trump has not been honest.”
You’re on the record, friend. No use denying it….
I said: Trump has not been honest.
You said: for which you conceded that Trump is a liar.
Yup, one is not the same as the other. Two very different statements. You are on the record you lying SOS. You and your demented President make Trump look like a saint.
Olly says:
“I said: Trump has not been honest.
You said: for which you conceded that Trump is a liar.
Yup, one is not the same as the other. Two very different statements.”
Just when I thought I was making headway with a Trumpist! Drat!
I won’t bother asking you to elucidate the “very different” meanings between:
“not being honest” and “a liar”
because I know that I won’t get a straight answer out of you. I’ll just leave it to the rest of this blog to judge your attempt at hair-splitting.
Prairie Rose,
I knew I could count on your fair-mindedness!
You say, “I’m still undecided as to what Trump is/was up to. I am inclined towards cynicism, but I see too many narratives at play.”
At least your mind is not closed on Trump. Hopefully, you’ll make up your mind as more information about his past conduct comes to light in the upcoming months. But do bear in mind, Turley’s negative opinion of him.
I tried posting this earlier, but it didn’t post, so I’m trying again…
Prairie Rose,
I watched the clip, and my response is that I’m happy to talk with people whose views are different than mine as long as they’re discussing things in good faith (they might be mistaken, but they’re not lying, and they’re open to changing their mind and to correcting their mistakes; they’re not regularly insulting or dismissive; they’re sincerely trying to understand the views that are different than theirs; they don’t try to put words in others’ mouths / don’t try to put thoughts in others’ minds; they’re willing to answer questions honestly; etc.), and I try to discuss things in good faith (though I often fail once I become convinced that the other person is not acting in good faith, especially if that person is also abusive).
The problem is that too many people choose not to discuss things in good faith, and if that’s someone’s approach, it’s very hard to have a productive exchange.
I’m not going to lump people into one side vs. another side (liberal and conservative), because my experience is that many people on each side are discussing in good faith, and other people on each side aren’t.
In my exchanges with you, I think you’ve always engaged in the exchange in good faith, but there are a number of people on this blog who don’t generally interact in good faith, though they might do so with pals here.
Anonymous,
“In my exchanges with you, I think you’ve always engaged in the exchange in good faith”
That is kind. Communication is challenging enough as it is.
Prairie Rose,
What about me? Do you think I have been engaging with you in good faith?
I would appreciate a kind word from you since you know that I have many detractors on this blog. Since you are known to be fair-minded, your blessing of my bona fides couldn’t hurt!
Jeff,
Are you the Anonymous? I couldn’t tell whether that was you who had replied and left off your name inadvertently, or, whether it was someone else who had also watched the clip. I engage with named people and those who stay completely Anonymous.
Fishing for compliments? 😉
I try to respond to everyone from a perspective that they are engaging with me in good faith. Some may not have been, I do not know for sure (though I sometimes have my suspicions). I think it is better to give people the benefit of the doubt and treat them as someone who is engaging me in good faith.
We have had interesting and courteous conversations even when we do not agree on things.
Peace.
Prairie Rose,
I never post anonymously unless there has been a glitch.
I am always fishing for compliments! I share that trait with Trump.
🙂
All this non-sense over meanings of words, fragile feelings, supposed honor insults, and a host of other disorders attributed and advance by the Woke religion, is deranged. Woke continues to seek its idea of perfection, with little to no knowledge, or care of what the consequences of such a transition would have on society. Is the Woke(s) fragility in earnest, or just a ploy to attain their ultimate objective, regardless we are in for some sour times ahead?
The view that Woke is some magical suppository to fix whatever disorders Woke has with life in America; it is the antitheses of durability of our constitutional rights. When the many surrender rights to a few, the few rule all. This slippery slope to Tyranny should worry ALL.
You know American news media is untrustworthy when you have to view news sources about America from other countries.
Biden was always unfit to be president but his Left-wing media cheerleaders didn’t dare admit it
The craven behaviour of the USA’s court media has hidden for too long the president’s deep flaws
The world appears to have woken up to an important truth this week: which is that Joe Biden is a truly terrible president. It is a shame that it took America gifting Afghanistan back to the Taliban for so many people to realise this.
To be charitable, there were perhaps two reasons why this had not become more obvious before. The first is that Joe Biden is not Donald Trump and for a lot of the planet that seems to be recommendation enough to occupy the Oval Office. A break from the Trump show appealed to an awful lot of people.
But the second reason why too few realised what the world was going to get from a Biden presidency is that the US media simply didn’t ask the questions it needed to ask. Before the election a near entirety of the American media gave up covering it and simply campaigned for the Democrat nominee.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/20/biden-always-unfit-president-left-wing-media-cheerleaders-didnt2/
A break from the Trump show appealed to an awful lot of people.
Thanks Estovir. That statement says a lot about our culture. It’s as though everything going on is viewed through a reality TV lens. People have their favorites to “win” and they will watch or read the sources that show them “winning.” Wasn’t it the show Survivor that had contestants forming alliances? Then viewers of the show rooted for one group or another? It’s a reality of sorts, but inconsequential to our everyday lives. What we are seeing played out in the media today seems to feed into that same faux reality mindset. Half of this country wanted Trump off the island without any consideration of the real world consequences.