Carol Platt Liebau: Emotion v. Facts

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Emotion v. Facts

Over at Real Clear Politics, John Leo points out some of the engaging fictions that are purveyed when facts aren't allowed to get in the way of a good story.

It's funny how most of these "too good to be true" fictions skew toward a leftist worldview, isn't it? Could it have anything to do with the left-leaning disposition of the MSM?

6 Comments:

Blogger stackja1945 said...

"Left-leaning disposition of the MSM?" Is not news. President Hoover lost to the MSM. There was no mention of FDR having to use a wheelchair. MSM could not sell Stevenson. MSM gave us JFK and not Nixon. MSM then got Nixon then Ford and gave us Carter. MSM tried to get Reagan. MSM got Bush 1 and gave us Clinton. Now MSM are trying to get Bush 2.

3:27 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Carol writes, "It's funny how most of these "too good to be true" fictions skew toward a leftist worldview, isn't it? Could it have anything to do with the left-leaning disposition of the MSM?"

Or could it have ANYTHING to do with who was doing the digging? (Have you taken a step back from the blog you cite to examine its politics, Carol?) This is what happens in the echo chambers of the right. They hear someone else saying the same thing they're thinking and, voila!, instant validation they then spin as evidence to support their thesis. Except that they forget -- or refuse -- to take into account that they're falling into the same paradigm that they relentlessly accuse the left of being caught up in: an extremely one-sided world view based more on emotion than fact.

And stack, it's all so simple, huh?

6:59 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Duke-Stir

Your point is valid. But just for the sake of argument and balance, would you care to sight examples of the "too good to be true" fictions that were skewed to the right?

Surely there are some. But it would be helpful to compare how many come from the left and how many come from the right. It would also be entertaining to see which ones were furthest removed from reality.

A point being raised by a partisan does not invalidate the point.

11:04 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

"A point being raised by a partisan does not invalidate the point."

But Greg, that is exactly what Carol does day in and day out when she wishes to quickly dispense with an article. 'Oh look, they're a leftie. Nuff said. Next!'

As for the "too good to be true" fictions of the right, I think the emotional agitation of 9/11 that Bush, et al, parlayed into WMD "fact" counts as Numbers 1 through 10. Folk wisdom, the stuff often cited as "gut instinct" is notoriously flimsy.

And Democrats don't hold a monopoly on that.

5:02 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:03 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Among the stories too good to be true are the ones that Leo cites as fact. The myth that the president of Harvard was fired because he had the nerve to criticize women is simply rubbish. Although there was a stink about his speech, Summers had grown increasingly unpopular with the faculty, and was on his way out no matter what he did or didn't say here.

And most of the rest of what he comes up with is nothing more than Leo setting up straw men, then knocking him down. Oh, gosh, there was no great exodus of liberals to Canada after Bush won in 2004. Funny, I don't remember a spate of serious articles saying this would happen, although I'm sure one paper somewhere ran with a bit of fluff like this.

Be nice if anyone on the right were actually willing to take on real liberal ideas instead of knocking down their cartoon cut-outs. Oh, but that would require the geniuses behind Real Clear Politics to do some actual research, and maybe even some thinking. Nah, too hard.

6:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google