Ace of Spades HQ

« Victory in Oz | Main | Another Election-- This One More Important »

October 09, 2004

Another Memo Proves Political Bias

It appears that the liberal media is getting closer to taking the advice of conservatives and simply admitting they're liberals, and that their coverage is necessarily and sometimes deliberately skewed to the left.

It's pretty mind-blowing, actually:

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that," the memo continued.
"It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest, now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."

Let us postulate that Halperin is an honest man, or is at least not conscious of any dishonest motives he may have. This memo is the smoking-gun that proves that the liberal media simply cannot, as they claim, report the news neutrally.

Halperin's assumption is that Bush's alleged "distortions" are much worse than Kerry's. That assumption is certainly a politically-sensitive one. Certainly I don't share it, and if you're reading this blog, you probably don't either.

The tricky thing about logic and reasoning and argumentation is that, as formalistic as a piece of formal logic might be, it almost always relies, at its base, upon inherently unproveable assumptions which are just something one believes in one's gut. Even mathematics relies on numerous key assumptions which haven't yet been proved (and, in a couple of cases, upon assumptions which by their own implications cannot ever be proven-- they can only be accepted provisionally, with all logic flowing therefrom).

Even the common dictionary is, at its heart, built unavoidably upon assumptions. It's been noted, for example, that there is no good definition for the word "word" -- all definitions of "word" are ultimately just tautologies which use the word "word" in order to define the word "word."

Reporters can claim -- certainly incorrectly and probably often dishonestly -- that their logic and reasoning and analysis proceeds, to the extent possible, along non-partisan and neutral tracks. But they cannot avoid the fact that all that analysis is built inevitably upon a foundation of assumptions -- nearly all of them liberal -- which they cannot prove and in fact are utterly unproveable. They don't even attempt to prove these assumptions, probably for the disingenuous reason that attempting to prove these assumptions would reveal, in piercing starkness, that these assumptions exist in the first place.

And that's something they will just never admit.

Halperin thinks that Bush's "distortions" are more important than, say, John Kerry's obvious demogoguery on recruiting additional "allies" to sacrifice blood and treasure to do America's (and Iraq's) job for us. Can he explain why he believes that to be the case -- and, more importantly, prove in objective terms that that is in fact the case? Of course he can't, and he dares not try. Instead, he just circulates an internal memo -- meant for liberal eyes only, of course -- instructing his liberal colleagues to act upon the assumptions they all know in their bones are true.

And yet which cannot be proven.

Halperin will of course just claim that he's trying to give ABCNews' audience the (dubious) benefit of his professional news judgment. But that gives the game away, doesn't it? For years the media has attempted to explain away liberal bias as simple, neutral, objective "news judgment." What they seem to mean is that the fact that they went to journalism school, and work in in the paid legacy media, gives them some special insight on "the truth," especially with regard to matters political, an insight apparently not to be found quite so well developed among any other class of Americans.

And furthermore, we now see that "news judgment" is just a euphemism for "liberal political assumptions."

The full memo is here, republished by the indispensible Drudge.

Now, Matt: This is a hurricane. Or a "hellstorm," as you like to say.

Thanks to Ron for bringing this to my attention.

posted by Ace at 12:33 PM

Comments

Define "word"? That's nothing.

I had a friend who was once asked in a *job interview* to define the word "the."

I guess it was asked to see how he'd react. Vigorous laughter was his answer.

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 9, 2004 01:14 PM

Well I am glad that this memo suffaced. Full steam ahead and let's get them the same way we did on Rathergate. Bet he was surprised to see that memo on the air!!

Posted by: Carl on October 9, 2004 01:24 PM

Goedel's theorem.

In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is strong enough to define the concept of natural numbers, one can construct a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system.

I have a hard time extending principles like this to everyday life...

I prefer to "hold these truths to be self evident" and understand that people who can't agree with me on the fundamentals are the enemy.

Posted by: vtrtl on October 9, 2004 02:24 PM

Can't wait to see Eric Alterman spin this.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on October 9, 2004 03:09 PM

A well written piece. Outstanding!

Posted by: Roundguy on October 9, 2004 03:50 PM

So you're a deconstructionist now, I take it?

Posted by: Bryan on October 9, 2004 10:16 PM

I think few people are surprised that this type of thinking goes on at the networks, only that it surfaced in the Halperin memo. My question is whether there is more to this than a single network wanting to make sure Kerry was given a pass on whoppers in the debate. It simply doesn't work if only a single network with 6-8% coverage lays off. It only works if you can get a consensus.

Don't know if anyone remembers 4 years ago when all 3 networks and several major print outlets chimed in simultaneously at the "lack of gravitas" in Bush's character. This was a term that had rarely been used, but in 3 days it had been used over a thousand times to describe Bush. Evidence of a working together or following the lead of a single source (DNC)? Very possibly.

I have never been a conspiracy theorist until i began analyzing network coverage of campaigns and the Clinton/Lewinsky impeachment story. But there is something there.

Posted by: Crosby Boyd on October 9, 2004 10:31 PM

I remember watching a TV documentary-style show about the making of the CBS's '60 minutes.'
During an interview of one of the show's producers they were discussing that big interview with Bill and Hillary Clinton during the '92 campaign.

The producer talked about how when Gennifer Flowers erupted on the scene, they felt that they had to help Bubba out and provide some favorable coverage and clear the air.

This information was provided in the documentary totally, like...BLASE, without any additional comments or explanation of any kind...this type of action was obviously matter-of-course.

I'd love it if anybody could find that footage today. I was thinking 'HELLO - WTF is it any of CBS's business to HELP OUT any candidate for this country's highest office??'

And that was before I really understood myself as a conservative.

As far as 'gravitas'-- THE MAN'S NICKNAME WAS BUBBA, fer cryin' out loud. And he has a thing for a particular brand of chunky, erm...'inelegant' ladies.

They have not even begun to slow down with the bullshit. And they are starting to get buried with it.

Posted by: lauraw on October 10, 2004 08:28 PM

Does knowledge require certainty? To know a proposition, must we have reasons that establishs it beyond a shadow of doubt?

Say you and one million people all bought a lottery ticket. Your chance of winning is one in a million. You have a very good reason for believing that you will lose. But do you know that you will lose? No. Maybe you will win!

If knowledge requires certainty, there is little that we know, for there are precious few propositions that are absolutely indutable. There are possibilities that, because they can't be ruled out, undermine our certainty. To demand that a proposition be certain in order for it to be known would severely restrict the extent of our knowledge, perhaps to the vanishing point.

The point that we can't know what isn't certain is often espoused by philosophical skeptics. According to these thinkers, most of us are deluded about the actual extent of our knowledge.

But there are good reasons to suggest this is not so; There are things that, while inconclusive, we know; That the earth is inhabated, that cows produce milk, that water freezes at 32 degrees Farenheit, and so on. We claim to know these things, yet none are absolutely certain. In the light of this can philosophical skeptics legitimately claim to know that knowledge requires certainty?

No, for unless they are certain that knowledge requires certainty, they can't know that it does! Philosophical skeptics claim that we can only know what is certain, yet they can't be certain that knowledge requires certainty. The examples above provide good reason for doubting that it does require certainty.

Heavy borrowation from;

"How Think About Weird Things" critical thinking for a new age, by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn.
Recommended reading for all conservative thinkers.

Posted by: Joseph Reinhart on October 10, 2004 10:46 PM