The Frustration Of The Closed Mind, Ctd

My conservative friend replies concerning the closed mind. I’ll intersperse comments:

If the media as truth seekers is silly, then why have a free press at all? Is it all so ridiculous to seek a media which transmits the full facts of a situation, and purveys clearly labeled editorial content as well? That stories are told is both undeniable and highly desirable, given how most human minds function, but the best are fully informed by all the facts, and if they suggest a certain point of view over another, they should do so in a manner testable by the common audience.

The reason we have a free press is so we can have free expression, and a free marketplace of ideas. The good ones get traction, the bad ones get rejected. We rely on the good judgement of readers to separate the good from the bad.

And is the ‘good judgment’ rendered in a vacuum? Such was the point of my post – to suggest to the conservative reader that their favorite media may be mis-serving them.

I can buy the free expression argument for free press, but it’s a leap of faith to suggest that, in a vacuum, “The good ones get traction, the bad ones get rejected.” It assumes a natural rationality that does not exist. That’s why I want to pierce the vacuum and suggest that multiple sources of information are necessary for forming good judgments.

The identification of certain past stories as defective and even malevolent, whether they’re from the Fox News of today or by the yellow journalists of WR Hearst encouraging the Spanish-American War does nothing to evaluate the contention under examination; …

… we may fall short, but we should continue to strive for that perfection we so happily envision.

By all means, choose the news source you believe to be pleasing to your idea of “facts” and to what pleases you. That’s what free press is all about. Don’t suggest that some outlets should be censored, and others certified as “correct”. (and by whom?)

Nor am I suggesting that anyone but the people do the (metaphorical) censoring. But I am suggesting that careful evaluation of evidence, such as that provided by Bruce Bartlett, is in order.

However, it’s critical to differentiate between defective and malevolent. The former, so long as it’s recognized as a problem and processes are developed to remediate and remove defective stories, are of limited concern – and if those responses are not undertaken, I should hope the publication is deserted by its readers and soon shutters its doors.

But I worry about the deliberately malevolent stories, as we often see them today. The specialized technician, by which I mean journalist, has the tools to recognize such stories for what they are. Organizations such as Media Matters are in fact specializing such work (although it’s a poor example, as they apparently only watch conservative media, rather than all media, which I would prefer).

I fail to see the point of this separation. You have a right to choose your news sources. So does everyone else. Beyond that, what are you suggesting to “fix” the problem?

That people think more about their sources. When certain sources are deliberately used for attacks on the entire paradigm of free press, when certain services are vilified despite decades or more of honorable service, is it not worth using the free press (an awkward phrase, to be sure, in these days of digital) to suggest to the citizens who seem to be acting in an irrational manner that perhaps they should reconsider?

But the general audience? I honestly belief that the average audience member does not have the capacity to search out and absorb the information necessary to form judgments about media stories. We are not rational creatures, after all, merely creatures capable of rationality; many of us are controlled by our emotions, which can be deliciously played on by stories in the media written by actors who want specific reactions. That these actors are not acting as ethical journalists is not and should not be expected by members of the free press.

I am always disappointed when I see such condescending attitudes. Clearly *I* am smart and discriminating and can properly digest the results of a free press, but the unwashed masses are just not up to the task. Sorry, if that’s true, we should not have voters. Democratic principles are misguided. We should have a wise elite making decisions for us, because those unwashed masses should not be making major decisions, as they currently do.

Ah, yes, everyone’s an expert – or experts suck. I’ve discussed this problem before. Nevertheless, this has little to do with intelligence, and mostly to do with the pressure of time, not to mention lack of interest.

…We (for the most part) believe that our system is best, and so we broadcast it, clearly labeled, and we believe there’s is antithetical to ours. Since then we’ve seen the Soviet Union collapse, but now Russia attempts to meddle in our system without attribution.

Since when does anyone have control of all messages from all people? If our people are the judge of the quality of news gathering, as must be under a free press, why should foreigners be un-free, even hostile foreigners? Who will be the arbiter of who may speak and what he may say – domestic or foreign? When the USA did VOA and Radio Free Europe, we thought our free speech to the captive citizens of the communist world was more than a right. We saw it as a duty to tell them the truth as we saw it. The Soviet Union & pals worked hard to deny us the right to speak to their citizens, as all good totalitarian governments do. Should we become the Soviet Union, restricting the messages our citizens can receive from them? I think not.

