Right-wing propaganda and the Chilean earthquake: an example

[Craig234]

There is very little here I disagree with. However, you seem to think that propaganda is confined to the right. The left has their own propaganda. I have seen left wing writers try to prop up the reputation of failed leaders like Allende, or even worse, try to deny that a genocide occurred in Cambodia. I can see you think the left does not have its own access to the media through which it can proffer its own spin, but you're wrong. The thing about the WSJ is not that all media is biased on favor of corporations, it's that the WSJ in particular has a conservative bias/spin. This is well known. Don't you think it's significant that this piece is in the WSJ and not, say, CNN?

You're right to concern yourself with propaganda. The trouble is you have a very selective view of it.

- wolf

One of the fallacies of the center is to try to equate things that aren't equal. I'm not saying this about you, but I see people who are all but unable to say anything about 'one side' without saying 'but both do it'.

This is just as false, just as blind, as being locked into 'one side'.

You do show a bit of that here, in claiming equality of propaganda and media megaphones on the right and left.

I suspect there are two reasons, an orientation ot the center pushing you to do so, and a lack of information about the inequality. I suspect information could reduce both causes.

Of course both proaganda and media outlets for publishing it exist on both sides - but it's like saying OJ and Nicole were both imperfect spouses and implying that's equally the case. The right is far moreso.

Now, if you want to expand the discussion to include the old communist powers, if you really call those authoratarian states 'left', then you would find areas the 'left' was the dominant propagandist.

You would also find Nazi Germany and militarist Japan with strong propaganda organizations on the militarist right. But were' not talking about those extreme situations and blunt, upside the head propaganda.

We're talking about the free United States today, and its specifc situation.

I could lay out various info on this, but suspect it'll be more useful to ask you to read up a bit.

Unfortunately, I don't know of one great book to point you to. There are many each with pieces of a bit of the issue. I mentioned two authors as a good start.

I've discussed it at some length previously - and listed what I see as many of the key propaganda outlets, things that consistently put their agenda before your interests and truth.

They've included Rupert Murdoch properties (WSJ editorial page, Fox, etc.), National Review, Ann Coulter, the big 3 right-wing think tanks (AEI, Cato, Heritage), Robert Kagan, certain web sites, David Horowitz etc.

I've done more detailed debunking of them and comparison with left-wing sources for the 'are they equal' test, taking random samplings of their stories and examining them for propaganda versus accuracy.

You could do the same. Pick a couple on each side - just avoid 'user based content' like Daily KOS diaries - and do a random sampling and compare.

The right has far more propaganda funding and organization. When Clinton was president and Richard Mellon Scaife gave 'American Spectator' a $50 million check to dredge up any rumors it could about him, helping lead his entire presidency to be under a shadow of constantly alleged 'scandal' until they finally hit pay dirt with a sex scandal and promptly abused the impeachment power, there was nothing like that for Republican presidents. THeir massive wrongs tended to be caught after the fact, enabled, minimized, without much accountability. Nixon had to have TAPES confessing to crimes to get impeached.

Again, David Brock's "Right-wing noise machine" is a somewhat dry summary of much of the situaton, and his 'Media Matters for America' website chronicles thousands of examples of one-sided bias.

It's right to say neither side is perfect, but wrong to imply they're in the same ballpark of guilt.

It's 'politically correct', easy, comfortable, non-controversial, to say 'they all do it' about just about anything. Whew, you're not partisan!

But at some point, the truth can require you to notice differences and not take the easy way, but the harder way, standing up for truth over comfort.

This is why it's such an effective way to neutralize the truth by making it a 'partisan side' by pretending there's 'another side'. Some people are terrified to take one side then.

'Oh, look at Nixon and his covert activities'.
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Reagan and his illegal Iran Contra type activities.'
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Republicans changing the rules on judicial appointments to get their way'.
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Republicans changing the rules back as soon as thy get the presidency.'
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Republicans abusing the filibuster for obstruction unlike any time iin history.'
'Ya, they both do it.'

Neither side is perfect, but that doesn't make knee-jerk claims of equality accurate.

By the way, you stil haven't acknowledged the omission from the WSJ editorial of the tyranny under Pinochet, and its propaganda implications, have you?

By the way, as for 'the left' denying the mass murders by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, that's nonsense. Nearly everyone on the left agrees that happened (and properly points out that the underlying cause was the destabilizing of the Cambodian Government by the US, allowing the Khmer Rouge to take power). There is one old attack on Noam Chomsky as being too soft on them - I looked into it a bit and it seemed he had made an error on this at the time IMO. IIRC, he corrected it.

Can you name three left source saying what you claim outside that? Even one?

 

[woolfe9999]

One of the fallacies of the center is to try to equate things that aren't equal. I'm not saying this about you, but I see people who are all but unable to say anything about 'one side' without saying 'but both do it'.

This is just as false, just as blind, as being locked into 'one side'.

You do show a bit of that here, in claiming equality of propaganda and media megaphones on the right and left.

I suspect there are two reasons, an orientation ot the center pushing you to do so, and a lack of information about the inequality. I suspect information could reduce both causes.

Of course both proaganda and media outlets for publishing it exist on both sides - but it's like saying OJ and Nicole were both imperfect spouses and implying that's equally the case. The right is far moreso.

Now, if you want to expand the discussion to include the old communist powers, if you really call those authoratarian states 'left', then you would find areas the 'left' was the dominant propagandist.

You would also find Nazi Germany and militarist Japan with strong propaganda organizations on the militarist right. But were' not talking about those extreme situations and blunt, upside the head propaganda.

We're talking about the free United States today, and its specifc situation.

I could lay out various info on this, but suspect it'll be more useful to ask you to read up a bit.

Unfortunately, I don't know of one great book to point you to. There are many each with pieces of a bit of the issue. I mentioned two authors as a good start.

