From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 09:22:13 GMT
Well said Arlo, I've tried to make the same point ...
Little quotes from media and literature in the outside world of
geo-political complexity can get us nowhere, other than mired in politics.
What you YOU think, and why, personal experience is much more constructive.
Outside references shoud be for information and education, not authority.
Authority is in the quality of the argument, not the source.
As Searle says in his latest book - every philosophy established enough to
be an "ism" is false.
Ooops sorry, not that he's an authority on this matter :-)
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: MD Quality and Bias In Commercial Media
> 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
>
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 : Fri Jan 28 2005 - 09:26:40 GMT