Replies

A common defense of error today is to say, with due indignation, "I have a right to my opinion!" Legally this is true, given that our First Amendment is extant. But as G.K. Chesterton once said, "Having the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it." There is no moral right to an immoral opinion -- nor to one bred of emotionalism unconstrained by reason -- nor to a deceitful one.

The trouble is that journalists and Democratic politicians arrogate to themselves the right to enforce their own brand of sophistry.
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.

philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
American conservatives are, in the etymological sense, "philosophers," and their opponents are, in the etymological sense, "sophists." For if you think about it, to get away with sophistry you need some sort of power advantage over your opponent in order to enforce your presumption. And in the passive acceptance of journalism's cynical perspective, "liberals" have precisely the requisite sort of advantage.

If this sounds dark and conspiratorial, know that it is the former but not the latter. In truth, what is so dangerous about the matrix media isn't so much that they're akin to a cabal of calculating sentient programs but that they cannot think outside the box themselves.

To the squeefs in the system this may be true, but in the hiring process for academic deans or editors and in the dissemination of talking points among editors there is definitely collaboration. It is instructive to see how fast stories are disseminated among competing networks and then presented in precisely the same construction and order. I used to enjoy flipping back and forth among radio channels to see if I could build a contiguous story; the "message" was that coherent. Over time, I came to recognize the "leaders" among MSM cadres. The editor at KCBS in San Francisco, Don Goldberg, is an evil genius at arranging bits of stories into a coherent leftist message.