Rampell: Do you know that there actually was bipartisan legislation intended to to increase our fentanyl detection technologies at the border. And trump killed it.
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 27, 2024
Jennings: You keep fighting these old battles. Donald Trump won.. Mexico has to do something.
Rampell: They have… pic.twitter.com/szaKgKSuGI
This is why I think cable news is basically worthless: someone like Scott Jennings (it could be so many other GOP mouthpieces, though) will argue something that is either based in sheer ignorance (possible) or they HAVE TO know better than, but this is the GOP line and their "job" is to defend it. The networks can argue that they are doing this for "balance"--but that's not what it is. They are airing out a position that is basically absurd with no penalty for either lying or being as dumb as a stump.
I used to go back and forth with myself about this kind of representation, especially at the top of the Bush years. Is it ignorance, is it lying, and what's worse?
And the answer is: what does it matter? If a position is completely detached from facts, it just is bad. Donald Trump winning an election doesn't change the facts of what is happening at the at the border with Mexico any more than George W. Bush winning affected whether invading Iraq over WMD's (dumb--or lying?) was a good idea.
The above format at least allows pushback and factchecking. But some viewers are still getting the impression that these points of view are equal or should be considered with equal weight.
The hell they are.
I've wondered about how things work on 'the other side of the street", so to speak, when Jessica Tarlov or Pete Buttigieg drop some facts on the Fox News audience. I can't speak to their effectiveness, and I wonder if it looks to a person with liberal or well-informed sensibilities like they are a more effective spokesperson than they actually are because what they say resonates in a way it doesn't to the general audience of that network--
Because there's an impression that we just have Both Sides being aired. And if one side is outnumbered...regardless of the facts? Well, you can dispense with that argument. It lost. It was outnumbered. It might even work like an inoculation against adopting the fact-based view--the hearer is aware the fact-based view exists. They heard it. But all things being equal, why take up for it?
I guess what I'm saying is, so many hours of opinion-based chatter are probably rotting out our brains and account for why critical thinking is so screwed in this country. People need to read newspapers.
People need to read, period.
1 comment:
jeebus, where to begin? with the talking heads, I have to believe it is preponderantly bad faith. wrong headed as most of their positions are, they still resonate with, oh, say, 40-some percent of the right wing base. bad faith is simply the tip of the spear of ignorance. unfortunately that spear carries much power with it, a fact very well known to the bad faith contingent.
even TIFG is aware to this, witness his quip about loving the poorly educated. it's often said the republicans play the long game, and I believe that is true. the wealthy can afford to do this because the election of administrations with ideals counter to their own affects them little. it is certainly not in their interest to educate their voters, since know-nothings are easily swayed by populist positions designed to elevate them above those they perceive as 'looking down on them'. conservatives is basically a lazy position to take, as it requires no effort, only faith-based reasoning. no work involved, just belief. how do you counteract that?
far more rewarding for too many to ride around rolling coal, than sit home and read a book. who ever owned a lib that way?
Post a Comment