Terribly Biased Reporting.
Sep. 8th, 2004 02:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swestrupI just came across a mention on Slashdot of Project Censored which claims that its mission is "to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and why." This all sounds laudable enough, as most of the world is well aware of how badly censored American media is. Canadian media is somewhat better, but only somewhat.
That said, a quick look at their list of "Censored" stories for 2005 shows a very strong bias in their reporting. (I also find it fascinating that they've declared 2004 to be already over, while there's still a full third of it left.) If you look at the individual articles, you see deceptive reporting practices, exactly the sort of thing they are supposedly railing against.
Lets take one example. In the #1 story in their list "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy", they are beating a dead horse that I already discussed in one of my essays. The only reasons to promote their particular point of view is either 1) Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of economic facts, or 2) A desire to deceive. I was curious as to which it was, so I started reading. I had my answer by the third paragraph, which I will quote verbatim, to save you the effort of looking it up:
The blatant deception here clearly indicates that its the second case If its not immediately obvious to you, sentence #1 states that the poor are getting richer, while sentence #2 pretends to disagree but does nothing of the kind! Sentence #2 only says that the percentage of the total worlds wealth controlled by the poor is decreasing. This actually supports the conention in the first sentence (as explained in my essay), but is worded in such a way as to seem to be a refutation of it. This is not something that can happen by accident. Anyone who has access to the numbers needed to generate sentences #1 and #2 has all the data they need to see the actual increase in the wealth of the poor. Instead, they decided to use deceptive reporting practices to attempt to fool their readers.
Since this is the #1 article on a website supposedly dedicated to bringing truth back into journalism, I can only conclude that the entire website is dedicated to the dissemination of a particular brand of American "Liberal" propaganda.
That said, a quick look at their list of "Censored" stories for 2005 shows a very strong bias in their reporting. (I also find it fascinating that they've declared 2004 to be already over, while there's still a full third of it left.) If you look at the individual articles, you see deceptive reporting practices, exactly the sort of thing they are supposedly railing against.
Lets take one example. In the #1 story in their list "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy", they are beating a dead horse that I already discussed in one of my essays. The only reasons to promote their particular point of view is either 1) Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of economic facts, or 2) A desire to deceive. I was curious as to which it was, so I started reading. I had my answer by the third paragraph, which I will quote verbatim, to save you the effort of looking it up:
During the short boom of the late 1990s, conservative analysts asserted that, yes, the gap between rich and poor was growing, but that incomes for the poor were still increasing over previous levels. Today most economists, regardless of their political persuasion, agree that the data over the last 25 to 30 years is unequivocal. The top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground, and the highly touted American middle class is fast disappearing.
The blatant deception here clearly indicates that its the second case If its not immediately obvious to you, sentence #1 states that the poor are getting richer, while sentence #2 pretends to disagree but does nothing of the kind! Sentence #2 only says that the percentage of the total worlds wealth controlled by the poor is decreasing. This actually supports the conention in the first sentence (as explained in my essay), but is worded in such a way as to seem to be a refutation of it. This is not something that can happen by accident. Anyone who has access to the numbers needed to generate sentences #1 and #2 has all the data they need to see the actual increase in the wealth of the poor. Instead, they decided to use deceptive reporting practices to attempt to fool their readers.
Since this is the #1 article on a website supposedly dedicated to bringing truth back into journalism, I can only conclude that the entire website is dedicated to the dissemination of a particular brand of American "Liberal" propaganda.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 10:51 am (UTC)On the other hand, the propaganda on ALL sides of the fence is thick, and I've seen as much of it on the Libertarian front as on the Liberal or the Conservative ones. None of these movements are guiltless in my books. Partly this is due to the way that partisan politics works in the US, and partly it is due to the failure of the education system to teach critical thinking and/or rhetoric.
