September 10, 2008
The Facts
No where else than during a campaign does fiction exist more. This has been the case for so many decades that a candidate has actually come to believe they can’t win an election with just truth and a meaningful platform. We voters have perpetrated that mentality by supporting & repeating their fiction, then voting for them based on that fiction. Unfortunately for America, that fact has never been more prevalent than today, and has been escalating for the past 28 years.
My View
My personal acronym is TITLAL for “Truth is Truth, Lies are Lies” (a phrase I used for my flagship blog). That is just an absolute fact of life; there’s no in-between, and that fact can not be changed. And when we “accidentally” become factually aware that a lie is a lie, we usually attempt to justify the lie with words like “spin”, “slant”, “deception” and “double-talk”, or we just go into denial and take a defensive posture. But the fact remains; truth is truth and lies are lies.
In our current campaign for the presidency, we hear these fictional stories everyday from both political parties. And no better example exists than the one on taxes. And no better example exists within this issue than the one about whose tax ideas will impose a bigger burden on the middle and lower class (the majority of the country). To be more specific, I refer to the one where John McCain and his camp continue to tell America that Barak Obama’s tax plan “will raise taxes on every American”. Obama’s stated position on this, both verbally and in writing, says that anyone making less than $250,000 a year will not only not have a tax increase, but their tax burden would actually decrease; and for seniors (nearly 40 million) making less than $50,000 a year, they would pay no taxes. But in spite of the fact that the opposition knows the truth about Obama’s plan, they continue lying about it.
An article in today’s Washington Post addresses the issue of “untruth can become facts before they’re undone”. But it was not that issue that caught my eye. What caught my eye was a paragraph about half way through the article that said “51% of the voters think Obama would raise their taxes”. Now this speaks tons-of-volumes about ourselves if we were willing to listen. Why do we not know that is not true? Whether we believe Obama will follow through on his pledge or not doesn’t matter; what matters is what the actual truth is now. So why don’t we know or except what the truth is?
In my many decades of life I have found most people tend to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the facts support. But what makes this situation worse in today’s world is where people get their “facts”. Since we don’t really have time to personally research the facts, we have decided to get our “facts” from the news media. Unfortunately, the problem with that is much of the news media has become extremely biased on many fronts, especially in politics. Many of them have taken sides with a particular political philosophy; therefore they slant the political facts to support their philosophy.
Now in spite of the fact that most Americans know the above about the news media, why does 51% of Americans still believe Obama will raise their taxes? It’s because we limit ourselves to watching & reading the news that only tells us what we already want to hear or to be true.
I have an 83-year old sister whose income is less than $30,000 a year. She swears up & down her tax burden will go up if Obama is elected, in spite of the fact that Obama’s plan would completely eliminate taxes on any senior making less than $50,000 per year. So why does she continue to believe she will pay more taxes under Obama? Because she has completely shut out any news media that reports the truth on this matter. She insist on getting her “news” and “facts” from a single source; a politically biased source. Therefore, if she was polled on this point, she would be part of that 51% who believe her taxes would increase.
In addition to discrediting the candidate, the strategy of these lies is to put a candidate on the defensive. If one can continually place a candidate in a defensive position, then that candidate isn’t able to effectively make their case for the job of President. Instead, they are constantly trying to disprove the lies. This point falls under the heading of “the end justifies the means”; therefore, even when we know we and others are lying, we tell ourselves its “OK” to lie.
Now before you go saying I’m anti-McCain or anti-Republican, let me say that I chose this particular issue and point simply because it has the easiest unarguable facts. I could have chosen one that would have reversed the political roles. Both candidates and both parties are very guilty of lies about themselves and the opposition. However, my point here is made toward us voters, not toward the candidates or political parties. We are never going to know the truth and facts if we limit ourselves to the source that says only what we want to believe and want to be true. If we are true Americans who have the country and its overall citizens in our best interest, we will not limit ourselves to one source of information. And if we can’t decide who is telling the truth, it is so easy to find the facts on your own in today’s “instant information” world.
New Blogger
// Sep 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
You make a good point about people looking for opinions that reinforce existing beliefs. I would like to expand on your comment about media bias by suggesting that often the problem is made worse because journalists do an inadequate job of preparation. The result is that spin goes unchallenged and the right questions are never asked.
An example that I heard just moments ago on a local public radio outlet: a republican campaign representative stated that Gov. Palin really did stop the infamous bridge project that has been so much in the news this week. The moderator made a stab at pushing back, asking if she wasn’t for it before she was against it, but let stand the assertion that she stopped the project and that money was saved.
As with many issues, context is everything. The moderator should have asked if she stopped the project before or after the earmark was canceled in congress (she stopped it after). Saying “No thanks” after the offer has been withdrawn and the issue is a liability is not quite the same as really turning down federal money. Yes, I know she kept the $293M that had already been allocated.
Even further, since this anecdote is given to prove bona fides with regards to opposing earmarks, this comment should never be allowed to stand without bringing her entire record on the broader topic into the discussion.
