Contact
Subscribe
Fact, fiction and the media megaphone
Photo by leasepics/flickr.com
This article from the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress addresses the media’s continued failure to differentiate between fact and fiction in their reportage. “The news media,” according to the report:
“bears measurable blame for spreading — and not correcting — misinformation, distortions, and lies. From blogs and tweets to websites and videos, the Internet supports many silly and dangerous views. We need the news media to be a reliable filter, not merely a megaphone. It’s their job to clear up the pollution by distinguishing fact from fiction. This goes beyond partisan debate. It’s in the self-interest of conservatives, liberals, and progressives to do so. Otherwise, we are on shaky ground.”
This does go beyond partisan debate. Assuming that most of you reading this blog are committed to solving the very real problems that face our neighborhoods, our country and our world, I imagine you would agree that we’re going to need to deal in facts and reality. But too often the terms of the debate get muddied by special interests who are determined to win political points.
What are facts?
This question always provokes meaningful discussion among my rhetoric and composition students. In the end, we agree on a definition that goes something like this: Facts are something that has occurred or is the case. For example, under standard conditions, and at sea level, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. That’s a fact, which is not to be confused with a taste or a belief.
Tastes relate to what an individual might prefer. With my students I often use the example of pizza versus tacos. They can have a lively discussion about whether they prefer pizza or tacos but this almost always comes down to nothing more than a matter of their personal tastes. In the end, since our goal is to persuade reasonable people to consider our point of view, we agree that it’s not useful or worth our time to argue about matters of taste.
The same is true of beliefs. This is not to say that beliefs are trivial or unimportant but rather that they are not worth spending a lot of time or energy arguing over. Beliefs are not based in facts but rather deeply seated in our world views, traditions and family histories. Debating about belief may be satisfying in the sense that it excites our sense of ourselves and causes us to explore and articulate how we really feel, but it’s not a firm foundation to build an argument upon. So we are stuck with boring, old facts as the basis for discussion.
Unfortunately, some people (of all political persuasions) are more interested in short-term political victories at the expense of long-term progress. These people play upon public fears and biases to hinder reasonable discussion and create a sort of political and ideological gridlock.
Below is a brief list of a few of the most egregious mischaracterizations currently distorting the public dialogue.
Mischaracterizations at the national level:
- The stimulus bill didn’t create jobs and created record debt. According to the nonpartisan watchdog group factcheck.org, here are the facts about the stimulus and job creation:
“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that through March 2010, the stimulus bill was responsible for the employment of between 1.2 million and 2.8 million people. The CBO said the stimulus had lowered the national unemployment rate ‘by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points.’”
And here are the facts about debt levels:
“[T]he national debt is not at a ‘record.’ That happened during World War II. The blog item was based on a May 30 CBO report that said the debt as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product was expected to increase from 53 percent at the end of 2009 to a projected 62 percent by the end of 2010. But the report says the record was 109 percent of GDP, a mark that was reached in 1946.”
- There are plans to build a mosque at ground zero. It’s not a mosque and it’s not at ground zero. Read here for more facts about the project.
- President Obama is not a U.S. citizen. He is. It’s been proven. Still confused? Click here. Still not certain? It appears that you prefer to believe this despite the facts.
- President Obama is a Muslim. According to a recent Pew poll, two-thirds of conservatives believe Obama is a Muslim. Where’d they get that idea? They say the media told them so. Here’s a nice summary outlining how right-wing media sources did just that. And here’s the refutation of these claims. Furthermore, so what if he had been?
- Republicans are waging a war on grandmas. Both sides do it; as evidenced by this recent misleading MoveOn.org fundraising e-mail subject line. Although President G.W. Bush worked to privatize Social Security, there’s no real Republican support for this initiative. Here’s what factcheck.org has to say about this.
Local examples
- Local leaders acted in bad faith about the Sonoma Ranch extension special assessment district. Michael Swickard’s recent column on this site and also in the August 6th edition of the Las Cruces Bulletin accused city leaders of acting in bad faith on a local development project. He wrapped up his column with the following accusation:
“What is obvious at this point is that this is no way for the city of Las Cruces to do business. Many other companies will be watching to see if the city can be trusted to stand by their word. One thing is for sure: This time they did not.”
Later that week, both Councilor Connor and Councilor Thomas – hardly political BFFs - explained here and here (respectively) that they and the other four councilors who want more information about the project were acting prudently, in accord with appropriate procedure, and in the best interest of their constituents. Their reasoned responses were clear examples of their careful consideration of this issue, yet the hosts on Swickard’s morning radio show insist that the councilors were “willfully” misunderstanding the process.
