From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2005 - 16:35:09 GMT
All,
There are many articles debunking the so-called "scholarship" by examining the
methodology and conclusions of these MRC articles. (For example,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/07/12_mrc.html).
> But, what have you to say about their reports? Rejecting reports because
> the author has a bias is a form of ad hominem since every author has a
> bias. Such judgment reflects the "kill the messenger" syndrome so common
> on the left.
A typical "rightist" ad-hominem slander of the left. This "kill the messenger
syndrome" (as Platt calls it) is not a left/right problem, but a problem among
all who are not engaging their critical thinking skills.
You will notice the underlying desire to forge semantic relationships between
"left" and the various maladies such as "ad-hominem" and in this case "kill the
messenger syndrome". We are supposed to begin assuming that these dirty-tactics
are "leftist" and stand in opposition to genuine, objective, rational discourse
of the "right".
I think most readers of this forum are able to see this dichotomy for what it
is: illusory and focused on power-entrechment.
The "media bias" myth is simply another one of these dialetic tricks. The hope
is to paint the words of "liberals" as "deceitful and misleading", oriented
towards deception and full of propaganda. While at the same time supporting
unabashedly the objective and never-flawed reporting of the right. Indeed, the
battle is polar, and not between left-wing and right-wing bias, but as Platt
(and others like the MRC) depict it, between left-wing bias and objective
reporting.
It is key to see the manipulative language here. To note the near ubiquitous
association in Platt's post of "leftist" and some form of trickery or
ad-hominem tactics. It is key to note that in all these posts, "left or liberal
bias" is demeaned, dismissed and otherwise said to be deceptive, while "right
wing bias" is accepted not even as a problematic bias, but as an objective,
reasoned responsed to those "leftists".
I have been trying to get Platt to see that a "liberal" or "conservative" bias
in the media is an illusive distinction. As Ant, Mark and others have
repeatedly pointed out, the media is "commericial", and as such is "biased"
towards only entrenched power structures. For all examples of so-called
"liberal bias", I have tried to show that there are just as many "conservative
bias" examples to counter. But this has had one false premise. Namely, the idea
that "right wing bias" was even possible in the conservative dialogue. When the
media attacked Clinton, it was objective, fair and responding to adequate
facts. When it attacks Bush it is deceitful, lying liberals seeking to smear
the president. I made the mistake of trying to demonstrate a
"left-wing/right-wing" polarization, when in fact the debate ends at
"left-wing/truth" polarizations.
Platt can never be critical of the MRC, because "by virtue" of being
conservative it is objective, fair and would never use deceptive reasonsing or
promote biased articles. Conversely, Platt will never accept as "valid" any
critical analysis of the MRC, because "by virtue" of oppopsing conservativism
(and hence, being "liberal") these analysis are by definition deceitful,
manipulative, leftist propaganda.
>
> Again, note the ad hominem "average barfly." Leftists just can't seem to
> help themselves when it comes to leveling insults at individuals and
> groups they disagree with.
Again, notice the semantic desire to force a relationship between "leftists" and
"leveling insults". The true statement would be: People just can't seem to help
themselves when it comes to leveling insults at individuals and groups they
disagree with. But by forcing the "leftist" distinction, the desire is to
conversely make it appear "rightists" would never do such a thing.
To sum, I wouldn't waste my time with the efforts of the MRC. If they want to
spend all their energy pursuing some illusion, let them. What we should do is
focus on the problems of the "commercial media", and be vigilant and aggressive
against political propaganda of any kind.
Wait, err... that's what you've all been saying. Guess I need to refocus as
well. :-)
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2005 - 17:00:34 GMT