Posted on 06/23/2006 10:52:47 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
There are two, regular participants on Fox News who are so predictable and strident in public lying to push their political issues that the instant they appear I now hit the channel change button. I won’t name them. I’m sure all readers have their own list of talking heads on TV who are so dishonest, so obnoxious, you have the same reaction to them – turn them off immediately.
Last weekend saw “Spamalot!” on Broadway. Thinking about it afterward, I realized that lyrics from one of the greatest musicals ever, explained what is happening among the talking heads recruited from usual stables to say the usual things.
The musical is “West Side Story,” and the lyrics are from the opening number by the Jets gang: “When you're a Jet, / You're a Jet all the way / From your first cigarette / To your last dyin' day....”
Consider what happens on any public issue on any talk show. Producers go into their Rolodex and round up, to seem “fair,” one Republican and one Democrat to “debate” the issue. But what actually happens when they give air time to these people? They “answer” every question with the same mantra their side is currently selling in Congress, in the press, and on the blogosphere.
The participants – both Republican and Democrat – talk past each other. Both ignore the facts of the matter, unless the facts by happenstance are useful. When they aren’t useful, they are aggressively ignored. No real debate takes place. People who listen to these taunting matches emerge dumber than at the beginning. As Mark Twain said of a lamp in a poor boarding house out West, “It shed a gloom.”
I’m not telling you anything you don’t know. You’ve seen equally uninformative “debates” a thousand times over, on hundreds of shows. It’s one of the reasons I refuse to watch any of the Sunday talk shows any more. Those attract the A-team of liars – ones who can speak whole paragraphs that seem to discuss the subject at hand. But these are veterans in the business of avoiding the great error. They never, ever, “commit news.”
Let’s apply this to a subject that will remain on the front burner for years to come, the war against terror. Specifically, why did we go into Iraq? From the answer to that question stems the “legitimacy” of the war, and whether and how and how long it should be prosecuted.
Under the Constitution, it is the business of Congress alone, to “declare war.” Contrary to many assertions on the news and the Internet, Congress did declare war. Here’s what it said in the Joint Resolution of Congress, folded into the Patriot Act, and repeated a year later:
There are 24 whereas clauses in this Resolution on reasons for the “authorization to use military force.” Before anyone raises the bugaboo that this is not “a declaration of war,” the authority given by Congress to President Bush in 2001 and 2002 is nearly identical that given to President Jefferson, two centuries before, about the Barbary Pirates.
Here are the causus belli which Congress declared: See how many you have ever heard discussed in Congress, in the press, or on TV talk shows –
That Iraq did not abide the conditions of the cease fire in Gulf War I after Iraq’s troops were forcibly removed from Kuwait. That Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and plans to develop nuclear weapons. That Iraq forced out the international inspectors charged with the task of affirming that Iraq’s weapons programs had been ended.
That Iraq was in continuing violation of UN Resolutions, including by brutal repression of its civilian population. That Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction (chemical warfare) against its own citizens and those of other nations. That Iraq attempted to assassinate former President Bush, and on thousands of occasions had fired on coalition aircraft. That members of Al Qaida were known to be in Iraq, and Iraq harbored and supported other terrorist organizations as well.
That Iraq was likely to provide whatever weapons of mass destruction it had, or developed, to terrorist organizations for use against the United States. That Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 with the ultimate conclusion that the regime in Iraq must be changed.
This clause deserves quotation, word for word: “Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations,...”
And yet, the public mantra is that the war was solely justified by the presence of weapons of mass destruction (which, it turns out, were found), and nothing else.
So, what is going on here? The producers of TV talk shows deliberately select partisan spokesmen to spout predicable and contrary slogans, rather than using knowledgeable people who will tell the truth as best they know it and let the chips fall where they may. The sloganeers are merely members of competing tribes, existing mostly to oppose each other. The great purpose of these people is tribal loyalty, nothing more.
As the song says, “You're never alone, / You're never disconnected! / You're home with your own: / When company's expected, / You're well protected!” This sort of thinking is the very antithesis of any attempt to broadcast the news – first the facts, and then the consequences that follow from those facts.
“Then you are set / With a capital J, / Which you'll never forget / Till they cart you away. / When you're a Jet, / You stay a Jet!” When will news producers realize that this ain’t news?
Post Script: Here’s the source for all these congressional whereas clauses on the basis for the war. See for yourselves that the politicians, press, and talking heads on TV are all lying through their teeth about the reasons for initiating this war.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a lawyer specializing in constitutional law, who may again be a candidate for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
John / Billybob
Bumpitttt.