This sounds like a taste or a belief to me. After all, this is a complicated issue and the councilors may be incorrect or might have misunderstood (although I don’t believe that to be the case) but that’s much different than being untrustworthy. To accuse elected leaders of being untrustworthy when they are merely trying to protect Las Crucens’ best interests seems like the worst sort of mischaracterization.
- Wilderness designation will hurt border security. I’ve argued here that Border Patrol has officially and publicly disagreed with this claim. Still, the folks who are unlikely to ever support wilderness continue to get press about this issue both in the Las Cruces Sun-News and the Las Cruces Bulletin. Border Patrol leaders have settled this question; additional objections are coming from people who are not in a position to know or are unlikely to support wilderness in any case.
The media megaphone
The internet has provided an excellent platform for like-minded people to connect and share ideas. Although this can be good, it can also mean that some isolated or extreme viewpoints (across the political spectrum) gain a larger audience than they might otherwise have. This is no problem, in many ways. People should be able to explore their ideas. The problem occurs when our larger media outlets, who in the past might have vetted these claims, broadcast them without investigation (think Shirley Sherrod) and then continue to repeat them long after they’ve been debunked (think death panels).
The result is a skewed public debate where no one is working from the same set of facts. This also causes the larger problem of deep and bitter partisanship. Depending on what media outlets we attend to, we literally are working from a different set of facts than someone who gets their news from other sources. As a result, it is difficult to find common ground from which to engage in reasonable discussion.
We have to do better
Figuring out the facts in a given situation can be tough work. We must often investigate beyond the headlines or question our favorite media personalities (that means you, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann) . It’s easier – and perhaps more satisfying – to complain, to rant, and/or to despair than to figure out the real context and set of situations that underlie the discussion. Besides, I’m too busy. Besides, they’re all a bunch of crooks. Besides, as Paul Simon said, they’re just out to capture my dime.
It’s easy to become discouraged and frustrated, but in the words of my high-school football coach: “That’s not gonna get it done.”
We have to do better. We should all be able to agree that this sort of intellectual laziness – or perhaps, in the worst cases, dishonesty – will make it impossible for us to solve our big problems. I can forgive people for being confused or for making a mistake (and hope people will offer me the same allowances). Furthermore, I understand that smart and reasonable people, in possession of a shared set of facts, might still disagree.
Willful distortion of the facts, on the other hand, is something we must not abide. On my best days, I strive to consider various viewpoints and to keep an open mind. I wait to decide. I question my own assumptions and beliefs. I focus on the facts. That’s what it will take to understand and solve our big problems.
Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
5 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nick Voges – thanks for an excellent commentary. Mr. Swickard, PHD is totally mistaken!
Sharon Thomas Ph.D.
The facts are that the NMFA never approved the SAD because we never submitted a request for them to do so. In fact, we may not even choose NMFA as the place to finance this project, if it ever comes to fruition. NMFA only said that there was enough land of sufficient value to pursue a SAD. The confusion over this fact has led to endless confusion on this issue. The NMFA did not approve the SAD. They were not asked to approve a SAD. They only said it was a possibility.
The next step was the preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is the place where the parties talk about the issues that need to be resolved before the application is made. We put forth the issues. The developer has not yet come back with a proposal that addresses the issues.
The next step would be to get construction bids. You can’t ask for a loan if you don’t know how much the cost is going to be to do the project. Getting a bid requires that we follow our public procurement process. That takes a bit of time. We also have to hold a public hearing. If all goes well, we would pass an ordinance. Nothing can go forward until an ordinance is passed and that can’t happen without all the previous steps.
After that, the NMFA, or the financing institution of choice, will investigate the credit worthiness of both the city and the developer. We know the city can pass that test. We don’t know if the developer can. The developer now says that he is willing to give whatever financial information is asked for, but we can’t predict at this point what the financial institution might want. That’s a big unknown.
IF, the loan is approved, then the all the parties agree to the terms and we go forward. That’s when it gets really interesting. Usually, a developer puts up the land for collateral in an agreement with a private lending institution and the developer adds the extra cost to the cost of the lots, and the developer is responsible for making the payments and, if the project goes south, the developer has to sell the land and collect the proceeds and hope there are enough proceeds to pay off the debt. If there is not enough money to pay off the debt, the developer gets the black mark.
