Let me explain,... No, there is too much.

 What to choose. What to choose.... Should I dissect the recent NYT article advocating without any sense of irony or history the creation of public/private partnership dedicated to "truth enforcement"?  Should I point out how the Media are finally, kind-of acknowledging how terribly (and deceptively) Governor Cuomo handled the Covid 19 outbreak in his own state while everyone was busy dumping on Ron DeSantis instead? (Florida is 26th in deaths per million, though you would have guessed it was top 5.) Should I point out how delicately the media are announcing the reopening of "semi-permanent, soft-sided structures" for migrant children at the border when they previously blasted the previous administration for "tent cities"? Should I point out how Jen Psaki has been given a full pass on what would have been a major scandal under the previous presidency, asking to be told in advance what reporters are going to ask at press briefings? Should I point out that the request was only made because Democrats feel so comfortable making it? Do I waste my time pointing out that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a nobody who will be primaried and forgotten like she should be, and the only reason anyone knows her name is that the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) want her to be the face of the Republican party? Do I bother making the case for how quickly conservatives feel compelled to drop their crazies (aside from the throbbing middle finger that was Trump) while the Left defends theirs tooth and nail and grants them leadership status? Do I string together the unhinged, hateful quotes from the Squad and ask why no one else in their party has been asked to distance themselves from these quotes?

Meh. Not enough time in the day. Just a strong endorsement of today's topic on the Ben Shapiro show. A very specific walkthrough of the "fact checking" process and how its corruption contributes to where we are today. Please. Give it a try. It is very specific and well-demonstrated. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZd4NNhASbA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Talk to People

The murder of Charlie Kirk has had me in a painful sorrow the last couple of days. Yes, terrible things are happening every day that shouldn't be normal. Parts of society are becoming more nihilistic and deadly every day, and we don't agree on what's causing it or how to stop it. But Charlie's assassination should have been met with universal and unequivocal mourning and condemnation. The fact that it wasn't is, to me, indicative of a new and heartbreaking low. How are we to find an off-ramp or come to an understanding of society's ills when the very thing that would solve it (civil public debate) has been flatly rejected?  Charlie was out there doing exactly what many of us wish we had the guts to do - civily engaging face-to-face. Debating. Standing for things he believed in, with an outstretched hand.  And THAT was intolerable. He was a "platform for hate and ignorance." He "got what he advocated for." He was an "extremist."  I a...
Read more

Remember that whole “little brother” analogy?

Remember back in 2020 when I talked about little brothers coming out swinging when they feel like big brother gets away with changing the rules at will? When they feel like there’s no adult who will set things straight? I don’t like this. I’m not cheering for it. But it’s coming. And this is the best representation I know of from the perspective of the little brother. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-the-argument-with-nick-freitas/id1506127536?i=1000657445015
Read more

Gell-Mann Amnesia

Image
 Michael Crichton (yes, that one) made an observation almost twenty years ago. He described something he coined as the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: " Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect [...]  Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate ab...
Read more