Fishy Journalism
August 6, 2009
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Wow. I went to bed last night and woke up this morning contemplating what to write about the “fishy email” BS that recently came out from the WH. After reading several articles on various websites, it seemed that the story was actually written correctly. Most citizens interested in freedom, don’t like the idea of the government collecting data on what they deem “disinformation.”
But I forgot that I apparently live in some bubble where rational thought is allowed, as some journalists believe the only problem with the government seeking citizens to spy on other citizens, is the GOPs paranoia (here):
…However, opponents of reform have seized upon the request as a means to heighten the paranoia that has become their favorite weapon in this debate.
In a letter to the White House, GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas portrays it as program “asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed “fishy” or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.” He raises the spectre of a White House “data collection program” by which it can assemble “the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens” opposed to reform. In other words, an enemies list. He also demands to know “what action … you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech?”
It’s a ludicrous suggestion, but it’s perfectly in line with the GOP strategy to use emotion, anger and fear as means to drown out debate, discussion and facts. It is the telling behavior of a movement that knows it will lose the debate on those grounds.
I’m not even sure how to effectively dissect this without including all kinds or personal sounding attacks about the author’s intellect, but I’ll see what I can do.
First, it should be plainly obvious that the author, and anyone who agrees with him that the WH is doing the right thing, has very little historical knowledge as to what typically comes after these types of requests.
It’s frightening to believe that anyone with a passing, cursory glance, at history can’t see the danger in sending political speech deemed “fishy” to the government for review.
Secondly, when anyone decides to disagree with a specific opponent, usually the strength of their hand can be gauged by their reaction.
For instance, if I engage an opponent on slavery, where I think it’s wrong and someone else thinks its right, my hand is so strong that I barely give much thought or strenuous objections. I’m more likely to laugh at the logic twists someone would have to go through to attempt to prove slavery is necessary. (assuming of course my opponent didn’t have power to implement their changes)
If however, my hand is extremely weak… say for instance I think it’s a good idea for citizens to tell the government when they disagree with their fellow citizens about a political issue, I might have to start name calling and attacking the messenger. Because surely attacking my opponents in this case on any rational level would lead only to my embarrassment.
Third, but very important – fear based motivations in politics is not new and not limited to any one given party. Even in this very debate, both sides are using fear. One side is claiming that without immediate change, more people will be left to die of treatable illnesses. The other claiming that a government run health care system is more dangerous to your health than the current state of affairs.
Indeed, fear is almost always used these days.
Smoking bans gained traction? Fear of health care costs to employees
Patriot Act? Terrorists are everywhere and coming to get you
Gun bans? You’re neighbor might be the crazy one with a gun.
TV sex/violence? It’s going to lead us all to become homicidal rapists.
Cap & trade? Our entire planet and the human race are at stake
Most religions? Our entire planet and the race are at stake
Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, has done some great work on the politics of fear and our fear based culture. His website contains his writings which are well worth the read for anyone interested in the repercussions of this fear based approach to legislation.
However, the mere fact someone is using fear based politics honestly does not tell you whether the fear is real. Simply because someone tells you something might happen that might scare you, doesn’t mean what they are telling you is wrong.
It’s only used here by Mr. Jay Bookman to marginalize his opposition into a single, coherent group of irrational crazies.
It’s much easier for him to pretend the other side is simply paranoid and completely wrong. It stops all the cognitive dissonance he has built up when he hears clear objections to that which he obviously cherishes.
As Voltiare said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Maybe Mr. Bookman is too simply weak to deal with doubt?
Categories: Critical Thinking, Politics, Quotations
| 
Tags: Fishy Emails, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Obama Administration, Politics of Fear, Quotations
|
Leave a reply