In this case, the developer is asking the city, in a sense, to co-sign on the debt. If the city does so, the CITY has to impose additional property tax to pay off the debt, the CITY has to collect that tax, and the CITY has to pay off the bonds. If the project goes south, the CITY has to sell the land, collect the proceeds, and pay off the debt. If there is not enough money to pay off the debt, the CITY gets the black mark. Being the fiscal agent is not a simple process.
So, the NMFA does not assume all the risk. It costs money (taxpayer money) to impose the additional property tax, track all the sales, collect the tax, make the payments, etc. And, if necessary, it costs money (taxpayer money) to exercise the liens, sell the land, collect the proceeds, etc.
Maybe the developer didn’t know he would have to go through all of these steps. Maybe he didn’t know that his financial well being would be investigated. He may have thought that when the NMFA said there was enough land value to proceed, that was it. The deal was approved. That was not it. That was only an affirmation that a SAD might be possible to do given the amount and value of the land and that we could begin the process.
The council is doing due diligence when we ask the developer about his financial status. We don’t want to partner with anyone with credit problems. And we are being good stewards when we take the time to complete all of the steps, including procuring a construction bid in an approved public process, holding a public hearing, etc. We’re the government. The public gets to participate in the process.
First of all, to quote a left wing think tank like CAP on media “distortions” is not a good way to begin an objective, fact based discussion. They are as guilty as anyone in distorting “facts” (really political opinions) to suit their progressive agendas and play to the confirmation bias of their supporters. I would agree this type of thing by these types of polarized media tend to entrench the polarization we have in the country, but they didn’t create it. Ths polarization was created in DC, and many state and local governments by elected officials who refuse to compromse or listen, and seek to use a majority to ignore, demonize, and marginalize the minority. This is not new, it has been going on for years, but it is much worse now.
As for the “facts” you quote here, if we are very accurate about all the facts and say that a Muslim Cultural Center and Mosque is proposed for a site two blocks from Ground Zero (as AP states: “The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away”) , do you really think that changes anything about what sides people will line up on in this debate? Sorry, that makes no difference from the short headline in what people will think. And the jobs and deficit are perfect examples of “facts” that are just selectively expressed relative to different standards and comparisons. If you think that creating even 2.5 million jobs from the $787 billion spent so far of the near $1 trillion stimulus (with add ons this year) is good ( at over $300,000 per job) for the country, I would disagree and find that a very inefficient use of my money. I don’t know of anyone who thinks the stimulus created no jobs at all.
I would agree we need to end the polarization, divisions, and seperateness of our thinking and dialogues. But, to me it has to start in DC with our elected reps, I have had little trouble talking with people about real facts and the way we disagree on them. However, DC is so partisan and power hungry I don’t see any dialogue like that.
Michael,
Thanks for reading my blog.
The essence of my argument (as it relates to your claims) is that accusing the city councilors of acting in bad faith is inappropriate. There are clearly competing claims being made and framing the issue as you have only distorts (and perhaps discourages) the conversation. Here’s what I wrote:
Please also note that I say that I believe the councilors have a legitimate version of events (although I don’t rule out the possibility that they could be wrong). If you read the earlier paragraphs of the post, you’ll understand that my word choice was intentional. I only have access to the set of claims provided by you on one side and the councilors on the other. They don’t line up. The larger point of my blog is that framing like yours often can, as I write, “hinder reasonable discussion and create a sort of political and ideological gridlock.” The way that you have framed this issue could hinder the reasonable discussion that a complicated issue like this requires. This is bad for all of us. That is the point of my blog.
Nick, you missed the point and slurred me in doing so. My column talked about the role of the Las Cruces City Council in a Special Assessment District. Do you know what that role is? Why not? If you do not know what the role of each entity in a Special Assessment District is, how can you take sides? Are you just taking the politician’s word for all of this? Why should a columnist do that? Why not investigate the facts in this controversy by talking to the professionals involved in the Special Assessment District process. My column came from talking to the professionals on the air. Again, you write a column about facts so tell us, where did you get your facts, eh?
Are you saying the professionals such as the New Mexico Finance Authority are wrong? How do you know they are wrong and the city council is right? Are you just carrying the water for some politicians? Is that the role of a columnist to cover for politicians even when they are wrong?
Example: Both Connor and Thomas wrote about protecting the financial rating of the city in the SAD. Wrong! The city is the local fiscal agent only and is paid to do so. The New Mexico Finance Authority assumes all of the risk, and on and on and on.
Get your facts together before you write about facts!