Is the Truth On Trial? - Right Lean News - Left Lean News (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I thought this NYT article was pretty good on the topic. 

Lies, Damned Lies and Washington   "As President Trump faces impeachment by the House, it is the very concept of truth that often seems to be on trial."

It feels like a pretty balanced look at a complicated topic. 

And it's also very likely an example of "confirmation bias" we've talked about as it seems the author shares my opinion that there is less nefarious intentional disinformation going on and more struggle in finding who people can trust. 

And that much of this is not the clear cut black and white stuff. There's nuance. Both in what's discussed and what's left out. Which usually means what's discussed is what's bad for the other side and what's left out is what's bad for my side. 

Wondering what you guys thought of this. 

WASHINGTON — There are days in Washington lately when it feels like the truth itself is on trial. Monday was one of those days.

An impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill presented radically competing versions of reality. An F.B.I. inspector general report punctured longstanding conspiracy theories even as it provided ammunition for others. And a trove of documents exposed years of government deception about the war in Afghanistan.

While truth was deemed an endangered species in the nation’s capital long before President Trump’s arrival, it has become axiomatic in the era of “alternative facts” that each person or party entertains only their own preferred variant, resisting contrary information. Rarely has that been on display as starkly as on Monday, underscoring the deep distrust that many Americans harbor toward their leaders and institutions.

“We’re in a dangerous moment,” said Peter Wehner, a former strategic adviser to President George W. Bush and a vocal critic of Mr. Trump. “The danger is people come to believe that nobody is giving them the facts and reality, and everybody can make up their own script and their own narrative.”

 

[Joe Bryant]

“The story of the past half-century is the steady degradation of trust in the institutions and gatekeepers of American life,” said Ben Domenech, the founder of The Federalist, a conservative news site. “Everything from politics to faith to sports has been revealed as corrupted or corruptible. And every mismanaged war, failed hurricane response, botched investigation and doping scandal furthers this view.”

While a Quinnipiac Poll last spring found that Americans believed the news media more than Mr. Trump by a margin of 52 percent to 35 percent, other surveys showed a crisis among everyday people distinguishing fact from fiction in public life. Nearly two-thirds of Americans in a poll released last month by The Associated Press, the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and USAFacts said they often came across one-sided information, and 47 percent said they had difficulty knowing if the information were true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/lies-damned-lies-and-washington.html

 

[Joe Bryant]

The documents on Afghanistan made public on Monday could easily deepen that sense of suspicion. Some 2,000 pages of secret notes and interview transcripts compiled as part of a lessons-learned project and released to The Washington Post after a court fight showed that the government had misled the public about the war since its early months.

As Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who was an adviser on Afghanistan to Mr. Bush and President Barack Obama, admitted in a secret interview included in the documents, “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing.” But neither administration admitted that to the public. John F. Sopko, the head of the federal agency that conducted the interviews, told The Post that the documents showed “the American people have constantly been lied to.”

The F.B.I. inspector general report released on Monday typified the choose-your-own-reality nature of Washington these days. The report debunked Mr. Trump’s conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, finding no “political bias or improper motivation” in opening the inquiry. But the inspector general also found that the bureau made serious mistakes in seeking a surveillance warrant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/lies-damned-lies-and-washington.html

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Truth got the death penalty several years ago. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Former F.B.I. officials took the report as vindication because it dispelled the many unfounded claims Mr. Trump and his supporters advanced about the bureau even as they fretted that too many people would still believe the president’s assertions. “There is a risk we’ve become so numb to the lying that we move onto the next outrage,” the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, who was fired by Mr. Trump, said on CNN.

Likewise, the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing on Monday offered conflicting versions to suit either side’s predilections — either the story of an out-of-control president abusing his power to pressure a foreign government to help him take down his domestic rivals or a president who just happened to be concerned about corruption in faraway Ukraine and did not tie American aid to his political priorities even though some of his own advisers thought he did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/lies-damned-lies-and-washington.html

 

[Kal El]

The truth is still the truth, whether someone believes it or not. It's likely between the two accounts of what happened, but probably closer to the democrats in this case. What people do with that truth is another thing entirely. I can only hope that the truth convinces everyone to do the right thing. If he's guilty, remove him from office; if not, vote him out in 2020.

