If You Want The Truth, Read Blogs

Howard Kurtz takes on the notion of how the press gets at the truth. Unfortunately, there's one word that doesn't seem to come up: facts, as in, just the facts, please. This truth-seeking is a bunch of post-1960's nonsense that's caused what was designed to be a fact relating mechanism to strain to become the arbiter of truth in America. But those truths are often hard to discern and not known for years, sometimes after a trial or two, or some number of investigations. Sadly, that's a little beyond many American's, and the media's, attention span these days.

More and more, the media opts to exist in the area of opinion, not fact. And through various exercises over the years they've been shown to have enough problems just getting the facts correct, let alone anything that passes for truth.

Alas, opinions are not objective - there will always be differences. So, people seeking the truth - read support for their own opinions, simply turn to reading blogs and alternative media that's at least a little more honest in what they're about.

The facts usually manage to sort themselves out sometime later, but by then everyone already knows their truth, so frankly, who cares? One classic example can be found in a story that's spanned the decades this has been going on. Is Senator Edward Kennedy a heroic liberal icon, or a loutish drunk who left a girl to die in a car, using power and money to get himself off the hook? The facts support the latter, but current media truth suggests the former. Which one is the truth depends entirely on what, or who you read. But if big media can't relate a simple truth on that long ago episode, don't look for them to do much better with today's news any time soon.

Why can't news organizations resolve these disputes? Are they afraid to take a stand? Or is there no realistic way to do what the critics demand without becoming partisans?

Liberal blogger Arianna Huffington charges that "too many in the Washington press corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of 'what is truth' to their readers -- refusing to admit that there is even such a thing as truth . . .The administration has faith that, because of the way too many in the press operate, all it has to do is sow doubt."

Comments

[nowingker]

Truth is not always a zero sum game.

Ted Kennedy is BOTH an articulate and effective defender of many core liberal ideas AND he is a loutish drunk who left a girl to die in a car using power and money to get off the hook.

[Dan Riehl]

Perhaps, NW - but as media has only ever painted one side of that picture, they can hardly claim to be a purveyor of the truth.

[bloodrage bob]

how does the press "get at" the truth? easy enough. first, they check with their left-wing, statist, socialist ideology glands to ascertain what they want the message to be. usually, this is a variation on the classic, "democrats good/republicans bad" theme. this goes for all news: hard news; entertainment reviews; sports; cooking section ... whatever. it's all run through the ideological filter first. the 'big lie' concept requires constant repetition.

then they write the story, plugging in names, dates, places into the standard template outline. ("spring comes late to the ural mountains ...") then they write grossly mendacious memoirs explaining how brave and honest they are.

[bloodrage bob]

did i really just read a liberal explain to us that hopelessly drunken sot ted kennedy is "articulate"? LOL.

i see where the liberals have finally disconnected themselves *entirely* from reality. why not just go all the way, and call him "thin", too?

[seekeronos]

I can concede that Sen. Kennedy *can* be articulate and even intelligent; however, I must also agree that the same left-biased media that cried foul at the idea of allowing competition (via blogs and talk radio) to tread upon their once hallowed and un-trod province of leftist propaganda is also the same group of propagandists who push the legendary liberalism of the "honourable gentleman from Massachusetts", whilst hoping to submerge the public in ignorance surrounding his misdeeds, as much as that particular girl and a particular car were also submerged into deep, eternal darkness.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Articulate??? Listen to this and tell me again how articulate his is.

http://www.gopunditgo.com/?p=638

Back to the topic, when have facts ever meant anything to liberals?

[nowingker]

Too funny, another example of the idea that EVERYTHING about your 'enemy' has to be bad and wrong, the idea of conceding that Ted Kennedy can give a good speech can't be tolerated and must be ridiculed.

It's another way to shut down debate, which is what calling your opponents traitors, Nazis, terrorist sympathizers, anti semites or tree huggers is all about. The other guy is so loathsome that 'debating' him would be pointless, to render your opponent as beneath contempt, ergo, no debate.

This is why we now live in a country where political 'debate' is nothing more than prefabricated thoughts and talking points from both sides....and why nothing of consequence ever gets done, and ANYTHING that does get done is immediately attacked by the 'other' side regardless of its inherent merit.

I'm waiting anxiously for the 'left wing media' to expose the lies Bush is telling about Iran and the great progress we've made in Iraq...I have a feeling I will be waiting quite a while because the fundamental property of MSM is cowardice...it's why you didn't hear a peep from anyone in the run up to the Iraq war and then everyone finally piled on after it was clear things were out of control...they will always do the safest thing.

[Capitalist Infidel]

If you think that's funny here is a drunken Kennedy singing in Spanish.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2085.html

[bloodrage bob]

so bush stumbles over words and is castigated by liberals as "inarticulate". ted kennedy stumbles over *many many* words - usually, because he's drunk as a lord - and is portrayed by liberals as "articulate". ted kennedy fights for alternate energy sources, except for those that might inconvenience HIM. ("you don't understand! *I* sail there!" - ted kennedy, explaining his opposition to wind farms off cape cod)(that's an actual quote, btw) naaaah, you're right, nowinkie: no double standard THERE.

this is why we live in a country where political debate no longer exists: because the left has abandoned tying their speech to reality. why bother arguing with gibbering idiots who make up reality ("ted kennedy is articulate and thin!" "george bush is clumsy and fat!") as they go along?