I've discussed it at some length previously - and listed what I see as many of the key propaganda outlets, things that consistently put their agenda before your interests and truth.

They've included Rupert Murdoch properties (WSJ editorial page, Fox, etc.), National Review, Ann Coulter, the big 3 right-wing think tanks (AEI, Cato, Heritage), Robert Kagan, certain web sites, David Horowitz etc.

I've done more detailed debunking of them and comparison with left-wing sources for the 'are they equal' test, taking random samplings of their stories and examining them for propaganda versus accuracy.

You could do the same. Pick a couple on each side - just avoid 'user based content' like Daily KOS diaries - and do a random sampling and compare.

The right has far more propaganda funding and organization. When Clinton was president and Richard Mellon Scaife gave 'American Spectator' a $50 million check to dredge up any rumors it could about him, helping lead his entire presidency to be under a shadow of constantly alleged 'scandal' until they finally hit pay dirt with a sex scandal and promptly abused the impeachment power, there was nothing like that for Republican presidents. THeir massive wrongs tended to be caught after the fact, enabled, minimized, without much accountability. Nixon had to have TAPES confessing to crimes to get impeached.

Again, David Brock's "Right-wing noise machine" is a somewhat dry summary of much of the situaton, and his 'Media Matters for America' website chronicles thousands of examples of one-sided bias.

It's right to say neither side is perfect, but wrong to imply they're in the same ballpark of guilt.

It's 'politically correct', easy, comfortable, non-controversial, to say 'they all do it' about just about anything. Whew, you're not partisan!

But at some point, the truth can require you to notice differences and not take the easy way, but the harder way, standing up for truth over comfort.

This is why it's such an effective way to neutralize the truth by making it a 'partisan side' by pretending there's 'another side'. Some people are terrified to take one side then.

'Oh, look at Nixon and his covert activities'.
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Reagan and his illegal Iran Contra type activities.'
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Republicans changing the rules on judicial appointments to get their way'.
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Republicans changing the rules back as soon as thy get the presidency.'
'Ya, they both do it.'

'Oh, look at Republicans abusing the filibuster for obstruction unlike any time iin history.'
'Ya, they both do it.'

Neither side is perfect, but that doesn't make knee-jerk claims of equality accurate.

By the way, you stil haven't acknowledged the omission from the WSJ editorial of the tyranny under Pinochet, and its propaganda implications, have you?

By the way, as for 'the left' denying the mass murders by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, that's nonsense. Nearly everyone on the left agrees that happened (and properly points out that the underlying cause was the destabilizing of the Cambodian Government by the US, allowing the Khmer Rouge to take power). There is one old attack on Noam Chomsky as being too soft on them - I looked into it a bit and it seemed he had made an error on this at the time IMO. IIRC, he corrected it.

Can you name three left source saying what you claim outside that? Even one?

I think you are mistaking me for the kind of bland "centrist" who says "they all do it. Both sides are the same." That is a cliched line parroted by many people on this board who think of themselves as centrists and/or independents. I am an independent thinker, not someone who looks for the mythical "middle ground" on every issue. If I really wanted to be centrist, I'd say that Obamacare is the best solution rather than viewing it as incremental reform and taking the position that single payor is the best system. That is one example of many. I am an issue guy, not an ideology guy. I support single payor because it cuts bureacracy and saves money, not because I like big government or socialism, and I'd be thrilled with a small government, free market solution if I could be convinced that it would work. See the difference? The issues come first. I am only "left" in an after-the-fact way, because at the end of the day, if you tot up all of my positions, you'd associate the totality of it more with the left than the right. The differences is, for me, the ideology doesn't come in at the front end to color my view of the issue, or at least not to the same extent is does for most others. I am of course nowhere near perfect or bias free.

With respect to political parties, a very different issue than ideology, I am actually a fairly partisan democrat. I dislike, intensely, both political parties, but I dislike the republicans far more, not because of their stance on issues, but because of their real world behavior. And the propaganda is probably the biggest part of that. That, and their hypocrisy on fiscal responsibility.

My prior post had more to do with identifying *your* personal bias on the subject than with arguing that there are equal amounts of propaganda on both sides. You'll call out a right wing piece of propaganda but not a left wing piece of propaganda, and when you do it, you'll resort to a website and author with a pretty obvious left slant. I suggest that if you want to critique something like the WSJ article, you resort to mainstream factual information as much as possible.

With respect to who gets more propaganda spin out in the media, I don't know. The trouble is when you try to compare samples, the bias of the comparer is going to affect what is judged as propaganda versus truth, as fact versus fiction.

I listened to Rachel Maddow say last week that "the republican idea of tort reform" is in the Obama bill, but that is extremely misleading as there is nothing in that bill even remotely close to what the republicans have asked for/proposed. I have no problem in seeing and calling bullshit on that. I'm not sure the same can be said of you, or of many others on the left. You see how one's own views can influence where they see propaganda and where they don't?

Still, I can see Maddow's bullshit on that issue and others, but I think she's far more truthful, on the whole, than say Glenn Beck. Both are biased and their assumptions should be questioned, but that doesn't lead me to the same final evaluation of the two. I'll give another example: MSN versus Fox News, in general. MSN IMO has relatively neutral reporting, but its editorial and punditry content has a heavy and obvious left bias. With Fox IMO the bias infects its reporting to a very large extent, not just its editorial content. That bothers me the most because with editorial content the bias is at least up front.