 

[Summer Wheat]

This has bothered me for awhile. What exactly are the stations reporting the news responsibilities?  To tell us exactly what is happening?  Or to tell us "Their version" of the truth like my kids do?  I really can`t watch CNN, FOX or MSNBC anymore due to the slants and the emotional involvement of who is delivering the news.

 

[identikit]

Once people starting referring to 'my truth,' I knew it was done for.

 

[sho nuff]

The truth is still the truth, whether someone believes it or not. It's likely between the two accounts of what happened, but probably closer to the democrats in this case. What people do with that truth is another thing entirely. I can only hope that the truth convinces everyone to do the right thing. If he's guilty, remove him from office; if not, vote him out in 2020.

Exactly...and independent investigation found no bias changed the investigation.  Found the investigation was proper.  

Even the threads we see here on this board...the sources cited by Tim, that are actually shown in media bias charts and fact checks to be pretty bad sources of information if facts are a concern to you...we have actually seen those sources used to back up things or start conversations.  Meanwhile, their counterparts rarely, if ever, get used by left leaning posters.  Instead, people shrug off legitimate sources like the NYTimes, Washington Post and so on as fake news.  Because that is what POTUS has done...amped up the complete dismissal of any negative media.  Ive seen similar questionable sites posted by conservative friends on social media.  Spreading things that are quickly shown as false...while writing off anything negative.  Its definitely concerning that such a large amount of people in this country are believing such false things...and so often writing off the truth.

I don't think its as clear though of "if he is guilty, remove him".  IMO what we have seen of the facts shows he is guilty, but that is less of what matters in today's world of politics.  That doubt of news, doubt of intelligence agencies...has allowed the GOP to hide behind all things and continue to back him even if guilty.  And they will try and use it as a rallying cry come election time.  Hoping the Dems are a bit more energized to vote him out though. 

 

[Jackstraw]

One side wants to tell women untrue things in order to get an abortion.

One side has been doing fishy stuff with textbook content all over the country. 

One side wants to force doctors to reimplant ectopic prgnancies by law even though that isn't a real medical procedure.

A study documented that Fox viewers were literally less informed than they would be if they watrched nothing at all.

Do Dems lie/spin? Sure. 

But to compare that against what we are seeing with Republicans is crazy. It is systematic. It is in many/most cases objectively provable stuff. It's assymetrical warfare.  

To pretend this is some kind of both sides thing is to give comfort and aid to the people that are actively tearing this country apart. 

I'm busy today so won;t be able to field cross examinations. 

It's blatant. It's obvious. it's shameful. And clearly it works.  

 

[Jackstraw]

I mean kellyAnne spouted the term alternate facts days after the elction. Shawn Spicer humiliated himself with the size of the inauguration crowd nonsense. Shouted at the press. Angrily. As he told his blatantly untrue lies everybody could see with their own eyes. They lie about things big and small. They lie when the truth would be easier. 

Member the tax cuts will pay for themselves? HAHAHA. Everybody....EVERYBODY, knew that was a lie. 

But the media go with "democrats say this", "republicans say this" who can tell really? 

 

[identikit]

You seem not too busy...

 

[KiddLattimer]

This has bothered me for awhile. What exactly are the stations reporting the news responsibilities?  To tell us exactly what is happening?  Or to tell us "Their version" of the truth like my kids do?  I really can`t watch CNN, FOX or MSNBC anymore due to the slants and the emotional involvement of who is delivering the news.

Agreed, and I believe they are largely responsible for the divisiveness in this country (including talk radio in here too).  

Although I think the media as a whole is extremely important people need to remember that these are businesses who are trying to make money not public services just trying to do the right thing. If Hannity whips up the right to hate Obama/Pelosi or Maddow whips up the left to tell a good Trump/Russia story that draws in eyeballs which turns into higher ad spend. 

Edit to add - they also rely very heavily on access to the people they're covering and if they cross them they're going to have a hard time existing. Nobody is going to bite the hand that feeds unless they don't want to be long for their jobs

 

[sho nuff]

Agreed, and I believe they are largely responsible for the divisiveness in this country (including talk radio in here too).  

Although I think the media as a whole is extremely important people need to remember that these are businesses who are trying to make money not public services just trying to do the right thing. If Hannity whips up the right to hate Obama/Pelosi or Maddow whips up the left to tell a good Trump/Russia story that draws in eyeballs which turns into higher ad spend. 

