{"id":14300,"date":"2018-02-16T15:18:27","date_gmt":"2018-02-16T21:18:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/?p=14300"},"modified":"2018-02-16T15:18:27","modified_gmt":"2018-02-16T21:18:27","slug":"the-frustration-of-the-closed-mind-ctd-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2018\/02\/16\/the-frustration-of-the-closed-mind-ctd-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Frustration Of The Closed Mind, Ctd"},"content":{"rendered":"

My conservative friend replies concerning the closed mind<\/a>. I’ll intersperse comments:<\/p>\n

\n

If the media as truth seekers is silly, then why have a free press at all? Is it all so ridiculous to seek a\u00a0media which transmits the full facts of a situation, and purveys clearly labeled editorial content as well?\u00a0That stories are told is both undeniable and highly desirable, given how most human minds function,\u00a0but the best are fully informed by all the facts, and if they suggest a certain point of view over another,\u00a0they should do so in a manner testable by the common audience.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n

The identification of certain past stories as defective and even malevolent, whether they\u2019re from the\u00a0Fox News\u00a0of today or by the yellow journalists of WR Hearst encouraging the\u00a0Spanish-American War\u00a0does nothing to evaluate the contention under examination; \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

… we may fall short, but we should\u00a0continue to strive for that perfection we so happily envision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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?)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nor am I suggesting that anyone but the people<\/em> do the (metaphorical) censoring. But I am suggesting that careful evaluation of evidence, such as that provided by Bruce Bartlett<\/a>, is in order.<\/p>\n

\n

However, it\u2019s critical to differentiate between\u00a0defective\u00a0and\u00a0malevolent. The former, so long as it\u2019s\u00a0recognized as a problem and processes are developed to remediate and remove defective stories, are\u00a0of limited concern \u2013 and if those responses are not undertaken, I should hope the publication is\u00a0deserted by its readers and soon shutters its doors.<\/p>\n

But I worry about the deliberately malevolent stories, as we often see them today. The specialized\u00a0technician, by which I mean\u00a0journalist, has the tools to recognize such stories for what they are.\u00a0Organizations such as\u00a0Media Matters\u00a0are in fact specializing such work (although it\u2019s a poor example,\u00a0as they apparently only watch conservative media, rather than all media, which I would prefer).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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?<\/p>\n

\n

But the general audience? I honestly belief that the average audience member does not have the\u00a0capacity to search out and absorb the information necessary to form judgments about media stories.\u00a0We are not rational creatures, after all, merely creatures capable of rationality; many of us are\u00a0controlled by our emotions, which can be deliciously played on by stories in the media written by actors\u00a0who want specific reactions. That these actors are not acting as ethical journalists is not and should not\u00a0be expected by members of the\u00a0free press.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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

\n

…We (for the most part)\u00a0believe that our system is best, and so we broadcast it, clearly labeled, and we believe there\u2019s is\u00a0antithetical to ours. Since then we\u2019ve seen the Soviet Union collapse, but now Russia attempts to\u00a0meddle in our system\u00a0without attribution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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?<\/p>\n

And, incidentally, there was no duty to tell the truth as we saw it. VOA<\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

\n

And, yes, many nations prohibit private American citizens and public American servants from meddling\u00a0in their politics, as I suspect do we. Whether it\u2019s right or wrong is another question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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)<\/p>\n

What are you suggesting be done?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

\n

…Russian meddling had no motivation for quality,\u00a0because quality would ill-serve their goals; the audience merely had to be convinced that the \u201cnews\u201d is\u00a0true when it\u2019s not. A malevolent agency backed by government funding is on a different playing field.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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?<\/p>\n

\n

\u2022\u00a0As part of educating the voters and enhancing their diligence, the Mueller investigation is not mis-guided \u2013 it\u2019s critical.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Ummmmm, sure. FOIA<\/strong><\/em> refers to information that is written down; investigations often dig information out of people. I think suggesting that FOIA<\/em><\/strong> is sufficient is a delusion.<\/p>\n

And the suggestion that we run across crimes during the investigation to better educate the public – or at least Congress – and then not prosecute them is appalling.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u2026 old WC also responsible for the\u00a0Gallipoli Campaign\u00a0during\u00a0World War I, an awful disaster for the Allies, so I try not to mistake WC for being particularly wise \u2013 just\u00a0very quotable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

WC was wise. Careful with the Gallipoli history. Not everyone agrees that it was WC’s fault.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On the scale of Gallipoli, fault is always<\/i> 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.<\/p>\n

\n

That said, the close reporting on the President, the investigations, the recognition of the closure of the\u00a0conservative mind and its manipulation by malevolent actors and the attempts to break those closures,\u00a0this is all part of the Americans trying to do the Right Thing. It\u2019s what I worry about and gnaw on and\u00a0worry the rest of us might also be attracted to such closed ways of thinking \u2013\u00a0…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/b><\/i> 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u00a0media which transmits the full facts of a situation, and purveys clearly labeled editorial content as \u2026 Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14300"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14303,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14300\/revisions\/14303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}