Anyway, let me know when you find a truly unbiased commentator who has parsed out a large, random sampling and has done a totally fair analysis and I'll listen. Just remember that the bias of the person doing the analysis is a non-trivial issue, and I'll give you a hint if you're looking for someone who would impress me as unbiased: you aren't it.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry Wolf, but we in NY are now being forced to deny necessary medical services to those on Medicaid who can't produce their card. Well, let me rephrase that. We can treat anyone, but if we bill for services provided without having the card first we have committed a crime. We had deny medication to an patient with full blown AIDS last week because Medicaid changed the sequence number on a patient before they were sent a new one. We couldn't bill and Medicaid would not give us or the patient the new number. He'll have to wait the 4 to 6 weeks that it takes to get the card. Do you have any idea what that means to him?

We asked what we're supposed to do and were told flat out that it was our problem.

That's what happens when government creates rules without understanding the consequences of their actions. Unless someone gets very active very soon this man will die due in a state that progressives call home.

"The best solution" is fatal in this case. Considering that politicians with the same grasp of health care want to usher in an even more complex system with the same understanding of how things work, I don't see that Obamacare is something to get all excited about.

I'll tell you something that you'll probably see. That is someone playing the apologist. If someone can justify this man dying because of corporate greed, then they have engaged in propaganda of the worst kind.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sorry Wolf, but we in NY are now being forced to deny necessary medical services to those on Medicaid who can't produce their card. Well, let me rephrase that. We can treat anyone, but if we bill for services provided without having the card first we have committed a crime. We had deny medication to an patient with full blown AIDS last week because Medicaid changed the sequence number on a patient before they were sent a new one. We couldn't bill and Medicaid would not give us or the patient the new number. He'll have to wait the 4 to 6 weeks that it takes to get the card. Do you have any idea what that means to him?

We asked what we're supposed to do and were told flat out that it was our problem.

That's what happens when government creates rules without understanding the consequences of their actions. Unless someone gets very active very soon this man will die due in a state that progressives call home.

"The best solution" is fatal in this case. Considering that politicians with the same grasp of health care want to usher in an even more complex system with the same understanding of how things work, I don't see that Obamacare is something to get all excited about.

I'll tell you something that you'll probably see. That is someone playing the apologist. If someone can justify this man dying because of corporate greed, then they have engaged in propaganda of the worst kind.

This is a bit tangential as I was using the healthcare issue to illustrate my mode of political thinking, not to raise a debate about healthcare, with more of the hoary cliches about "government good" versus "government bad."

Sounds like your Medicaid there in NY sucks. Is the point of the card to prevent fraud?

- wolf

 

[Fern]

She doesn't lie Craig, but *you* did misinterpret what she wrote, probably because you didn't read the WSJ article that she was critiquing which puts it in context. Klein actually never says the article gave credit to the Pinochet and/or Friedman for the building code. She said it gave credit to Friedman for Chile's *earthquake prepardness*, which the artcile does do. She is, rather, replying to the article's central point, that the *enforcement* of building codes was made possible by Chile's healthy economy, for which the article gives credit to Friedman. Her counter-argument is that Pinochet actually trashed the Chilean economy with Friedman's help. She mentions that the building code was enacted under Allende because she is arguing that it is Allende, not Pinchoet/Friedman, who deserve credit for Chile's earthquake preparedness. That, however, is very different from saying that the WSJ article gave credit to Friedman for the actual code. The article doesn't do that, nor did Klein say it did.

BTW, I notice that the WSJ article trashes Klein by name, calling one of her books "tedious." This appears to be a pissing context between Klein and the author of that article, which is neither here nor there in terms of who is right or wrong, but it's a point of interest.

- wolf

This is probably about right. We are getting to some pretty extreme word parsing here. Klein may be arguing that the article *implied* that Pinochet was responsible for the codes, but then even that argument is a bit thin. The most you can say is that the WSJ fails to mention that the code was enacted before Pinochet. I'd say the WSJ is misleading in an extremely miniscule sense, and Klein is also being slightly misleading. Still, in your OP you did err because you didn't read the WSJ article.

- wolf

The information regarding the Chilean economy is very mixed. I will say this. The WSJ article puts forth a thesis which goes like this - Friedman advises Pinochet on economics - as a result, the Chilean economy improves - as a result, there are better materials for construction and better compliance/enforcement - as a result, low casualties in an earthquake - therefore, Friedman saved untold numbers of lives. QED.

To me, this sort of reasoning seems like a stretch, particularly as the data on the Chilean economy during Pinochet's reign is quite mixed, and much of it quite bad. Basically, if any link in the causal sequence of the argument is weak, the conclusion is in question. Klein also puts forth an interesting aside - that Friedman himself was ambivalent about building codes, meaning at best any benefit he caused was an unintended consequence. I think the WSJ article is a stretch. Propaganda? Probably, by adhering to the standard definition of that term. Flat out lying? I don't see it. It relies on a debatable and speculative line of reasoning. It's more like garden variety political spin jobbery, which is more or less what I expect from WSJ editorials, but then to be honest I basically expect the same from Klein and Commondreams.

- wolf

Well wolfe9999, I think you've pretty much nailed it. Reading comprehension FTW!

Upon first reading this thread yesterday I was LMAO. I was left wondering how anyone could get agitated over something so silly. Fanatical political passions can be the only explanation.

As far as the WSJ article being a stretch, I couldn't agree more. It strikes me as a rather sophmoric excercise in mental gymnastics driven by partisan motivations. Freidman is responsible for Chile's good fortune in limiting the quake's damage? This is a self-masturbatory mental construct, and sadly IMO is what too often passes for intellectualism these days; and I believe explains to a great extent why intellectualism is rejected in certain circles. Serious minds have better things to contemplate.

I.e., it's a downright silly theory in the 1st place. I suppose the hard work and the intelligence of the Chilean people had nothing to do with their own economic success. The Chilean builders, architechs, engineers and code enforcement officials had nothing to do it. Yeah, let's heap a great portion of the credit upon Freidman. It's one thing to sit and amuse oneself or close friends with such fantastic mental constructions, but quite narcissistic to publish it as it were serious thought.