Edit to add - they also rely very heavily on access to the people they're covering and if they cross them they're going to have a hard time existing. Nobody is going to bite the hand that feeds unless they don't want to be long for their jobs

I wonder how much it would help or hurt one of the major players to separate its opinion shows from its news.  Like a separate section/channel even.  Show they are above the fray and want to report the news...if you would like opinion, here is a different place to you.  "Here, we do the news".

Sadly...the news side would probably perform terribly...while the opinion side gets great ratings.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This article- which I'm sure was written and published with the best of intentions- is a great illustration of what I said in the other thread, that the media and our culture simply weren't set up to deal with Trumpism.  Some examples:

An impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill presented radically competing versions of reality.

No it didn't,  It presented clear evidence that the President of the United States had attempted to exert the power and influence of the office to push a foreign nation to announce an investigation into baseless allegations of corruption in order to harm a political rival of the President and aid his reelection campaign.  Any objective look at the facts would make this impossible to deny, which is why the people defending the President attempted to muddy the waters with bizarre allegations and totally unsupported conspiracy theories.

The NY Times is supposed clear away the muddy waters and illuminate the truth, not point to the waters and say "look how muddy they are!"

An F.B.I. inspector general report punctured longstanding conspiracy theories even as it provided ammunition for others.
 

...

But the inspector general also found that the bureau made serious mistakes in seeking a surveillance warrant.

The "serious mistakes" were corner-cutting by law enforcement officials seeking a warrant, specifically a FISA warrant. Law enforcement abusing the FISA process, the warrant process more broadly and the 4th Amendment are not news to anyone who follows civil rights issues and the law. The fact that the people using this as "ammunition" for "conspiracy theories" have never expressed even a hint of concern with respect to these issues is important context- in fact they've largely been on the other side, defending and empowering law enforcement. This hypocrisy demonstrates pretty clearly that these people aren't genuinely concerned about these issues and their outrage is manufactured for political (and in the case of Fox News, financial) purposes. The Times should point out this fact, but it doesn't because doing so would make it look "biased." And that's where we are.

 

[adonis]

We've democratized truth with everyone having a platform who also has an opinion, at the same time we've lifted most of the fact-checking from the process.

 

[Zow]

"Truth is Beauty"

 

[Mr Anonymous]

The truth is now whatever a given group wants it to be. Speak it into existence is a thing now. The scariest aspect being that it actually works.

 

[Godsbrother]

One thing I've noticed is that many GOP congressmen/women want to focus on the source of the information rather than whether or not abuses from the oval office occurred.

 

[MTskibum]

None of this is new or any worse than it has ever been.  Media has always done this and always will, just the same as old people thinking the new generation is lazy. Some things will never change.

Quote
One such surrogate was the influential President of Yale University, a John Adams supporter, who publically suggested that were Jefferson to become the president, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.”

The concern was amplified by an influential—and highly partisan—Connecticut newspaper’s warning that electing Jefferson would create a nation where “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced.”
Media has always done this and always will. Just like old people thinking the youngest generation is lazy, some things will never change.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/20/the-dirtiest-presidential-campaign-ever-not-even-close/#500e512f3d84

 

[Doug B]

This has bothered me for awhile. What exactly are the stations reporting the news responsibilities?  To tell us exactly what is happening?  Or to tell us "Their version" of the truth like my kids do?

Can a human being actually tell us "exactly what is happening"? Any human communication will only ever be a version of the truth, will it not?

Philosophically ... I am not sure human beings can perceive absolute truth. We would have to be completely 100% free of bias to access absolute truth, and no human is capable of that.

 

[Zerp]

Everyday we get to wake up and decide who we are, as a people, as a country.  This country was once great.  And could be again.  I regularly travel internationally, primarily Europe.  The USA is center stage.  Has been for a while.  This administration, and by association the American people, are the Michael Scott of the world.  Except we're not lovable. 

We decide what matters.  Our decency, our integrity, our credibility.  The truth isn't on trial.  We are.  [Too dark?] 

 

[Dickies]

The truth is still the truth, whether someone believes it or not. It's likely between the two accounts of what happened, but probably closer to the democrats in this case. What people do with that truth is another thing entirely. I can only hope that the truth convinces everyone to do the right thing. If he's guilty, remove him from office; if not, vote him out in 2020.

