|
September 26, 2009
Foolish truths
A fascinating and thoughtful piece by Ron Radosh reminded me of a nagging problem that causes a certain amount of misunderstanding. With an Atlantic piece by Mark Bowden as a starting point, Radosh examines the deeper question of whether all journalism is inherently biased: Bowden says in conclusion that we now live in a "post-journalistic" world, in which our democracy is in a constant political battleground. Bloggers exist to help one side or the other, which leads to what Bowden sees as "distortions and inaccuracies, lapses of judgment, the absence of context," which do not bother the bloggers, since they are simply ammunition for their own chosen side. Truth is simply what comes out of whoever wins a particular battle -- it is winning that is key, not who is right. This, Bowden argues, is not journalism.He goes on to look at Beck and Hannity versus Olbermann and Maddow, none of whom I have the slightest interest in watching. Here's what causes misunderstanding. I am often at a loss to explain it, but I do not regard this blog as a form of warfare. I write what I think, and it necessarily takes the form of posts, on whatever subject strikes my fancy. I am just tickled pink that people read them, but I have little control over who is reading, or why. If people want to think I am a partisan blogger, working towards specific identifiable goals, they can. Certainly I oppose certain things and I support certain things, and I make no secret of what they are. But that does not obligate me to write about anything in particular, or in any particular order. The paradox is that while I am not seeking to be any kind of warrior, I also don't seek to be "unbiased" or even particularly "objective." I try to admit my biases, so if I feel strongly about something, I try to say so. Within the bounds of reason, I also try to be willing to identify contradictions in my own thinking as well as that of other people, and question my premises. I admit, it's a very poor way to run a war, but a war is not what I am running here. I suspect that everyone is biased, and there's nothing dishonest about our biases. What is dishonest is conceal bias and pretend that it does not exist. That is what the MSM got away with for years, and I think people got sick of it, so now they can choose between Beck and Hannity on the one hand, and Olbermann and Maddow on the other. Whether it's "journalism," who knows? Does anyone really care? Is what I'm doing right now a form of journalism? Technically, yes. But I'd hate to think that might make me a "journalist," because once you accept a label, you become the label, and conditions attach. "Blogger" is a much bigger, much safer category. It's also more honest. (I'll take a biased blogger over an unbiased journalist any day, as I know what I'm getting.) Yet as Radosh points out, blogs -- even the biggest, most influential blogs -- are routinely ignored, and what they say does not "count" until it gets noticed and repeated by the guys who have the large, FCC-licensed mikes: The expose of Jones's background and previous life as a far-left revolutionary was exposed by a blogger who writes under the name Gateway Pundit. Material about Jones was made available at David Horowitz's website DiscoverTheNetworks.com. The material was relevant to the public's right to know whether such a man should have ever been appointed to a White House position. The blogs were completely ignored, until Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck took up the case and nightly aired segments about him.I take a certain perverse delight in the knowledge that when I write posts I'm likely to be ignored, because there's freedom in that. Freedom to just be yourself. The larger the mike, the more the pressure, and the greater that paralyzing sense of "responsibility" becomes. Also, the more likely it is that you'll be singled out by the smear outfits and treated like Joe the Plumber and "brought down" or "demolished" or whatever they call it. The more off the radar screen you are, the freer you are to be yourself and be honest. Because power corrupts, the lack of power that goes with being off the radar screen allows a refreshing form of self honesty. Ironically, this echoes the "journalism" which Bowden argues has been lost: Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth. Those who forsake it to shill for a product or a candidate or a party or an ideology diminish their own power. They are missing the most joyful part of the job.Except truth seekers are not now, and never have been, kings. They're more likely to be fools. Not so long ago, only fools had the freedom to speak their mind. Now anyone can be what Bowden calls a "carpal-tunnel curmudgeon." For some awfully strange reason, the unpleasant topic of truth-seeking reminds me of this fascinating irony uttered by the late Irving Kristol: There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.I was never a fan of Irving Kristol. However, I think he may have been onto something there. For as the Internet will attest, truths are out of control. Truths of all stripes are running wild all over the place. The Internet is a great place to find whatever truth you want. It's especially great for people who simply do not want any truths except those which conform to what they want to believe. Selective truths for selective truth seekers. Seek the truth ye want, and ye shall find the truth ye seek! Dealing with those who believe they have found the truth that's right for them is difficult -- especially when their truth is said to be absolute. Disagreeing with such truths is seen as evil. OTOH, making allowances for it as their truth, or as "the truth that's appropriate for them" is seen as moral relativism. Whether truth is opinion or fact can get dicey, because facts are inherently true while opinions are opinions. Yet that does not prevent people from insisting that certain opinions are facts, if not "truths." An opinion said to be the truth is still an opinion, and calling an opinion an ultimate or absolute truth does not alter that fact. So it's probably good that power abhors truth and truth abhors power. Just think about the consequences if power actually sought truth. Because, if power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then absolute truth would become absolutely powerful, and absolutely corrupt. So what could be more foolish than attempting to speak truth to power? posted by Eric on 09.26.09 at 02:19 PM
Comments
Hmmm. Try this: the powerful and their minions love to have and exercise power because it is the way to accomplish their aims (wealth, ideology, whatever). They are uncomfortable with spewing untruth, not the least reason being that they might get caught, thereby damaging their future credibility. So there is a presumption, however weak, for truth. Bleepless · September 26, 2009 09:11 PM "Truth" has a defined meaning. If one person's "truth" is conflicting with or contradicting another's "truth", then the word "truth" is simply being mis-used. Opinions, perceptions, conclusions, preferences, assumptions - all of them routinely get reclassified, by our egos, as "truth." Kristol didn't mean, a truth for one group can be false for another. He meant, out of the universe of truths, different groups can comfortably handle only certain arrays. His differentiation wasn't a function of different truths, but of different limitations and abilities within the groups. It's like the elephant amongst the blind men - while they all feel different body parts and derive from that experience different "truths", it's still an elephant standing there. bobby b · September 28, 2009 02:04 PM Hello! Repentant klooper for my english jer, buti particular nice re say gJ$)Kd!!!. Peardexia · September 28, 2009 09:58 PM Hello! Base klooper for my english jer, buti very nice re say gJ$)Kd!!!. excampell · October 4, 2009 01:05 PM Hello Penitential klooper extract through in favour of my english jer, buti danged keen re set forth . Merfeeredor · October 4, 2009 09:33 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2009
September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"having children changes things"
WB-8 Contract Progress "You have to eliminate it" Is Kevin Jennings Fit For Office? Can a "child" make a "mistake" deliberately? Cutthroats and Thieves Just fooling around with blanks Flaky food for flaking off Chicago Loses Olympic Bid Should I just ignore it in the hope that it goes away?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
There is one thing I seek in presenting my views "leave me alone". I think Mencken might have been sympathetic.