Sadly some are so extremely and fanatically partisan that this type of silly and unsupportable psuedo-intellectual drivel and is taken (far far ) too seriously and believe it evidence of some vast right-wing conspiracy of propaganda.

Some crap is better left ignored.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a bit tangential as I was using the healthcare issue to illustrate my mode of political thinking, not to raise a debate about healthcare, with more of the hoary cliches about "government good" versus "government bad."

Sounds like your Medicaid there in NY sucks. Is the point of the card to prevent fraud?

- wolf

Yes, it's to prevent fraud. There's a pilot program where card readers will be used, and that will gradually expand.

My point is that there are those who will view criticism of government sponsored health care as supporting corporations. In fact there's a link to an animated cartoon on the forums where two people are falling and one wants to pull the parachute cord, and the other says that by doing so they'll invoke government control and that deploying the parachute is tantamount to surrender to Big Brother.

Well that's propaganda, and it's clearly in support of Obamacare. Some arguments may be foolish, but so is faith in a system which can lead to situations as I have described, not because the politicians are evil, but because they consider themselves entirely qualified to make decisions without understanding the consequences.

So the left does resort to it's version of "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", and the right plays the righteous wounded all too often.

They are both guilty of duplicity.

 

[colonel]

Ah!!! Nixon personal war in south America, he wanted to stop Chinese communist ideology from taking Chile, Why Chile? cooper a lot of cooper in the Atacama desert where American companies were hiring poor indians and treating like slaves. Nixon must be in hell right now for all these killing of poor indians for paramilitaries protecting right wing interests.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, it's to prevent fraud. There's a pilot program where card readers will be used, and that will gradually expand.

My point is that there are those who will view criticism of government sponsored health care as supporting corporations. In fact there's a link to an animated cartoon on the forums where two people are falling and one wants to pull the parachute cord, and the other says that by doing so they'll invoke government control and that deploying the parachute is tantamount to surrender to Big Brother.

Well that's propaganda, and it's clearly in support of Obamacare. Some arguments may be foolish, but so is faith in a system which can lead to situations as I have described, not because the politicians are evil, but because they consider themselves entirely qualified to make decisions without understanding the consequences.

So the left does resort to it's version of "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", and the right plays the righteous wounded all too often.

They are both guilty of duplicity.

There's been quite a lot of nonsense coming from both camps on healthcare. I could present a long laundry list of it. Some of it comes from the left that supports the bill, some comes from the left that opposes the bill, and some comes from the right that opposes the bill. I'm going to violate the "centrist creed" here and say this, however - the right has consistently lied about this legislation pretty much from the get go, and almost never do they tell the truth. Only on rare occasions when they bother to get specific about particular provisions do they say anything remotely true. Every time they speak about it with a broad brush, it the worst kind of propaganda that may as well just be labelled for what it is - lying. And even when they address particulars (i.e. "death panels"), they still usually lie. I kn ow you want to say that both sides are equally lying about this bill, but I've got to call it as I see it, and the propaganda isn't equal.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I think you are mistaking me for the kind of bland "centrist" who says "they all do it. Both sides are the same." That is a cliched line parroted by many people on this board who think of themselves as centrists and/or independents. I am an independent thinker, not someone who looks for the mythical "middle ground" on every issue. If I really wanted to be centrist, I'd say that Obamacare is the best solution rather than viewing it as incremental reform and taking the position that single payor is the best system. That is one example of many. I am an issue guy, not an ideology guy. I support single payor because it cuts bureacracy and saves money, not because I like big government or socialism, and I'd be thrilled with a small government, free market solution if I could be convinced that it would work. See the difference? The issues come first. I am only "left" in an after-the-fact way, because at the end of the day, if you tot up all of my positions, you'd associate the totality of it more with the left than the right. The differences is, for me, the ideology doesn't come in at the front end to color my view of the issue, or at least not to the same extent is does for most others. I am of course nowhere near perfect or bias free.

With respect to political parties, a very different issue than ideology, I am actually a fairly partisan democrat. I dislike, intensely, both political parties, but I dislike the republicans far more, not because of their stance on issues, but because of their real world behavior. And the propaganda is probably the biggest part of that. That, and their hypocrisy on fiscal responsibility.

My prior post had more to do with identifying *your* personal bias on the subject than with arguing that there are equal amounts of propaganda on both sides. You'll call out a right wing piece of propaganda but not a left wing piece of propaganda, and when you do it, you'll resort to a website and author with a pretty obvious left slant. I suggest that if you want to critique something like the WSJ article, you resort to mainstream factual information as much as possible.

With respect to who gets more propaganda spin out in the media, I don't know. The trouble is when you try to compare samples, the bias of the comparer is going to affect what is judged as propaganda versus truth, as fact versus fiction.

I listened to Rachel Maddow say last week that "the republican idea of tort reform" is in the Obama bill, but that is extremely misleading as there is nothing in that bill even remotely close to what the republicans have asked for/proposed. I have no problem in seeing and calling bullshit on that. I'm not sure the same can be said of you, or of many others on the left. You see how one's own views can influence where they see propaganda and where they don't?

Still, I can see Maddow's bullshit on that issue and others, but I think she's far more truthful, on the whole, than say Glenn Beck. Both are biased and their assumptions should be questioned, but that doesn't lead me to the same final evaluation of the two. I'll give another example: MSN versus Fox News, in general. MSN IMO has relatively neutral reporting, but its editorial and punditry content has a heavy and obvious left bias. With Fox IMO the bias infects its reporting to a very large extent, not just its editorial content. That bothers me the most because with editorial content the bias is at least up front.

Anyway, let me know when you find a truly unbiased commentator who has parsed out a large, random sampling and has done a totally fair analysis and I'll listen. Just remember that the bias of the person doing the analysis is a non-trivial issue, and I'll give you a hint if you're looking for someone who would impress me as unbiased: you aren't it.

