NJ Truthiness Watch — Wagging Their Finger at American Political Debate

Filed in Delaware by on July 18, 2011

The Sunday NJ brings us an editorial with this amusing observation:

The back-and-forth in Washington is our way of holding a grand debate. We’re kind of sloppy about it. We call each other names. We go before video cameras and offer creative interpretations of facts. Some people lie. Others become amazingly selective about which portion of a fact they will use.

It’s how we debate.

Notice anything missing here?

You can read this entire scold and not see one word about how the American media actually enables the worst of this so-called debate. In fact, you could use this editorial itself as clear evidence on the increasing failure of media to function as the Fourth Estate. The NJ invokes its cynicism about politics and its players to reinforce yours*. And what a waste of newsprint.

One of the genuine problems in the current state of American debate is that it is so utterly dependent upon the debaters for all of its content. There is little in the way of fact-checking or even provision of context that might help Americans get a handle on the debate. It would be harder to lie, Editors of the NJ, if you and your colleagues were better at noting the lies. But as long as fact-checking and context as out-of-bounds in the name of a debased concept of objectivity there is no one acting as a ref or accountability agent in this process. Except for the reader, who is left to go do the heavy lifting elsewhere if knowing the facts and context of the “debate” is important to him or her.

*They invoked none of this cynicism in their cheerleading for the extensions of the Bush-era tax-cuts, interestingly enough.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    Also, check this out. Replace the lazy use of pronouns with nouns and it is flat wrong on the facts:

    The back-and-forth in Washington is (the Republican and Democratic) way of holding a grand debate. (Republicans and Democrats) kind of sloppy about it. (Republicans and Democrats) call each other names. (Republicans and Democrats) go before video cameras and offer creative interpretations of facts. Some (Republicans and Democrats) lie. Other (Republican and Democrats) become amazingly selective about which portion of a fact they will use.

    It’s how (Republicans and Democrats) debate.

    It is as if a shoplifter keeps getting lumped in with a serial killing child rapist. There is an empty-headed equivalency which amounts to journalistic malpractice.

  2. mediawatch says:

    Kind of makes you wish Ron Williams was still around to do the proofreading, right?

  3. This debt ceiling hostage crisis is feeding my cynicism. I listen to the news and the story is Republicans say it’s no big deal if the debt ceiling is exceeded, Obama says different. Like it’s Obama vs the Tea Party. It’s not like the answer to this question is unknowable.

  4. cassandra_m says:

    That’s true, UI and that is true across alot of the topics that get covered in the media as the he say/she say BS. There is alot more objective reality than you might know if all you did was listen to the political media.

    And I really doubt that Ron Williams was doing any proofreading. Besides, the proofreading isn’t the problem here….