Let’s start by saying, THE WHITE HOUSE MADE A MISTAKE.  First, a White House aide came forward and said that…yes…FOX News is biased, and often serves as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.  A brief summary of the events following this statement may be found here.  Recently, another White House advisor, Valerie Jarrett, performed another disservice to the Office of the President, by reaffirming that “of course” FOX News is biased, by hedging on whether or not MSNBC is biased, and by saying that this was part of the White House’s ideology of “speaking truth to power:”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULYycgU8zY4

Why is all of this behavior, on the part of White House staff, inappropriate?  Is it because they are somehow curtailing the First Amendment?  No…they have prevented no one from speaking.  Is it because this is somehow, as talking heads on FOX suggest, tyrannical behavior typical of fascist and communist regimes?  No…George W. Bush and the presidents before him have always been critical of one or more news outlets, and it’s not like the government is shutting FOX down and arresting its people.  No…the reason that this is a mistake, is because it is unnecessary.

1) “Speaking truth to power?“  You are the White House.  You ARE “the power.“  By stooping to engage a lesser entity in a verbal sparring match, you miss the obvious opportunity to “rise above them” instead.  Ignoring them, much as one would ignore the attention-seeking behavior of a screaming child, would serve the image of the POTUS better.

2) What you’ve said is true and obviously so…but is pointless, and if anything, will only serve to boost FOX’s ratings.  Why? Because the people who watch FOX either do so because they LIKE that it is biased in such a way as to agree with them, or because they don’t watch anything else, in which case they do not know that it is biased, nor will they ever accept that it is…because it is the source of ALL their information and it provides the interpretation of said information.

If FOX weren’t biased…why would Shepard Smith being receiving so mach hate mail, and so many threats?  For those who do not recognize the name, Shep Smith is perhaps the LEAST biased anchor on FOX News.  Earlier this year, Smith grew tired of listening to his guests attempt to justify the unjustifiable.  He listened to them try to rationalize our country’s use of torture, while clumsily dodging the fact that it is not simply immoral…but also 100%, clearly, illegal.  When Smith had had enough, he erupted: “We are America, we don’t torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train! This government is of, by, and for the people….I’m saying, whatever it is, you don’t do it for me.”  This is the same Shepard Smith, accurately identified former Vice President Cheney’s stance on gay rights, especially given the fact that his daughter is gay, as a “cop out.“  Smith also questioned the fairness of a story which criticized the Canadian health care system while attempting to discredit the current plans in our country to reform health care…and he rightly pointed out that the proposed reforms in the U.S., have absolutely NOTHING in common with the Canadian system.  Quite recently, Smith apologized after a segment where a Republican candidate was interviewed, but the Democratic candidate was not: “Wow. I didn’t know that was about to happen. My apologies for the lack of balance there. If I’d had control it wouldn’t have happened.”

Want to know something about FOX News’ viewers?  Want to know how one anchor’s attempts to remain objective and squelch bias on that network were rewarded?  He is attacked…threatened by viewers of the network, told by viewers, “You don’t belong here,” and harassed in public.  Do these sound like the kind of people who will respond to the White House’s criticism by changing channels?  Do they sound like people who will come to say, “Wow.  We had no idea that FOX was so unbalanced.  We are upset that they are distorting the news in order to communicate conservative dogma and ideology.”

No. They’ll keep watching FOX News.  They’ll watch it because it agrees with them…because it tells them what they want to hear…and because it plays into their psychological defense mechanisms.  That’s right.  There IS actually a psychological explanation for much of the unreasonable “outrage” and the inexplicable “conspiracy theorizing” that we are all observing.  A brief article in Psychology Today, sums up this all-too-human phenomenon quite clearly.  In short…the human brain WANTS to make connections between events and other things in our environment.  It is part of the way that our minds detect threats, and so the brain rewards this behavior with the release of dopamine.  In other words, it feels good to “connect the dots.“  In times of high uncertainty and stress…like say, a recession characterized by financial instability, high foreclosure rates, and rampant unemployment…or perhaps the election of a president who some view as “strange” and/or “different“…our brains may tend to go into overdrive, drawing connections between as many things in our world as possible, in hopes of identifying threats to our lives, our security, our comfort.  Here’s a fun example from Glenn Beck, who has provided us many such examples:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWL-pfCao-U