This is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to any of these political camps.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 07:13 pm (UTC)and then argue for it. That doesn't mean you can't learn while you are
at it. Although some things that many people who call themselves
libertarians espouse are wrong according to my best reckoning, I've
identified a core concept which *should* be argued for, and the
libertarians are clearly groping towards that core concept: it is
that initiation of direct injury against individuals should be prohibited, where direct injury means taking of property or bodily coercion or harm. A corollary is that initiation of direct injury
should not be committed in order to attempt to rectify situations
in which people are being indirectly disadvantaged. For example,
it's not going to help us as downsized tech workers and as people,
for the government to erect all sorts of trade barriers to prevent
businesses from outsourcing overseas.
I have to disagree that the libertarians are guilty of as much
propaganda* (defined as lies or distortions) as other parties, not
even percapita, although I certainly have seen such from those who
sympathize with them. A balanced viewpoint is not acquired from
an apriori assumption that all viewpoints are equal. This, too, is
bias. I have as a concise political theory my principle that I just
stated in its entirety, and I haven't seen anything to disprove it
yet. You should subscribe to the libertarian area, not because you
should become an unthinking follower, but because they could go in
the right direction if you get on board and make sure they do so.
*If you define propaganda as political statements and exhortation,
the libertarians may be contributing their weight in it. The practical definition of propaganda (given the way people use the
word today) is that is a swear word meaning that the political exhortations that the swearer doesn't like are bad. A historical
definition is that propaganda is political exhortation designed to
convince people of a viewpoint regardless of the truth. The times
I've seen libertarians do that, they didn't really have to in order
to make their point and be in the right.
-Jim
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 07:22 pm (UTC)groping", but it obviously got interpreted as an attempt at HTML
and got swallowed. See my website for more explanation as to how
you can see that the libertarians are "clearly groping" towards
my principle (which I call the EP, or Enabling Principle) because
it enables decision-making as to what laws are good and which
are bad, and constitutes a big piece, but not all, of the
libertarian view. (http://www.geocities.com/forpropertyrights).
The EP is a take-off from the NIF principle (Non-Initiation of Force),
which has limited political applicability and is a smaller piece
of the libertarian view, as can be understood by looking at all
the things libertarians in general have been saying -- see my site.
-Jim
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 07:28 pm (UTC)defensiveness, not to figure out and advocate a position derived from
your best determinations. Progress is made by creating theories,
disproving them and making better theories out of the ashes of
the old.
-Jim
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 11:01 am (UTC)I feel compelled to point out that you recognize the
value of generalizing in other areas (noteably in some of
your other recent journal entries), yet you avoid doing
this in the political area. Have you noticed this in
yourself? You do bring up specific points with great fire
and vigour.
It's understandable that you want to avoid "WWIII"; it's
the same reason why History is so awfully boring in school:
they can't start a discussion of the real issues, because
they often still matter, and huge fights could result. For
example, one kid might remark that his father said that some
other kid's father is an idiot, and it would get back to
that other kid's father, and you can see where it would go
from there. Better to just teach the dry dates and facts
and let the poor kids be bored silly.
If this assumption of mine is incorrect, I'd like to see
your thoughts on the matter.
-Jim
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 09:29 pm (UTC)Of course, to answer that annoying little man who tends
to pop up the first time he hears this and says "But
wasn't freeing the slaves taking property away from its
owners?", I'd like to point out the principle of
equality for all persons under the law and to emphasize
consistency. Also, the threat of initiation of direct
injury is on an equal status with its commission. It
might also help to clarify what constitutes property --
something that is owned. This makes my EP:
Initiation of threats or the commission of direct
injury against a person must be consistently prohibited
-- where direct injury means taking of property or
bodily harm or coercion, and property includes monetary
property, real estate, moveable items, the terms of
voluntary contracts, intellectual property, and an
individual's record of his achievements (if I didn't
miss anything).
Tech workers know that a little redundancy improves
communication -- and the core statement is still quite
concise.
This rules out fraud, for example, and slavery, since
slavery occurs when some people have property rights
and others do not. Valid corporate rights are also
protected, since, after all, corporations are owned by
individual people.
Since all laws are based on the threat of bodily
coercion against some individual (that's what it boils
down to -- think about it), the above means that the
proper domain of law is only the area in which threats
or the commission of direct injury against a person has
already been initiated. The EP rules out taxation just
like it rules out "protection" extorted by gangs, of
any name.
-Jim