I’ve intentionally (even desperately) avoided watching any of the convention coverage, but, as with SotU addresses, I find the disconnect between partisan viewers on both sides to be astonishing. A speech that one person describes as snarky, arrogant, hateful, stupid, clumsy, and/or utterly representative of every horrific cliché about the speaker’s party is described by another as thoughtful, profound, uplifting, classic, engaging, inspirational, and/or utterly representative of what’s best about the speaker’s party. And that was as true for the DNC as the RNC coverage.
It’s both amusing and disturbing.
39 view(s)
So…
When hasn’t been that way?
My awareness of it this election seems higher, perhaps because I’m reading a wider range of folks than in presidential elections past.
Awwww…
To bad you’re not watching the RNC convention this year. It’s at least 10 times funnier the last one with Bob Dole (Bob Dole…Funniest. Candidate. Ever.).
Miller last night had a complete meltdown.
Can’t wait for tonight. Must find a drinking game for it.;->
One thing on the point of your post: Having spent my Late teen years growing up part time in a staunchly GOP house hold (Look…Token Liberal even then!), I’ve always been aware of the great divide between the two sides. My Step-Father and I would have long drawn out debates over what ever the topic of the day was. It was a good thing, and they never devolved into shouting matches. But it taught me that Liberal and Conservatives work from two separate sets of facts. Even today, my Step-Uncle’s email all sorts of wack job stuff (thank you Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and the Patriot Network) They truly believe all of it (“Uncle Logan, Mena Arkansas is still all lies.”), and I of course do not. Just like when I reply to them, they do not believe the info that I email back to them.
In a way it is a lot like the family in Denver Square.
Everybody agreed that the Bush twins were an embarassment. Everybody agreed that Barak Obama (sp?) gave a good speech at the DNC. What do we do with Alan Keyes? We can have him run against Obama. BWAHAHAHAHA. See, we can agree on something. Too bad it isn’t on something important like the war on terrorism.
That division of information streams (and the automatic trust/distrust filter put on them) is troublesome, but certainly not anything new (as you point out), and probably the inevitable outcome of a much broader range of info being out there. Of course, whether someone’s “better” informed because they heard something from Michael Savage (or Michael Moore) vs because they heard something from Fred down at the barber shop is problematic.
It’s one reason I try to be more interested in (a) facts, then (b) reasoning, than in (c) digested utterances, no matter from whom the pundit. But that’s also hard work to do all the time, and it’s instinctive for humans to classify and stereotype as mental shortcuts (a survival tool). As long as we remember we’re doing it, it’s probably not an all-bad thing.
The argument comes down to Truth and Facts.
One of the problems that has occurred over the past 12 or so years is that our useless national press has become confused between the two concepts. In the rush to become “Fair and Balanced” (not just faux news anymore) they now report facts as truth.
Example:
A statement is made about you that is a lie. The fact is that there is now a statement that is a lie. Report the lie or report the truth.
Hmmm….
In far and balanced world we report both, and word it in such a way that both the truth and the lie are equal.
We report you decide.
Other happy fun times of Fair and Balanced world.
You repeat a lie over and over and over again. The lie is that the Media is liberally biased. Now to try and disprove this fantasy the networks make sure that there are at least 2 or 3 conservatives to every liberal. It really becomes apparent at the nation conventions when at the DNC there are 2 of 3 conservatives to 1 liberal, and these are the BIGS of the party or of the Punditry. At the RNC you maintain this balance (or no Liberal at all), and invite the BIGS of the party, but not from the Democrat’s but from the Republicans.
You know you’re still more Zelazny fan than political watcher when you see SotU and think Sign of the Unicorn.
Just my 2 cents, Canadian, minus taxes.
Now that’s funny.
Boulder Dude, you have made me confused.
You’ve left my brain feeling abused.
You say the media reports facts as truth.
You seem to think that this is uncouth.
Do you deny all facts are true?
Help me please, give me a clue!
Philosophers say truth is correspondence
‘tween facts and claims, kinda lika dance.
They say a claim is true when it describes
just what the facts of the world is.
But I’m sure your use
of the words isn’t so obtuse.
So lay it on me daddy,
tell me what you mean.
Make my brain less flabby,
it will be really keen.
{clicks fingers in appreciation}
Ok…I’ll give a go.
BTW: I love questions in the form of a poem.
I make a statement that (which I assume/hope is untrue) “David Newman beats his wife”.
The statement is not true but the statement is out there in space either told to a reporter, in a book, a commercial, or leaked in a memo by an anonymous source. While the truth behind the statement is false, the statement itself is a fact.
There may be all sorts of documents to prove that you have never beaten your wife, and she may even come forward and say as much. But the new media reports them as if they are either both true statements, or that both statements are equally of the same level of disrepute.
So…
“A letter signed by several neighbors document that David Newman beats his wife every night when he gets home from work. Home movies and Mrs. Newman’s medical reports allegedly back up Mr. Newman’s claims. We will continue to look into this story as it develops.”
Or.
“A letter signed by several neighbors document claim that David Newman beats his wife every night when he gets home from work. Alleged Home movies of the family and Mrs. Newman’s medical records allow one to speculate that he may be telling the truth. We will continue to look into this story as it develops.”
So instead of doing any kind of fact checking or taking a stand and looking objective, both statements are given the same cache, or both are discounted out of hand in how the evidence is presented. It’s how they use the words to not get to the bottom of things.
Sorry Boulder Dude, I’m still confused. The locus of my confusion lies in the following sentence from your comment: “While the truth behind the statement is false, the statement itself is a fact.”
I find this confusing for two reasons. First, I don’t think a truth can be false; that just sounds like a contradiction to me. Second, I don’t think a statement is a fact. Statements are linguistic objects, and facts are ways the world is. The intersection of these two sets is empty, so no statement can be a fact. There is a kind of shorthand use of ‘fact’ in which I might say a statement is a fact in order to mean that the statement really represents the way the world is (i.e. this is another way to say the statement is true). But that doesn’t appear to be what you’re saying because you’re saying a false statement is a fact.
Having read your examples, I’m going to try to paraphrase your statement into something I’m sure I understand. Can you tell me if this is what you mean?: “What the statement says is false, but some people have made the statement as if they think it is true.”
Actually, I wonder if what is meant is the “fact of a statement having been made” is treated as a fact, and thus, by association, the factuality/truth of the statement becomes treated that way as well.