What should be obvious, is that such theorizing is not created through sound reasoning…and it is, therefore, impervious to facts and reasoning.  For example, if I take the unreasonable position that I was abducted by aliens and replaced by an identical pod person…you are going to have more than a little difficultly “disproving” this, simply because there is nothing factual or logical in it for you to address.  “Conspiracy thinking” is this way because is not the product of logical thinking…but is instead produced through a powerful defense mechanism.  This should be apparent to anyone who has attempted to “talk down” such a theorist through the communication of facts, or by pointing out that some of their “relationships” or “lines of causation” don’t make any sense.  The scholar’s reaction to such questioning would be engagement, and excitement.  The conspiracy theorists reaction…is heightened defensiveness, or even combativeness.  Your attempt to reason with them is a threat to the delicate and implausible “early warning system” they have meticulously built for themselves.  As crazy as it sounds…they feel safer thinking that the threat to their existence is a “president who is a secret Muslim trying to form a communist shadow government“…then for this NOT to be the case, and for them NOT to have any idea where actual threats might exist, which would make them feel blind and vulnerable.

Unfortunately, all this introspection into “why people think what they think” is lost in the media circus engaged in covering this minor and unnecessary dispute.  CNN, its ratings in the basement, decides to get in on the action by crying out (I’m paraphrasing), “MSNBC is as bad as FOX.“  A little transparent, even for you, Miss Campbell Brown.  Of course, Keith Olbermann can’t resist responding back to CNN…pointing out that “CNN seems to still think it is the primary source for its viewers, that they know nothing until they tune in.  This is, ever increasingly, nonsensical. People now watch news on TV for elucidation and context and analysis. They have brought the facts with them, the way we used to bring TV dinners.”  Meanwhile, no one is examining why people watch FOX News at all…and why so many are willing to believe some of the obvious falsehoods and patently inane conspiracy theories espoused on the network.  Maybe…it’s as simple as the psychology of a scared human being reacting to change and uncertain times.  Whatever it is…nobody is better than FOX News at exploiting it, as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show explains:

I wrote that the fundamental difference between most commentary on the left and commentary on the right, is as follows:

Commentary from media outlets and personalities on the left, such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, consists primary of opinions, backed up by facts, and infused with passion…with the intention of inciting the passions of their viewers to act on the aforementioned facts and opinions.  This, I called “activism.”

Commentary from media outlets and personalities on the right, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, consists primary of opinions, backed up by misinformation/disinformation, and infused with passion…with the intention of inciting the passions of their viewers to act on the aforementioned misinformation and opinions.  This, I called “propaganda.”

Some insist that this assessment reflects an opinion.  Some attempted to explain that which side is in possession of facts is subject to interpretation.  But see, that’s the funny thing about facts…they are facts REGARDLESS of what my opinion my be.  In truth, they are facts with no regard for who speaks them, or for who believes them.  I will explain, as I believe that there exists in this country a fundamental misconception regarding “fact” and “opinion.”

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE:

If I say that the sun is a near-perfect, non-solid (plasmatic) sphere, consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium…that is a FACT.  It is a fact, because it is supported by a wealth of evidence, stemming from extensive research.  This would be a fact if Keith Olbermann said it…or if Rush Limbaugh said it.  It would be a fact even if I didn’t like Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh and they said it.  It would be a fact even if nobody accepted it…in fact, for a prolonged period of human history, this was either “not known” or “not accepted,” but this didn’t make it any less true, or any less a fact.

If you say that the sun (we’re assuming you’re not speaking metaphorically) is a giant flashlight, that God turns on in the morning and off in the evening…that is FALSE.  It would be just as false if Keith or Rush said it…and just as false even if everyone agreed with you.  You might even offer up facts to support the claim: “It is bright and emits light, like a flashlight…and it is dark at night and bright in the day.“  It should be obvious, however, that these facts do not make the end assertion and more true or and less false.  It is still…not a FACT.