Not according to Trump’s lawyer

 

[Kal El]

Not according to Trump’s lawyer

Many lawyers(not necessarily including the ones who post here, don't fight me) don't have a great grasp of the truth. Rudy has ties to corruption in the Ukraine, so I'm going to go ahead and say that he's included in that category.

 

[Zow]

Not according to Trump’s lawyer

I actually watched this interview live: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/08/05/newt-gingrich-exemplifies-just-how-unscientific-america-is/#59ab43715e47

That was the first time I remembered feeling like something was different. Until that point I had thought Trump was a sideshow (and that, frankly, those of us registered republicans would possibly wake up to Kasich or roll with Rubio or Cruz). I'd note, further, that I watched this interview with my father-in-law who, to my then surprise, commented that he thought that Gingrich had a point and started to talk about some local newstories about violent crimes as if they carried some meaningful statistical weight. 

 

[Zow]

Many lawyers(not necessarily including the ones who post here, don't fight me) don't have a great grasp of the truth. Rudy has ties to corruption in the Ukraine, so I'm going to go ahead and say that he's included in that category.

WTF?

 

[Henry Ford]

WTF?

If you didn't realize that's what people who don't know many lawyers think, congrats.  Welcome to reality.

But don't worry.  You're "one of the good ones."

 

[Henry Ford]

Can a human being actually tell us "exactly what is happening"? Any human communication will only ever be a version of the truth, will it not?

Philosophically ... I am not sure human beings can perceive absolute truth. We would have to be completely 100% free of bias to access absolute truth, and no human is capable of that.

I don't think you do have to be free of bias.  But you do have to have enough self-reflection to understand what your biases are and how powerful they are.

If your gun pulls to the left and you want to hit the target, you just have to aim a little to the right.

 

[Zow]

If you didn't realize that's what people who don't know many lawyers think, congrats.  Welcome to reality.

But don't worry.  You're "one of the good ones."

I did, I just, I don't know... seems different when people actually outright say it.   

 

[Henry Ford]

I did, I just, I don't know... seems different when people actually outright say it.   

Don't get all uppity.  I said you're one of the good ones.

 

[Kal El]

I did, I just, I don't know... seems different when people actually outright say it.   

The actions of a few bad ones spoil the image of the rest. Same with teachers, police and politicians.

 

[Zow]

The actions of a few bad ones spoil the image of the rest. Same with teachers, police and politicians.

Seems a far cry from the "many lawyers" claim in your initial statement. 

 

[dkp993]

Once people starting referring to 'my truth,' I knew it was done for.

The truth is now whatever a given group wants it to be. Speak it into existence is a thing now. The scariest aspect being that it actually works.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Otm4RusESNU

 

[Henry Ford]

Seems a far cry from the "many lawyers" claim in your initial statement. 

He said it doesn't necessarily include the ones who post here.

(@Kal El, I'm just kidding.  No offense taken, I just like watching younger lawyers' heads explode over the internet.)

 

[Kal El]

Seems a far cry from the "many lawyers" claim in your initial statement. 

I don't know exactly how many lawyers are currently practicing, but the number of bad ones does represent a percentage of the total. I used the term "many" instead of "most," because to me, the latter represents more than half of a given group, whereas the former has a wider range, but often used to represent a smaller percentage.

 

[Zow]

Many lawyers(not necessarily including the ones who post here, don't fight me) don't have a great grasp of the truth. Rudy has ties to corruption in the Ukraine, so I'm going to go ahead and say that he's included in that category.

Initial statement in bold. I stand by my comments. And I aged out of the informal "Young Lawyers" club I was in several years not necessarily because of age but because of too much trial experience that I no longer thought that discussing misdemeanor trials with fervor on a Friday night while drinking Fireball was "fun."  

 

[Zow]

I don't know exactly how many lawyers are currently practicing, but the number of bad ones does represent a percentage of the total. I used the term "many" instead of "most," because to me, the latter represents more than half of a given group, whereas the former has a wider range, but often used to represent a smaller percentage.

But then you said a "few" in the context of something like a "few bad apples" ruining the otherwise good image. That's a different statement. 

Unless, of course, we are dealing with two separate "truths" here. 

 

[Kal El]

He said it doesn't necessarily include the ones who post here.

(@Kal El, I'm just kidding.  No offense taken, I just like watching younger lawyers' heads explode over the internet.)