Because foreigners, by definition, don’t have the best interests of America at heart. But if we do choose to permit them play in the field of the free press – or have it thrust upon us – how would my reader suggest they be identified as hostile players?

And, incidentally, there was no duty to tell the truth as we saw it. VOA et al were simply part of our quiver of arrows during the Cold War. To go further is to attribute sentimentality to government, a dubious assertion at best.

And, yes, many nations prohibit private American citizens and public American servants from meddling in their politics, as I suspect do we. Whether it’s right or wrong is another question.

I fail to see the difference between “meddling” and “propagandizing”, and “advertising” and “lobbying”. All boil down to speech. We believe speech should be free. We believe that we (Americans) have a right to hear messages from anyone – domestic or foreign. We do not believe that Americans are too stupid to make good judgements. (see above)

What are you suggesting be done?

First, clarify the remark. The reader confuses motivation with mechanism. Each of the four categories implies a separate motivation; that they can boil down to speech is irrelevant.

Second, I’m suggesting Americans work harder on not hearing speech that plays to their biases, and more to hear speech that gives complete facts – even uncomfortable facts. That was the basic point of my post.

…Russian meddling had no motivation for quality, because quality would ill-serve their goals; the audience merely had to be convinced that the “news” is true when it’s not. A malevolent agency backed by government funding is on a different playing field.

So lies backed by a big bullhorn are irresistable? Who decides what is “malevolent”? Speech is speech, and having a free press leaves people free to mislead and propagandize. That’s inescapable.

But it’d be lovely if we were deluding ourselves, no? Not being deluded by outsiders who, inescapably, do not have the best interests of the United States at heart?

• As part of educating the voters and enhancing their diligence, the Mueller investigation is not mis-guided – it’s critical.

The dueling media armed with FOIA should be able to dig up all relevant facts. If not, the FOIA and friends should be fixed. A special prosecutor does not produce an op-ed. A special prosecutor prosecutes – puts people in jail. A case of free speech should not put people in jail.

The very idea that the American electorate is not smart enough, or wise enough, to withstand a little propaganda should be insulting. Somehow, instead, we are little snowflakes totally snookered by those Russians, and our elites spring into action to “protect” us from those nasty Russians. Nonsense!

… old WC also responsible for the Gallipoli Campaign during World War I, an awful disaster for the Allies, so I try not to mistake WC for being particularly wise – just very quotable.

WC was wise. Careful with the Gallipoli history. Not everyone agrees that it was WC’s fault.

On the scale of Gallipoli, fault is always shared. WC saw a lot and thought a lot and had more than one talent. I enjoyed his history of the Duke of Marlborough, for example, although I don’t recall much about it, now (long time ago). Nevertheless, his statement isn’t something I’d base a philosophy on. It leads to a certain complacency. As an engineer, I’d like to minimize the revisiting of dead-ends.

That said, the close reporting on the President, the investigations, the recognition of the closure of the conservative mind and its manipulation by malevolent actors and the attempts to break those closures, this is all part of the Americans trying to do the Right Thing. It’s what I worry about and gnaw on and worry the rest of us might also be attracted to such closed ways of thinking – …

Be careful of the difference between facts and lies versus opinions. “My ideas are always better than yours.” and “I’m right and you have a closed mind” is the kind of thoughtless “tribalism” that the last article decried.

It is very seldom that a narrative does not have some grain of truth. Free expression allows us to explore all the musty corners of the intellectual and factual landscape to divine The Truth. What scares me is those self-appointed elites who declare other peoples opinions invalid rather than disputing them with their own logic and facts. The left is adroit in its demonization of people it finds inconvenient. The derisive sneer is its specialty. This should not become our standard method of political discussion.

I just call the progressives ‘smarty-pants’, but ‘derisive sneer’ is just as good. Did the right adopt the derisive sneer from the progressives, or vice-versa? I’m not sure.

My reader’s concern is my concern – applied mostly to the conservative “fake news”, “climate scientists are in a big [Chinese] conspiracy”, etc But it certainly applies to the left as well, though, as anyone reading The Daily Kos is aware. I’ve commented on my perception of the progressives’ communication skills – or lack thereof. And I don’t think the left, or at least the non-extreme left, has as much to worry me.