Those were the first two who came to my mind. :) Good article. Hearing the rhetoric over and over gets boring. The same trite phrases. Commit news? God forbid they should do that, but how wonderfully refreshing when someone does! Unfortunately, it's like signing up for a radio contest, then having to listen 24/7 for your name.
I do think, however (and I know I'm biased), that Republicans tend to be more open to honest debate than Democrats. And this gets us into trouble.
Republicans have actual plans, ideas, and philosophies. We have principles. We also have some confidence in these things. So, we trot them out, and even if they aren't perfect, they are at least superior to the non-ideas of the Democrats. Then, during a debate, if a Democrat points out a flaw, a Republican might possibly (in a moment of civility) shrug and say, "You have a valid point there." At which moment the Democrat will clap their hands and shout, "He admits his whole plan is a ploy to win tax breaks for the rich!!" and the host of the show will nod sagely and say, "These Republican talking points that you're trying to pass off as the truth, do they originate with Karl Rove?"
The other side is when the Democrats mock Bush for believing he has been Perfect and without sin for the entire adminsitration. "C'mon!", they say. "Won't you admit to making ANY errors at ALL??" And if a Republican concedes that perhaps something didn't go quite right, then -- again -- the Democrat will clap their hands and shout "Even HE admits the fact that the whole thing has been a a debacle from the beginning!!"
I think your overall point is that honest debate no longer exists on TV. I think that's true. I think that both parties are culpable, but I think the Democrats are to blame for setting a tone which makes civility a self-defeating exercise.
You certainly make a valuable point. No doubt about it.
I agree with you. Those two liars disgrace Fox News.
You know, it's funny. I like the "Beltway Boys", so I used to routinely watch the show that followed: "NewsWatch".
The name "NewsWatch" led me to hope that the panel would criticize irresponsible actions by the media. Although THAT would be an interesting and socially beneficial show, "NewsWatch" just could never deliver on that promise. It kept being distracted by NG's cheap-shots, smears and deliberate lies.
Finally, when Tony Snow accepted the job as Press Secretary, NG took a cheap-shot at him. I decided that was the last straw for me.
First, I stopped watching "NewsWatch". In time, I stopped watching the "Beltway Boys". Then I started tuning out "Fox & Friends First" and finally stopped watching Fox's evening programs.
IMHO, it is not "fair & balanced" to "balance" truth with lies, or to "balance" a gentleman like Cal Thomas with a nasty cheap-shot artist like NG.
Whoever is putting these wild partisans into Fox's schedule is certainly not doing Fox any favors.
.
I would consider Alan Colmes as a must have on your list. I used to think he was merely deluded, but over the past year or two have come to the conclusion that he knowingly does what he does. Maliciously.
"..two most obnoxious frequent guests..."
a good start, but the list can be long, especially for a "right wing" network. Wes and Kalb do me in, too.
You forgot to mention the fact that when the "conservative" tries to mention any of the enumerated points, he/she is immediately interupted by the host/moderator, while the lib (usually in plural), slaps his/her hands over their ears and starts screaming, "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", or claims that these points were never made in their alternate universe.
This results in "conservatives" having to continue trying to speak through and past the barrage of noise.
On the Conservative side, "non-response" is usually "dis-belief" that anyone could ask the kind of stupid and inane questions that are usually thrown at them. Most of which are engineered along the lines of, "just when did you stop beating your wife? Hmmm?"
This, I believe, is the underlying reason behind the problem you so ably point out. It is also why I have given up watching these shows myself.
Many (most?)liberals, if not outrightly insane, are so consumed by their ideology as to be beyond reason and rational discussion of facts.
I completely agree. The man is so insufferable I can rarely make it through more than 15-20 minute of the show before I have toswitch channels and let my blood pressure come down. He one of the few talking heads I would actually like to do physical harm to. A little old fashioned "wall-to-wall counseling."
bump.
I think Al Franken already tried to do physical harm to him. A a talk radio dinner, iirc.
Even Algor picked on Colmes as "not being a liberal". To his face, yet, while Colmes had the kneepads strapped on for a
one on one interview.
The neocons on Brit Hume's show, with the Bush lockstep on illegal immigration, really put a damper on my ability
to watch any commentary. There's no sanity remaining in the left or right commentators. Or I should say, the little
that is has been lost in the untenable slew of talking points.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.