Photo by leasepics/flickr.com
This article from the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress addresses the media’s continued failure to differentiate between fact and fiction in their reportage. “The news media,” according to the report:
“bears measurable blame for spreading — and not correcting — misinformation, distortions, and lies. From blogs and tweets to websites and videos, the Internet supports many silly and dangerous views. We need the news media to be a reliable filter, not merely a megaphone. It’s their job to clear up the pollution by distinguishing fact from fiction. This goes beyond partisan debate. It’s in the self-interest of conservatives, liberals, and progressives to do so. Otherwise, we are on shaky ground.”
This does go beyond partisan debate. Assuming that most of you reading this blog are committed to solving the very real problems that face our neighborhoods, our country and our world, I imagine you would agree that we’re going to need to deal in facts and reality. But too often the terms of the debate get muddied by special interests who are determined to win political points.
What are facts?
This question always provokes meaningful discussion among my rhetoric and composition students. In the end, we agree on a definition that goes something like this: Facts are something that has occurred or is the case. For example, under standard conditions, and at sea level, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. That’s a fact, which is not to be confused with a taste or a belief.
Tastes relate to what an individual might prefer. With my students I often use the example of pizza versus tacos. They can have a lively discussion about whether they prefer pizza or tacos but this almost always comes down to nothing more than a matter of their personal tastes. In the end, since our goal is to persuade reasonable people to consider our point of view, we agree that it’s not useful or worth our time to argue about matters of taste.
The same is true of beliefs. This is not to say that beliefs are trivial or unimportant but rather that they are not worth spending a lot of time or energy arguing over. Beliefs are not based in facts but rather deeply seated in our world views, traditions and family histories. Debating about belief may be satisfying in the sense that it excites our sense of ourselves and causes us to explore and articulate how we really feel, but it’s not a firm foundation to build an argument upon. So we are stuck with boring, old facts as the basis for discussion.
Unfortunately, some people (of all political persuasions) are more interested in short-term political victories at the expense of long-term progress. These people play upon public fears and biases to hinder reasonable discussion and create a sort of political and ideological gridlock.
Below is a brief list of a few of the most egregious mischaracterizations currently distorting the public dialogue.
Mischaracterizations at the national level:
- The stimulus bill didn’t create jobs and created record debt. According to the nonpartisan watchdog group factcheck.org, here are the facts about the stimulus and job creation:
“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that through March 2010, the stimulus bill was responsible for the employment of between 1.2 million and 2.8 million people. The CBO said the stimulus had lowered the national unemployment rate ‘by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points.'”
And here are the facts about debt levels:
“[T]he national debt is not at a ‘record.’ That happened during World War II. The blog item was based on a May 30 CBO report that said the debt as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product was expected to increase from 53 percent at the end of 2009 to a projected 62 percent by the end of 2010. But the report says the record was 109 percent of GDP, a mark that was reached in 1946.”
- There are plans to build a mosque at ground zero. It’s not a mosque and it’s not at ground zero. Read here for more facts about the project.
- President Obama is not a U.S. citizen. He is. It’s been proven. Still confused? Click here. Still not certain? It appears that you prefer to believe this despite the facts.
- President Obama is a Muslim. According to a recent Pew poll, two-thirds of conservatives believe Obama is a Muslim. Where’d they get that idea? They say the media told them so. Here’s a nice summary outlining how right-wing media sources did just that. And here’s the refutation of these claims. Furthermore, so what if he had been?
- Republicans are waging a war on grandmas. Both sides do it; as evidenced by this recent misleading MoveOn.org fundraising e-mail subject line. Although President G.W. Bush worked to privatize Social Security, there’s no real Republican support for this initiative. Here’s what factcheck.org has to say about this.
Local examples
- Local leaders acted in bad faith about the Sonoma Ranch extension special assessment district. Michael Swickard’s recent column on this site and also in the August 6th edition of the Las Cruces Bulletin accused city leaders of acting in bad faith on a local development project. He wrapped up his column with the following accusation:
“What is obvious at this point is that this is no way for the city of Las Cruces to do business. Many other companies will be watching to see if the city can be trusted to stand by their word. One thing is for sure: This time they did not.”
Later that week, both Councilor Connor and Councilor Thomas – hardly political BFFs – explained here and here (respectively) that they and the other four councilors who want more information about the project were acting prudently, in accord with appropriate procedure, and in the best interest of their constituents. Their reasoned responses were clear examples of their careful consideration of this issue, yet the hosts on Swickard’s morning radio show insist that the councilors were “willfully” misunderstanding the process.
This sounds like a taste or a belief to me. After all, this is a complicated issue and the councilors may be incorrect or might have misunderstood (although I don’t believe that to be the case) but that’s much different than being untrustworthy. To accuse elected leaders of being untrustworthy when they are merely trying to protect Las Crucens’ best interests seems like the worst sort of mischaracterization.
- Wilderness designation will hurt border security. I’ve argued here that Border Patrol has officially and publicly disagreed with this claim. Still, the folks who are unlikely to ever support wilderness continue to get press about this issue both in the Las Cruces Sun-News and the Las Cruces Bulletin. Border Patrol leaders have settled this question; additional objections are coming from people who are not in a position to know or are unlikely to support wilderness in any case.
The media megaphone
The internet has provided an excellent platform for like-minded people to connect and share ideas. Although this can be good, it can also mean that some isolated or extreme viewpoints (across the political spectrum) gain a larger audience than they might otherwise have. This is no problem, in many ways. People should be able to explore their ideas. The problem occurs when our larger media outlets, who in the past might have vetted these claims, broadcast them without investigation (think Shirley Sherrod) and then continue to repeat them long after they’ve been debunked (think death panels).
The result is a skewed public debate where no one is working from the same set of facts. This also causes the larger problem of deep and bitter partisanship. Depending on what media outlets we attend to, we literally are working from a different set of facts than someone who gets their news from other sources. As a result, it is difficult to find common ground from which to engage in reasonable discussion.
We have to do better
Figuring out the facts in a given situation can be tough work. We must often investigate beyond the headlines or question our favorite media personalities (that means you, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann) . It’s easier – and perhaps more satisfying – to complain, to rant, and/or to despair than to figure out the real context and set of situations that underlie the discussion. Besides, I’m too busy. Besides, they’re all a bunch of crooks. Besides, as Paul Simon said, they’re just out to capture my dime.
It’s easy to become discouraged and frustrated, but in the words of my high-school football coach: “That’s not gonna get it done.”
We have to do better. We should all be able to agree that this sort of intellectual laziness – or perhaps, in the worst cases, dishonesty – will make it impossible for us to solve our big problems. I can forgive people for being confused or for making a mistake (and hope people will offer me the same allowances). Furthermore, I understand that smart and reasonable people, in possession of a shared set of facts, might still disagree.
Willful distortion of the facts, on the other hand, is something we must not abide. On my best days, I strive to consider various viewpoints and to keep an open mind. I wait to decide. I question my own assumptions and beliefs. I focus on the facts. That’s what it will take to understand and solve our big problems.
Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.