- wolf

There's something to agree with, and somethig to point out is wrong here.

On your 'bland centrist' comments, they support exactly what I said - but you did not read my post correctly on it. If you check it again, paert of my post discussed bland centrists in a way we agree, but you protest I mistoook you for one, despite the comment I prefaced them with that I'm not talking about you in those comments. As you said, it's a common type of poster here and I discussed that. Then I said on one particular issue you appear to be falling for the same problem and backed it up.

You go on to make a lot of comments distinguishing yourself from the 'bland centrist' in general that I agree with you and not them.

But you make a big mistake in the process. While I did not say what you thoght I did about you in general, but on one topic did, you make an allegation that made some partisan error - butforgot the small issue of actually backingup your point, naming the example. You just sort of make the case that you can criticize both sides when justified even though they aren't equal - just what I asked you to do - and then accuse me of somehow not being willing to do the same - baselessly. You indeed go on to make this attack a main point utterly without support other than your baseless speculation.

I know I'm new here with only 15,000 posts that have nev\er been called short in length, but I'd have thought you could have found some actual quotes showing this 'bias' you sadly attack about.

Indeed, your attack of bias appears biased to me. You sort of made up your mind for whatever reason - perhaps it was just defensiveness when you wrongly thought I called you a bland centrist.

Actually I've identified you more closely to the person who has the ability usually, not always, to rise above that fallacy, similarly to your own defense. Perhaps that correction can help you be less defensive.

You list an example of Maddow. I'm very fair listening and would call her out in a moment for bias on her part, for falsehoods. I listened to her mostly last week - and was impressed with her accuracy and tink it's fair to say she is making a lot of valid attacks on the right. THat opens the door to attacks of 'you're partisan', but too bad - sometimes the truth is on one side.

Funny enough, you reached the same conclusion. Good for you, we agree. But you made one find of her claiming that te bill contains Republican tort reform you say is not accurate on her part - but worse, that's perhaps the strongest basis for your attack saying I'm being partisan, when you SPECULATE I might not be willing to say that. This is where you get an integrity test to admit you are wrong in the attack. I'd like to say, "I remember that and I DO say she's biased and wrong", but the fact is I don't remember her saying it, and I'm not familiar enough with the bill to comment - but I *do* think you very likely are reporting the issue accurately, and baed on that agree with you that if it's as you summarized, she overstepped and made an error.

As for generalizations about her bias - from the short period I've watched her, I've seen a very high rate of acccuray that suggests a very good standard, but once or twice I've thought she 'got carried away' too. That's not enough for me to lable her badly on bias, but it is enogh for me to praise her with an asterisk for a very small caution. I think that's fair. You on the other hand, showed bias in your attack on me - sort of what you accused me of, and you would have had a good point had you been right about what I said (misrepresenting what I said as 100% wrong continues even with one of our most accurate posters, you).

You say I'll call out a rigfht-wing piece of propaganda, but attack that I don't a left - without a single example of one I didn't, other than your speculation about what I migh tdo in one example.

In fact, I've sometimes made threads and posts defending the right when both the left and much of the right were making an unjustified attack IMO. For example, when the left attacked, and the right didn't really defend, Rush Limbaugh for his comments 'hoping Obama doesn't get his agenda done' to help America, I defended Rush, saying that what he was saying was that he opposes Obama's agenda as badfor the country, 'socialism', and while I disagree with Rush, I think his comments were reasonable advocacy of his views, not 'treason'. I've defended Bush on some similar occassions I don't have off the top of my head.

You close your post with a summary of your attack, and I'll do the same. I take grerat offense to your 'you aren't it' comment - and as I said, I suspect it was mirroring your own offense at *thinking* I insulted you in a way I didn't, and wrote a long good defense for an attack that was not made on you, other than one issue - but you turned around and did what you wrongly thoght I did - you made a false attack.

So many of these sort of disagrerements have big differences where I am including egregious errors by the person - that's not the case here. I agree with most of your post, and think you agree with more of mine than you understood. But we disagree on your attack - one I find offensive, perhaps similarly to how you were offended by what you thought I'd said.

I suggest you try to back up your attack with some facts, if you are still under the wrong impression it has merit, and we'll discuss it. If you have points, I'll get to learn something. If you don't, you will get to correct an error on your part - and perhaps even apologize (I'd apologize to you if I'd made the wrongful attack you thought I did and it's wrong, but I didn't make it).

If that fails - if you still say I'm not fair in my comments, however much they are for one side - then we'll just have a disagreement I'm offended by precluding much discussion. But that's not the result that seems likely with you. You might have 'rushed' to error not unlke how Maddow did in your example, but U've seen her show the integrity to admit mistakes and suspect you are not too different.

P.S. While our posts are not short, you are building a running tally of issues you are asked about that are not responded to. Several times you have been asked to simply acknowledge that the WSJ piece had great omissions like the tyranny underer Pinochet, and while you have admitted it's biased - while sounding unfortumately terribly unoffended and unconcerned by that like, "but it was lies for evil, but it was in the WSJ editorial page where I expect that, and so it's not a probllem" rather than condeming the wrong; you were asked to back up the general attack that the left denying the atrocities by the Khmer Rouge is a large enough phenomenon to attack the left for and did not answer that either.

It's funny, while you speculate how I'd react to bias by the left, you ignored the example in front of your eyes in that post, that I heard the attack on Chomsky, investigated it, found apparent merit to it having haoppened, condemn it, and note that my impression is that he wrongly denies it, while rightly denouncing that view. That's 'bias' not admitting bias by the left?

Given the length already, I'll put aside other areas, like the definition of bias I've posted on before. It doesn't seem we have much disagreement there.