If I say that God made the sun…that is an OPINION.  I can list any facts I wish to support this, but as it is completely impossible for the statement to be proven true or false, it will remain in the realm of opinion.  I might as well have said that “the sun is good” or that “the sun is stupid.“  These value judgments similarly express opinions, and no amount of “proving my case” will change that.  Similar to facts, the opinions do not gain any merit based on who utters them, nor based on how many people share them.

A MORE COMPLEX, AND CURRENTLY RELEVANT EXAMPLE:

If I say that America tortured detainees through the use of waterboarding…that is a FACT.  It is a fact, because it is supported by a wealth of evidence.  It is documented and admitted that we waterboarded detainees, and waterboarding meets every available definition of torture, whether we are looking at Webster’s Dictionary, at our own federal law, or at international treaty language.  This would be true if Keith said it or if Rush said it.  It would be true even if not one single American believed it.

If you say that waterboarding was performed legally…that is FALSE.  Whether or not the President approved it, or Department of Justice attorneys approved it…they do not make federal law (only Congress has that power) and they do not interpret the law (only the courts have that power).  Waterboarding is torture, by all available definitions and it is clearly forbidden according to our federal law and the international treaties that we have entered into.  Keith or Rush could make any statements they wished to to justify it…it would still be illegal and false to say otherwise.  Any facts regarding it’s efficacy (or lack thereof), it’s intended use to “make us safer,” or of the threat presented by a particularly detainee…would do nothing to render this statement any more true, or any less false.  It is still…not a FACT.

If I say that torturing detainees is un-American…that is an OPINION.  I can cite any Christian or historical objections I may have, I may mention that it is an illegal act, but in the end I am making a value judgment  which cannot be proven true or false.  This will remain an opinion regardless of whether Keith or Rush speaks it…regardless of how we feel about those speakers…regardless of how many people agree or disagree with it.

THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT:

So, when I say that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow use facts upon which they base opinions, this is a statement which does not reflect my views of them nor their opinions.  The facts which they employ, and which I have extensively researched, would be facts even if they were not the people uttering them.  They would be facts even if I disliked Keith and Rachel…even if I did not believe what they were saying was true.  Now, that being said…they use these facts to formulate opinions, and those opinions I do not always agree with.  That’s to be expected…I may disagree with their opinions…but disagreeing with the facts upon which they form those opinions would be pointless, and indeed, foolish.

In much the same way, when I say that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly use misinformation and falsehoods to form their opinions, this is ALSO a statement which does not reflect on my views of the speakers nor their opinions.  The falsehoods which they employ, and which I have extensively researched, would be false no matter who spoke them.  They would be false regardless of my feelings towards Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly…false whether I liked or disliked them, agreed or disagreed with them.  Sometimes, as with the “flashlight” example above, these individuals will use facts to attempt to “prove” their false statements…but as in the “flashlight” example, these facts do not make their statements any less false.  That being said…since it is these falsehoods which they use to form their opinions, I am most likely to disagree with their opinions.  The falsehoods themselves, being false, do not require my “agreement” nor “disagreement“…but the opinions based upon those statements ARE subject to judgment, and will likely only be agreed with by those who either do not require that opinions be based on facts, or those who do not know that their falsehoods do not represent facts.

To people who do not value the truth, or who cannot tell falsehood from truth, or who cannot separate statements of fact from statements of opinion…their lives AND OPINIONS are at the mercy of any speaker who knows how to capture their interest and how to speak to their fears and prejudices.  Sadly…about one quarter of Americans fit this description, and even more tragically they’re not reading this right now…they’re listening to Rush or watching FOX.

Here’s a clip containing the senior Bush’s comments, plus the reactions of both Olbermann and Maddow:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzmW6nMCJ-A

While I certain understand that as father to George W. Bush, George Sr. must certainly take great pain from the wealth of criticism levied at his son over the years.  However, Bush like so many others, fails to realize the following points:

1 - Coarse political criticism has existed since the advent of American politics…and even predates it considerably.

2 - It has neither increased nor decreased in its “incivility.”

3 - Perhaps most importantly…not all commentary and criticism is created equal.