[nowingker]

The difference is that Bush is ALWAYS inarticulate, and has rarely if ever given a good speech, whereas Ted Kennedy has given many good even great speeches during his career.

Bloodrage is further proof of my point about no debate occuring just attacks.

As far as abandoning reality...well, sure, how could I forget that gay marriage is going to ruin this country and must be stopped, that despite all surveys to the contrary, abstinance only education is a rousing success and that despite even our own watered down benchmarks not being met, that the Iraq war is a rousing success as well.

Wingers are post-reality, nothing ever changes their minds, no amount of statistics, studies, surveys, statements, videotapes or any other kind of evidence ever changes their minds about anything.

[bloodrage bob]

...this from the same folks who cover their ears and cry "that doesn't matter" when asked about ted kennedy's role in mary jo's death. or his pampered, paid-for-by-daddy ivy league education. or his blatant hypocrisy in re cape cod wind farms. etc etc etc. but noooooo: nowinkie tells us the problem is with *right-wingers* refusing to change their minds.

jeebus, nowinkie: do you even READ the garbage you type in?

[nowingker]

I suppose Dubya got his Ivy league education all on his own, is that it? I suppose his family money didn't get him every job he ever had either?

[bloodrage bob]

no, nowinkie, i'm sure dad's connections are what got bush his ivy league education. dad got him in, just as joe kennedy got HIS sons - joe, jack, bobby, and teddy - into THEIR ivy league colleges. i'll be the first to say bush didn't get in because of an ivy league mind - but neither did any of the kennedy boys. neither did al gore, for that matter. his daddy was a senator, remember?

the problem is, the left never bitches about the kennedy/gore boys getting in unfairly. just bush. that's what us *intellectually honest* people call "having a hypocritical double standard". or, just to make it quicker and less cumbersome, we usually just shorten it to "leftism".

[nowingker]

I guess then unless we're debating the worthiness of legacy admissions or whether the sons of rich men should be prevented from entering politics, you don't have much of a point.

[Brucie]

( to expose the lies Bush is telling about Iran and the great progress we've made in Iraq.)

I'm glad you recognize the "great progress" we've made in Iraq, can you elaborate on the "lies" the president is telling about Iran, or are you just saying stuff you can't really back up with factual information?

[Capitalist Infidel]

Let's not forget that Kennedy was also kicked out of college for having someone else take a test for him.

[seekeronos]

There really is no conundrum here between the Bush Dynasty and the Kennedy Dynasty:

Both are extremely wealthy families that put their respective scions thru Ivy League schools; both are up to their ears in various crimes, sins, and affairs, the likes of which would probably see any normal citizen -- if found guilty of such -- put away for quite a long time.

Both are on the upwind side of the misappropriated, but nonetheless accurate, and realistic, application of the Golden Rule:

"He that hath the Gold, maketh the Rules"

...as well as its all-too-important corollary:

"He that hath the Gold, is not subject to the same Rules he maketh".

Both of these also operate within those bounds of the Great Game of Politics, under whose illusory, gossamer and rotting wings we do pretend to a Republic in this decaying and wicked age.

It would be a rare day indeed, that a holder of the Gold be so constrained by his Rules, that he be held to account, and even punished thereby.

[bloodrage bob]

no, nowinkie, you peabrained mouthbreathing halfwit obtuse dung-for-brains, my POINT (as you well know, pretend otherwise as you may) is that leftist swine who squeal "spoiled ivy league legacy brat" at bush while dully ignoring the fact the kennedys and the gores are even *worse* offenders .... bush got better grades than gore. bush didn't have to cheat like teddy did. bush didn't flunk out of post-grad education, like stupid gore did ....

pretending not to notice democrats wallowing in the same bad behavior you complain of republicans engaging in is HYPOCRISY. (or, "liberalism").

it was bad enough when you clowns were merely *stupid*. now that you've decided to embrace clintonian intellectual dishonesty as a *policy tactic*, you're even more contemptible. say hi to slender sober swimmer teddy, won't ya?

[LOL]

"the problem is, the left never bitches about the kennedy/gore boys getting in unfairly. just bush. that's what us *intellectually honest* people call "having a hypocritical double standard". or, just to make it quicker and less cumbersome, we usually just shorten it to "leftism"."

Bob, here's a difference, Gore actually served in Vietnam, while his father was ardently opposed to the war.

Bush got a cushy no risk military job with a war supporting father.

These are facts

[templar knight]

Yeah, and here's some more facts for you, LOL. Gore got a cushy non-combat, low-risk job in Vietnam, by lying about his newspaper experience. I guess you forgot about those facts.

I'm not defending Bush here, just pointing out how influence keeps just about all kids of wealthy parents out of combat. Just so you know, the rich Democrats are just as guilty, so don't get all swollen up about Gore and his service.