I will say one other thing though, we don't entirely agree - you are 'disgusted by the Democratic Party' while I'm more selective, disgusted by some things while very much favoring others, like dividing it into 'corporatists' and 'progressives', most of the latter of whom I strongly support, but not all, like I'm not a fan of Maxine Waters even if she usually votes pretty well - we have *disagreements*, but they don't require attacks of 'bias' behind them. At least, they didn't before that last post.

 

[MotF Bane]

You list an example of Maddow. I'm very fair listening and would call her out in a moment for bias on her part, for falsehoods. I listened to her mostly last week - and was impressed with her accuracy and tink it's fair to say she is making a lot of valid attacks on the right. THat opens the door to attacks of 'you're partisan', but too bad - sometimes the truth is on one side.

Bullshit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's been quite a lot of nonsense coming from both camps on healthcare. I could present a long laundry list of it. Some of it comes from the left that supports the bill, some comes from the left that opposes the bill, and some comes from the right that opposes the bill. I'm going to violate the "centrist creed" here and say this, however - the right has consistently lied about this legislation pretty much from the get go, and almost never do they tell the truth. Only on rare occasions when they bother to get specific about particular provisions do they say anything remotely true. Every time they speak about it with a broad brush, it the worst kind of propaganda that may as well just be labelled for what it is - lying. And even when they address particulars (i.e. "death panels"), they still usually lie. I kn ow you want to say that both sides are equally lying about this bill, but I've got to call it as I see it, and the propaganda isn't equal.

- wolf

My point isn't about equality. It's about promoting (or opposing) something based on false or incomplete knowledge. Certainly if I shoot ten people and you shoot three, I've killed seven more people than you have. In the absolute sense of how many died, you haven't come close to what I've done.

Still there's something wrong with justification by numbers. In both cases a serious wrong has been done. Iraq war supporters often cited the number of people killed by Saddam, and then made an argument tantamount to what you did. We aren't really so bad because we took fewer lives.

Here is what it comes down to. Right and wrong aren't determined by the act itself, but by the number of times an act is performed and if it's by those I agree with politically or if it's done by those I oppose.

That's concept I understand, but I'm admittedly simplistic in this regard. I don't agree with the basic preposition. If one does a wrong, then another doing it ten times or working at it ten times as hard doesn't make anyone right. Republicans misrepresenting a position doesn't make what Democrats propose correct or beneficial.

 

[werepossum]

Bullshit.

I especially liked when she condescendingly explained to us Red State people that in fact Obama has no czars because not a single one has the word "czar" in his or her title. Made me wonder if there was a special assistant who rushed out and strapped on her protective headgear after the show so that she didn't hurt herself 'cause anyone THAT stupid surely can't go outside without a helmet.

 

[daishi5]

If you have an accumulation of weath, I can see that likely being a positive when it comes to stable infrustructure, possibly a very big positive. But suppose the wealth is distributed heavily at the top and there are no building codes. Not sure how that improves building stability, particularly if you are talking about dwellings for masses of poor people. There is a tremendous amount of wealth in Mexico, for example. Lot's of very wealthy people. Per capita GDP is not too bad as developing nations go. But the distribution of wealth there is weighted to the top and the overall standard of living is not good. Not sure how their infrustrure is to be honest, but I wouldn't be surprised if the typical dwelling for the typical citizen wouldn't be terribly good, absent strictly enforced building codes. I think what I'm saying is that you want a prosperous economy *and* good building codes, as either in isolation is probably insufficient. I don't know what was the case in Chile because honestly my understanding of that economy under Pinochet is limited to Wiki and a few articles I've read online.

- wolf

I was referring more to a pure correlation between wealth and survival rates. Wealth concentration can have an effect on it, but total wealth is more of what I am aware of. The increased rate of survival is not just related to earthquakes. I assume the correlation to be causitive, because to me it makes obvious sense. As people have more wealth they spend it at its best marginal use. At some points, the best marginal use is to buy a better built dwelling, move to less crowded living, purchase emergency supplies, and so on. Wealth is just resources that the population has at their disposal, people who have more resources at their disposal are more likely to survive.

Now, building codes also help, but they are not required for the wealth correlation to hold true. So, building codes should be credited with some of the lives spared, wealth should be credited with some, and several other factors I don't know. However, going back to your wealth concentration concern, even in the face of severe wealth concentration it still holds true. Even if just the wealth expereinced less casaulties, their would still be less death, but I don't think you would ever see a case where only the wealthy would benefit. For example, factories. In a city that faces the possiblity of natural disaster, some wealth factory owners will build or reinforce their factories to survive. Any workers in the factory are more likely to survive because the factory owner does not want to lose his valuable factory. In even the worst places, with the worst form of wealthy, at least some of the poor are a resource to be exploited. It is in the best interest of the wealthy to try to protect some of their poor so they can continue to exploit them.

Granted, my concentration of wealth scenarios are probably the worst case, but even then the concentrated wealth will protect some of the workers out of self interest. And, of course, building codes also have a lot to do with it. I am not trying to say they don't help, just that increased wealth alone is sufficient for lives to be saved.

I also find it highly ironic that Craig is using this to point out "propaganda" of the right, while he lies about Friedman with his own propoganda to portray him as heartless and uncaring towards the poor. The chicago boys and friedman were idealists who even Naomi Klein admits sought to seek a utopia for the citizens of Chile. However, Craig is here calling him the "economist for the rich." They were idealists just as Craig is. Friedman believed in economic freedom of people, Craig believes in benevolent progressive leadership.

 

[woolfe9999]

There's something to agree with, and somethig to point out is wrong here.