The first point made above should be obvious to anyone with even a high school graduate’s schooling in American History.  For those wishing to learn more about the history of American political discourse, this site is one of the best collections of links that I have ever seen.  From George Washington to Barack Obama, the free press and political publications have been rife with near constant criticism coming from opposing quarters, and sometimes even from within a politician’s own camp.

Which leads nicely into my second point.  This criticism, historically, was often bombastic…and occasionally vile.  George Washington, despite being arguably the most popular President in U.S. History, was often portrayed as old and indecisive…and his actions regarding our relationships with Britain and France were vociferously objected to by political enemies.  John Adams was mocked openly for his weight, his angry temper, and some of his positions which often resembled more “monarchic” thinking than “democratic.”  Andrew Jackson was denounced as a country bumpkin, and his wife was referred to as a whore and worse.

Take this political cartoon as an example: notice that Lincoln leans on a circus sign…mocking him for holding blacks in high esteem, while insinuating that his insistence on bringing blacks into the political sphere would do little more than to create a circus side show:

Or this one…portraying Lincoln as no more than a war-hungry idiot, trampling the Constitution:

No…mockery and personal attacks are nothing new to the American political arena.  In fact, it is entirely possible than instead of bemoaning how much our culture and political criticism has changed…we might do better to decry the fact that it has changed so little.  The means of distribution (cable television, tweets to cellphones, the internet, email) may have changed, allowing many more citizens to be exposed to the criticism of politicians and their policies, but the content and tone of this criticism has changed little in the last 200 years.

That being said, perhaps the real point missed by Bush Sr., and so many other Americans, is that all criticism is not created equal.

It is certain that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow criticized George W. Bush with frequency and with passion.  They provided their audiences with facts, reports, studies…and they used an impassioned rhetoric to engage their viewers, to entertain their viewers, and to attempt to arouse their viewers passions to act on the previously mentioned facts, reports, and studies.  There is a word for this: it’s called activism.  What they told viewers was happening, was truly happening, and what they said would come to pass…did.  A failed war based on a lie.  Far-reaching violations of the Constitution, resulting in abuses to civil liberties.  A failure to keep Americans safe from terrorists.  A failure to aid Americans threatened by a natural disaster.  An economy in ruins.

It is certain that Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh defended George W. Bush, and criticize Barack Obama, with frequency and passion.  They provide their audiences with distorted information and sometimes outright falsehoods, based on what they know to be their viewers preconceived prejudices and fears…and they use an impassioned rhetoric to engage their viewers, to entertain their viewers, and to attempt to arouse their viewers passions to act on the previously mentioned misinformation and disinformation.  There is a word for this: it’s called propaganda.  What they tell us is happening, is not and will never be revealed to be, and what they tell us will happen, has no chance of occurring.  No communist America.  No destruction of the upper class.  No widespread abandonment of morality.  No being absorbed into some “international monolithic world order.“  No “shadow government” of czars.

These different approaches can be seen reflected in those listening to the commentators who employ them.  Moderates and liberals watched Olbermann and Maddow.  They learned of Bush’s subversions of the Constitution, his foreign policy debacles, his hawkish deceptions, and his economic blunders as they were occurring…and they were displeased.  Moderates and conservatives similarly watched O’Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh.  They remained blissfully ignorant of Bush’s actions and the consequences, many of them immediate, to our country.  They would excuse and defend Bush’s actions right up until the point that he was no longer politically necessary and viable.  But it was too late.  The damage was done.  And now they join in the conservative chorus, propelled by conservative pundits, to criticize and denounce all efforts by a new, Democratic president to engage in much-needed reform and to undo the damage of his predecessor both at home and abroad.  In short, they failed to see what one president was doing AS HE WAS DOING IT…yet feel they have the capacity with the current president to predict WHAT THE FUTURE OUTCOMES of his actions will be.

I’m sorry, George Bush.  I know it must be hard to hear of the comprehensive failings of your son.  But to object to those people who were trying to tell us of these failings as they were occurring, as opposed to those who told conservatives of them only once it was already too late…is irresponsible.  This criticism of yours represents a level of self-delusion and petulance that is not suited to a man of your years and political experience.  And to group all contemporary political criticism together, does a disservice to the both the critics and the American people…who desperately need to learn how to tell which they should be listening to, and which they should be ignoring.