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

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Frankenheimer

CNBC ranks Tennessee as dead last in its “Worst States to Live” analysis. The specific reason is that cross-dressing men in TN are denied access to children and women’s private spaces. Texas finished 49th. The “worst” states were all red states. [Buck]

Senator Lindsey Graham (R - SC) has died after a "brief and sudden illness." [Buck]

The "Evel Knievel Experience," a museum dedicated to the famous daredevil, opens in (where else) Las Vegas
Well I guess they could have opened it on the Snake Canyon.

TJM discusses the career of John Frankenheimer, director of both The Manchurian Candidate and...Prophecy.

In response to someone asking why the video tape doesn't show Tyler Robinson's face (PS, it does, but it's crappy video so it's blurry):

Candace Owens
@RealCandaceO

Because as I demonstrated on my show, there were MANY young men that all woke up and decided to dress in Maroon shirts and light shorts on the day of the Charlie's assassination.

The footage can be any one of these young men and in my opinion is likely multiple of them.

If Tyler Robinson's defense would like to contact me-- I'd be happy to supply them the folder of the maroon boys that I began archiving when I noticed the bizarre fashion trend.

I have thus far ID'd two of them, but will focus on IDing the rest of them when I am back on air.

I have maintained that the Feds had multiple decoy maroon boys on the ground that day. Without a clear image, they certainly cannot declare it is Tyler Robinson which is why all the Zionist influencers are hoping they can simply hypnotize the public into trusting blurry images and videos.

For such an "open and shut case" they have thus far provided ZERO evidence of anything outside of a criminal government conspiracy, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the JFK assassination.

Fenix Ammunition responds to "retard" and Nazi Ian Carroll about the Candy Crew's non-expertise on ballistics

More "fedslop" that Cavernous Nostrils is too smart to be taken in by:

Blake Neff
@BlakeSNeff

BREAKING: Lance Twiggs says that Robinson admitted to him in-person on Sept. 11 that the message he had sent the night before (presumably, messages sent while he was trying to retrieve his rifle the night of Sept 10) was true. He says Robinson told him "He wishes he hadn't done it."

Fenix Ammunition
@FenixAmmunition

Photos of the ammunition recovered from Tyler Robinson.

Remington headstamp on the case and despite the somewhat low resolution on the photo you can see the somewhat blunted nature of the projectile's tip.

This is a Remington Cor-Lokt soft point round. It's SPECIFICALLY designed to deform, slow down, and prevent an exit wound. Available at literally every single gun store and sporting goods store that sells ammunition.

In fact, 16 out of the 17 .30-06 varieties manufactured by Remington use some type of expanding, deforming, or fragmenting bullet. Only ONE of their products uses a full metal jacket projectile that could/would be expected to leave an exit wound.

Here's a clip of them sitting in my desk.

This has been the most easily debunked claim of their entire web of lies and it's really mind blowing considering this is exactly what you would choose for an assassination.

But yeah, definitely keep getting all your information from the DEI hire and the Portland pizza boy. I'm sure they know more about this than I do.

Post here, showing Tyler Robinson's ammunition, matching this guy's own box. And it is an expanding-tip hollow-point round.

Boy these Internet Experts (TM) sure do get a lot of things wrong.

Lost 70s Mystery Click
And a song with another song as an intro, too:
Be it sight, sound, smell, or touch
There's something
Inside that we need so much
The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound
Or the strength of an oak with roots deep in the ground
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up
Thru tarmac, to the sun again
Boy do they look like absolute dorks.

Lost 70s Mystery Click
Doing alright
A little jiving on a Saturday night
And come what may
Gonna dance the day away
Jenny was sweet
She always smiled for the people she'd meet
On trouble and strife
She had another way of looking at life

Podcast: Is Kentucky's long nightmare over? Maine's resident Nazi might be out, NATO making progress, or is it a fake, Le Pen in France might have a shot, Democrats are simply pinch-faced scolds who hate America, but is our youth going to revitalize the country...and more!

TJM talks about the new movie Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die

RIP Lord Humungus [CBD]

TJM definitively ranks the films of William Friedkin including, of course, CAT Squad Python Wolf

Podcast: Birthright Citizenship? The Democratic Socialists of the Democrat Party are ascendant, the President's misstep about gas prices, and more!

All of the music and sound effects from Star Trek season one

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
It happened one summer, it happened one time
It happened forever, for a short time
A place for a moment, an end to dream
Forever I loved you, forever it seemed
One summer never ends, one summer never began
It keeps me standing still, it takes all my will

The Doors' original version of "Enter Sandman"

TJM explores the films of William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist.