[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Republicans are just as good smearers of Democrats as [Democrats are of] Republicans. It's politics.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. In fact that's all you are entitled to, as far as information is concerned. Since you are entitled to your opinion and to listen to whoever you choose to and to ignore everyone/everything else, I have to be entitled to tell you fairy tales such as the conceit that I am objective. You can't sic the government on me for it; you just have to decide to ignore me if you decide I'm unreliable.

Or you can decide that I am reliable, and choose to pay attention to what I say; your choice.

But when you say, "a pox on both their houses" you are saying that neither side tells the truth - which may not be the best that a liar can hope for if someone is trying to tell you the truth, but it's better than if you believe the truth to the exclusion of the lie. In a sense it's deciding not to have an opinion because sorting out conflicting claims makes your brain hurt.

For myself I take the arbitrator's viewpoint. If I say, "the truth must lie in the middle," all I am doing is destroying all incentive for either party to tell the truth. The bigger the whopper that they tell me, the more they tug "the middle" their way - and the other side just replies in kind if only in self defense. And that is my argument against "moderate" trust in splitting the difference.

I just have to run the risk of straining my brain in order to associate my opinion with the side that is closer to the truth. My analysis of the propaganda war is that journalism is the pilot fish of liberalism, that celebrities typically are in over their heads in a serious analysis of global warming claims and suchlike, and that celebrities - including individual journalists - therefore mouth what they know journalism will not attack.

The perspective of journalism is negative and superficial because journalism is the mass production of cheap talk - second guessing and easy (but unsustainable) answers. The resulting facile perspective is called (in America) "liberalism." And all you do to be a liberal politician is to count on the resulting propaganda wind to propel you to electoral victory. It's all just a matter of never showing courage.

Let us all now praise Richard Clarke (CLARKE KNEW! Not.)
WorldNetDaily.com | Friday, March 26, 2004 | Bill Press

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why did 911 succeed? It succeeded because America did not believe that it would be tried - that is, because it was too far "outside the box." I say, "America" because that flawed opinion was so pervasive that the few people who had the correct opinion could not change airline security policy enough to prevent 911 (and had it been otherwise, the Gore commission of airline security would have actually done something about airline security). Indeed with 911 behind us it is open to question whether America has sufficiently incorporated its lesson on a systemic basis.

America has to have leadership to incorporate "lessons learned." But the president is not the only leader in the country. The president does have what was famously called "a bully pulpit" - but who can honestly state that on a day-to-day basis his pulpit equals that of Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, et. al.? At some point the question has to be asked whether journalism bears any responsibility for leadership. As distinguished from second guessing and incessantly crying, "Wolf!"

The question to be asked is, "How many questions did reporters ask the candidates about airline security during the 2000 presidential campaign?" But the prior question - the vexation par excellence of American politics - is, "Who asks reporters tough questions?" Only FNC, talk radio and the Internet - and the reporters are well able to "give as good as they get" in that exchange. "Objective" journalism is after all published on radio (on talk stations and on all other formats) and on the Internet as well as on television and in newspapers.

There is a huge disparity in PR power between commentators who admit to being more likely to note the faults of liberals than those of conservatives on the one hand, and the PR power of those who are adamantly and selfrighteously reject any label or critique of their own perspective on the other. Yet because of its institutional perspective which hypes novelty, journalism is sensitive to superficial and negative news and self-blinded to the long run interests of society - much as a view through a magnifying glass makes it easy to see the small things but prevents one from seeing things which are obvious to the naked eye.

Because of this blinkered perspective "objective journalism" as an institution is systematically hostile to conservatism and friendly to liberalism. Indeed the phenomenon of liberal politics can be viewed as nothing more than the unprincipled and demagaugic exploitation of the anticonservative perspective of "objective" journalism. This tendentiousness is so pervasive as to call into question the very legitimacy of journalism on licensed broadcast media.

Dems playing with fire
Boston Herald | 3/31/04 | Boston Herald editorial staff