No worries, I do know a few lawyers, and they're pretty good at what they do.

 

[Henry Ford]

Initial statement in bold. I stand by my comments. And I aged out of the informal "Young Lawyers" club I was in several years not necessarily because of age but because of too much trial experience that I no longer thought that discussing misdemeanor trials with fervor on a Friday night while drinking Fireball was "fun."  

I didn't say young.  I said younger.

 

[Zow]

I didn't say young.  I said younger.

Knew you were going to say that. Which just means that I now get to poke fun at your age...

 

[Kal El]

But then you said a "few" in the context of something like a "few bad apples" ruining the otherwise good image. That's a different statement. 

Unless, of course, we are dealing with two separate "truths" here. 

It's a poor choice of terms on my part, true enough. I can only imagine the headache if I'd have used the term "all."

 

[Zow]

It's a poor choice of terms on my part, true enough. I can only imagine the headache if I'd have used the term "all."

Meh I would have just rolled my eyes and not even responded then. I took umbrage with the "many' because I inferred that you then meant that lawyers know less or care less about the truth than an average person. 

 

[Doug B]

I don't think you do have to be free of bias.  But you do have to have enough self-reflection to understand what your biases are and how powerful they are.

If your gun pulls to the left and you want to hit the target, you just have to aim a little to the right.

I question even the perception mechanisms humans possess to sense "truth" in the world around them. Self-reflection can't help much there.

 

[Kal El]

Meh I would have just rolled my eyes and not even responded then. I took umbrage with the "many' because I inferred that you then meant that lawyers know less or care less about the truth than an average person. 

I believe they know the truth, or at least "a" truth. My issue is with the ones who twist it around to get an otherwise guilty party released on a technicality, or something like that. Granted, my experience in courtrooms is limited to 3 times I went in for jury duty, so I'm a bit out of my depth.

 

[Zow]

I believe they know the truth, or at least "a" truth. My issue is with the ones who twist it around to get an otherwise guilty party released on a technicality, or something like that. Granted, my experience in courtrooms is limited to 3 times I went in for jury duty, so I'm a bit out of my depth.

@Henry Ford cleanup of brain matter and other bits of cranium on aisle 5. 

 

[Henry Ford]

I believe they know the truth, or at least "a" truth. My issue is with the ones who twist it around to get an otherwise guilty party released on a technicality, or something like that. Granted, my experience in courtrooms is limited to 3 times I went in for jury duty, so I'm a bit out of my depth.

The truth is that we live in a society that has laws.  And those laws require certain things be adhered to in order to convict someone of a crime.  When you say "technicality" what you mean is "the law."  And those who have sworn to serve that law will generally do so and often have very little regard for supposed "authorities" who do not.  And if those authorities have no respect for the law, do not adhere to it, and disregard it while they claim to enforce it, they will generally not manage to get many people convicted if one of those servants of the law is representing the defendant.

If the police fail to do something they're required to do and violate someone's rights, they're doing something illegal to try to circumvent the law and convict someone they're convinced is guilty.  That's a truth that's been on trial my entire working life in the court of public opinion, and lawyers (who actually understand that truth) lost that battle to people who don't want to see the truth a long time ago.

 

[Henry Ford]

@Joe Bryant, see how I brought that whole tangent back to the subject of the thread? O'Doyle Rules!

 

[Mario Kart]

Alternative Truth

 

[Van Dyman]

I wonder how much it would help or hurt one of the major players to separate its opinion shows from its news.  Like a separate section/channel even.  Show they are above the fray and want to report the news...if you would like opinion, here is a different place to you.  "Here, we do the news".

Sadly...the news side would probably perform terribly...while the opinion side gets great ratings.

Not a major player, but Newsy has entered the cable news market and says it is there to inform, not influence. If true, that could be a decent barometer for whether "just the news" actually draws decent ratings. I'm hopeful but doubtful it'll work.

On the media bias chart Joe posted, Newsy is placed at high reliability with neutral or balanced bias, in the same vicinity as NPR and ABC News.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Can a human being actually tell us "exactly what is happening"? Any human communication will only ever be a version of the truth, will it not?

Philosophically ... I am not sure human beings can perceive absolute truth. We would have to be completely 100% free of bias to access absolute truth, and no human is capable of that.

Well sure as hell not around here.