OK, I apologize for the Palin reference; I should have taken the time to pick out an example that relates to meaningful policy discussions between the presidential candidates.
I had a physical therapy session yesterday, and as my PT is one of those people who have no time for television or Internet news coverage, I asked her what she knew about the campaign. The answer was basically nothing–she felt that all the coverage she had seen was biased, so she gave up.
acme111
// Sep 15, 2008 at 3:55 AM
While I appreciate the intent to rise above partisanship and a lack of objectivity (TITLAL), your post and your blog are somewhat deceptive in name and content. Your blog purports to be a news source as opposed to what it actually is, a commentary on the news, media outlets, their bias, and the public’s reaction based on their pre-conceived ideas and prejudice. In the early days of TV news with only 3 networks and censorship of everything going out on the airwaves, the viewing public received 1 version of any news story.
With 24/7 news channels to fill time and space, many “broadcasters” or “reporters” are now commentators and editorialists. (see MSNBC and DNC coverage for example) Matthews and Olberman are back doing what they do best, commenting with their own perspective on the news of the day.
It is impossible for a human not to have bias, preconceived ideas, or prejudice. It is human nature. For the purpose of TITLAL, rename your blog accurately or at least disclaim the notion that this blog is a news blog or network. It is a commentary on the media. One MSNBC is plenty.
Your sister is misstating the obvious consequence of Obama’s tax increase plan. Raising taxes on any business has 2 effects. One is to increase the cost (overhead) of doing business. Second, this gets passed on to the consumer as higher prices and higher unemployment (layoffs to cut costs ). So even if her personsal tax doesn’t rise, her cost of living will.
Old-Man
// Sep 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM
Acme111, thanks for reading the post and submitting your comments. I just got back on line after hurricane Ike, so I am just now getting to the comments.
While I agree with you that my site does have a fair amount of “commentary” (which I point out as “My View”), I named the site a news site because our main stream media has given “news reporting” a different meaning from what one should expect. I well remember the “3 networks” era as I grew up just as TV was getting a foothold. You mentioned 1 “version” of the news back then, and I say there is only one true version; not lies and innuendos. A brief comparison can be made by saying back then the news was “reported” as it was regardless of whose toes were stepped on (which doesn’t seem to be what the public wants these days), with personal opinions very clearly stated as personal opinions when they were injected. Today most all the so-called “news” is contorted to say what the reporter wants it to say.
You are so right that those like Matthews and Olberman slant the news to meet their personal agenda (if you check, you’ll see I wrote a very critical post on their reporting at both the DNC & RNC, particularly at the RNC). However, their regular shows are not billed as “the news”; they are billed as commentary, which is fine by me as long as it continues to be billed as such, which brings me to that other network, Fox “News”. Now there’s an oxymoron. I see you conveniently didn’t mention them. Anyone who denies Fox is nothing more than a public relations outlet for the Republican Party is in conscious denial.
As for my point concerning my sister, I think you also conveniently missed my point, which was stated very clearly in the post. If you re-read the post you will see that I said it doesn’t matter what the future outcome will be relative to my point; only what is being “reported” today as the “truth”.
My attempt on my site is to say what others are refusing to say. And I point out another truth here; just because a person does not hammer one particular political party and/or support one particular political party 111% of the time does not mean they belong to that “other” party. Therefore, my site will remain TITLAL, because one MSNBC and one Fox is definitely enough.
By virtue of the content of your comments here (which are very much welcomed), you have helped prove my point; people will hear & see what they want to hear & see regardless of the facts.
Rainer
// Oct 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Possibly the reason the McCain Campaign continues to say Obama will raise taxes is because Obama said repeatedly during the past two years he would roll back the Bush tax cuts. Since that provided cuts in the marginal tax rates across all income levels, it would effectively raise taxes. Now, he may cover the raise by including a child tax credit raise or by the “Robin Hood” method of tax reduction (take from the rich, give to the poor and middle class). Then it might not be a net gain in taxes.
The worst part is that both camps are claiming “I will raise taxes here and cut them here.” That clearly is a function of Congress, not the Presidency. He can propose, but not enact. So both camps are actually lying on this point if we must call spin a lie.
I disagree that the TITLAL issue in your first paragraph has been escalating over the past 28 years. That’s extremely subjective without exact metrics. So, it’s really just opinion either way. However, that has always been around…consider the yellow journalism that likely created the Spanish-American War out of thin air (the Maine incident in Havana Harbor), the differences in the Civil War: The North fought to abolish slavery and prevent succession, and the South fought for ’states’ rights’. In truth, they both fought about states’ rights and about slavery and about succession all at the same time, but the people believed it much differently and still do today. Support for the American revolution was very low when it started; it was newspapers and such that made the charges against the King of England appear worse than they actually were. The same was true in the dark ages concerning both political and religious issues, and it goes further back.
Escalating? No. It’s just easier to hear it 500 times than it was before the Internet and cable. If anything, it’s harder to get away with lies. Good observations, though.