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

Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.

Artemis II Crew releases clearest images of the Far Side yet recorded

Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win
Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.

Sarah Longwell spotting

Tuq'r's makeover is 100!

Alfred Hitchcock learns to talk with TJM

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.