On your 'bland centrist' comments, they support exactly what I said - but you did not read my post correctly on it. If you check it again, paert of my post discussed bland centrists in a way we agree, but you protest I mistoook you for one, despite the comment I prefaced them with that I'm not talking about you in those comments. As you said, it's a common type of poster here and I discussed that. Then I said on one particular issue you appear to be falling for the same problem and backed it up.

You go on to make a lot of comments distinguishing yourself from the 'bland centrist' in general that I agree with you and not them.

But you make a big mistake in the process. While I did not say what you thoght I did about you in general, but on one topic did, you make an allegation that made some partisan error - butforgot the small issue of actually backingup your point, naming the example. You just sort of make the case that you can criticize both sides when justified even though they aren't equal - just what I asked you to do - and then accuse me of somehow not being willing to do the same - baselessly. You indeed go on to make this attack a main point utterly without support other than your baseless speculation.

I know I'm new here with only 15,000 posts that have nev\er been called short in length, but I'd have thought you could have found some actual quotes showing this 'bias' you sadly attack about.

Indeed, your attack of bias appears biased to me. You sort of made up your mind for whatever reason - perhaps it was just defensiveness when you wrongly thought I called you a bland centrist.

Actually I've identified you more closely to the person who has the ability usually, not always, to rise above that fallacy, similarly to your own defense. Perhaps that correction can help you be less defensive.

You list an example of Maddow. I'm very fair listening and would call her out in a moment for bias on her part, for falsehoods. I listened to her mostly last week - and was impressed with her accuracy and tink it's fair to say she is making a lot of valid attacks on the right. THat opens the door to attacks of 'you're partisan', but too bad - sometimes the truth is on one side.

Funny enough, you reached the same conclusion. Good for you, we agree. But you made one find of her claiming that te bill contains Republican tort reform you say is not accurate on her part - but worse, that's perhaps the strongest basis for your attack saying I'm being partisan, when you SPECULATE I might not be willing to say that. This is where you get an integrity test to admit you are wrong in the attack. I'd like to say, "I remember that and I DO say she's biased and wrong", but the fact is I don't remember her saying it, and I'm not familiar enough with the bill to comment - but I *do* think you very likely are reporting the issue accurately, and baed on that agree with you that if it's as you summarized, she overstepped and made an error.

As for generalizations about her bias - from the short period I've watched her, I've seen a very high rate of acccuray that suggests a very good standard, but once or twice I've thought she 'got carried away' too. That's not enough for me to lable her badly on bias, but it is enogh for me to praise her with an asterisk for a very small caution. I think that's fair. You on the other hand, showed bias in your attack on me - sort of what you accused me of, and you would have had a good point had you been right about what I said (misrepresenting what I said as 100% wrong continues even with one of our most accurate posters, you).

You say I'll call out a rigfht-wing piece of propaganda, but attack that I don't a left - without a single example of one I didn't, other than your speculation about what I migh tdo in one example.

In fact, I've sometimes made threads and posts defending the right when both the left and much of the right were making an unjustified attack IMO. For example, when the left attacked, and the right didn't really defend, Rush Limbaugh for his comments 'hoping Obama doesn't get his agenda done' to help America, I defended Rush, saying that what he was saying was that he opposes Obama's agenda as badfor the country, 'socialism', and while I disagree with Rush, I think his comments were reasonable advocacy of his views, not 'treason'. I've defended Bush on some similar occassions I don't have off the top of my head.

You close your post with a summary of your attack, and I'll do the same. I take grerat offense to your 'you aren't it' comment - and as I said, I suspect it was mirroring your own offense at *thinking* I insulted you in a way I didn't, and wrote a long good defense for an attack that was not made on you, other than one issue - but you turned around and did what you wrongly thoght I did - you made a false attack.

So many of these sort of disagrerements have big differences where I am including egregious errors by the person - that's not the case here. I agree with most of your post, and think you agree with more of mine than you understood. But we disagree on your attack - one I find offensive, perhaps similarly to how you were offended by what you thought I'd said.

I suggest you try to back up your attack with some facts, if you are still under the wrong impression it has merit, and we'll discuss it. If you have points, I'll get to learn something. If you don't, you will get to correct an error on your part - and perhaps even apologize (I'd apologize to you if I'd made the wrongful attack you thought I did and it's wrong, but I didn't make it).

If that fails - if you still say I'm not fair in my comments, however much they are for one side - then we'll just have a disagreement I'm offended by precluding much discussion. But that's not the result that seems likely with you. You might have 'rushed' to error not unlke how Maddow did in your example, but U've seen her show the integrity to admit mistakes and suspect you are not too different.

P.S. While our posts are not short, you are building a running tally of issues you are asked about that are not responded to. Several times you have been asked to simply acknowledge that the WSJ piece had great omissions like the tyranny underer Pinochet, and while you have admitted it's biased - while sounding unfortumately terribly unoffended and unconcerned by that like, "but it was lies for evil, but it was in the WSJ editorial page where I expect that, and so it's not a probllem" rather than condeming the wrong; you were asked to back up the general attack that the left denying the atrocities by the Khmer Rouge is a large enough phenomenon to attack the left for and did not answer that either.

It's funny, while you speculate how I'd react to bias by the left, you ignored the example in front of your eyes in that post, that I heard the attack on Chomsky, investigated it, found apparent merit to it having haoppened, condemn it, and note that my impression is that he wrongly denies it, while rightly denouncing that view. That's 'bias' not admitting bias by the left?

Given the length already, I'll put aside other areas, like the definition of bias I've posted on before. It doesn't seem we have much disagreement there.

I will say one other thing though, we don't entirely agree - you are 'disgusted by the Democratic Party' while I'm more selective, disgusted by some things while very much favoring others, like dividing it into 'corporatists' and 'progressives', most of the latter of whom I strongly support, but not all, like I'm not a fan of Maxine Waters even if she usually votes pretty well - we have *disagreements*, but they don't require attacks of 'bias' behind them. At least, they didn't before that last post.

Dammit, I wrote a lengthy post in response to this and I got timed out or something, relogged, then the post was gone. I *hate* it when that happens. Craig, I'll PM you in the next day or two and we can hash this stuff out. For now, suffice it to say that you shouldn't take it personally when I call you out for bias because that doesn't make you anything remotely "special" around here. Rather, the fact that I bother to point it out in your case should tell you that I consider your contributions here to have some value or else I wouldn't bother. There are plenty of people here who are beyond hope and for them it isn't even worth the bandwidth to deconstruct their "bias." There was discussion in my post about pundits, centrism and the general issue of bias that I'm not going to recreate just now, but I'll pick it up with you by PM.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

My point isn't about equality. It's about promoting (or opposing) something based on false or incomplete knowledge. Certainly if I shoot ten people and you shoot three, I've killed seven more people than you have. In the absolute sense of how many died, you haven't come close to what I've done.

Still there's something wrong with justification by numbers. In both cases a serious wrong has been done. Iraq war supporters often cited the number of people killed by Saddam, and then made an argument tantamount to what you did. We aren't really so bad because we took fewer lives.

Here is what it comes down to. Right and wrong aren't determined by the act itself, but by the number of times an act is performed and if it's by those I agree with politically or if it's done by those I oppose.

That's concept I understand, but I'm admittedly simplistic in this regard. I don't agree with the basic preposition. If one does a wrong, then another doing it ten times or working at it ten times as hard doesn't make anyone right. Republicans misrepresenting a position doesn't make what Democrats propose correct or beneficial.

I'm going to disagree here because I think this is too categorical a view. I understand your point - you're saying that being a little propagandistic is like being a little pregnant, right?

The trouble is that oversimplies the issue. It's a moral analysis which is of limited value, because the moral question isn't that interesting since it is overly obvious - of course, being dishonest is wrong. But even looking at it from the moral perspective solely, the "right" and the "left" are not unitary, monolithic entities, or hiveminds. These viewpoints consist of many commentators, many public officials, in many different media. If one or ten are dishonest, it doesn't necessarily say much about the whole. From the moral standpoint, dishonestly adheres to individuals, not whole movements or ideologies.

Propaganda in general, however, might adhere to a greater extent to one than the other, and that is relevant to the individual who wants to separate the wheat from the chaff. The real question IMO is not who were morally condemn (though we can and should where appropriate), but how the individual decides what is good and bad policy. In politics, there is a definite signal/noise ratio and it does matter what that ratio is. It is tempting to say that "both sides are the same" because you can hear nonsense from both sides. However, in the real world it does matter how much signal and how much noise is coming from each side.

I think Craig is at least asking a valid question - is one side being, on the whole, more truthful than the other? Whether he is right in his conclusion is another matter. My personal feeling based on experience is that he is correct to some extent, but then my observations are far from scientific or free from my own personal biases. However, the question itself is a valid one, not because the answer will lead to an "aha! the right is worse than the left!" or "aha, the left is worse than the right!" It's because an answer to that question leads to another important question. If you can validly conclude that there is significantly more noise coming from one side, the next question is WHY? Answering that question can lead to some important truths. The simple truth is - the more merit your position has on the issues, the less need there is for propaganda, and vice versa. Accordingly, answering that question is a valid exercise for anyone who wants to think independently and arrive at informed opinions on public policy. It doesn't get you all the way there, but it can be part of the process. Personally, I don't approach the issue as much in the general case as I do with respect to particular issues like healthcare, but I think the question is valid even in the general case because you can learn about the anatomy of different belief systems, what motivates individuals within those systems, who is professing these beliefs and why.

- wolf

 

[palehorse]

I suggest donating a few bucks to Common Dreams for publishing the truth for the people. People paying for the truth is the way to get it, not relying on the corporate media.

LAWL!!

On a very long list of unintentionally funny shit, that just might be one of your best Craig!

 

[Craig234]

Dammit, I wrote a lengthy post in response to this and I got timed out or something, relogged, then the post was gone. I *hate* it when that happens. Craig, I'll PM you in the next day or two and we can hash this stuff out. For now, suffice it to say that you shouldn't take it personally when I call you out for bias because that doesn't make you anything remotely "special" around here. Rather, the fact that I bother to point it out in your case should tell you that I consider your contributions here to have some value or else I wouldn't bother. There are plenty of people here who are beyond hope and for them it isn't even worth the bandwidth to deconstruct their "bias." There was discussion in my post about pundits, centrism and the general issue of bias that I'm not going to recreate just now, but I'll pick it up with you by PM.

- wolf

OK, sorry you lost the post. I hate that, too. One thing that helps is to open a separate window and see if you're still logged in, and if not log in before posting in the first window.

Understand that whether your attack - and I use that in the better sense of the word - is offensive has nothing to do with other posters. If other posters are terribly biased or remarkably unbiased is irrelevant.

I'm offended by the attack unrelated to other posters. We can discuss the disagreement either place you prefer. I might ask you to reread my post above first, because you sound like you're ready to parry.

I appreciate your complimentary comments to try to reduce the offensiveness, but they aren't an answer to the attack being offensive. Of course, truth would be a defense - one I disagree is the case.

I'd rather have you reconsider and abandon the claim and post accordingly, but you may not be ready for that unfortunately. We'll see how the discussion goes to help you get there.

The 'if I didn't see a lot of good qualities in your posts it wouldn't be worth the trouble' is also the case your direction. Stubborn - that does seem to be an issue, but honest and more often than not able to listen.

 

[cmdrdredd]

OP is retarded, that is all

 

[Craig234]

OP is retarded, that is all

Because I'm very conservative about the word idiot, I usually take some time before using it. Congrats.

You get the irony of the week as week as well.