BCT Editorial – 9/8/08

This page was last updated on September 8, 2008.

Caveat emptor; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 8, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Don’t forget that truth is the first victim of politics.”

This is another of those Times editorials telling us not to trust any news outlets that aren’t part of the “old media.” In reality, the editorial simply proves you can’t trust what you read in the Times.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If the television ratings are any indication, this year’s presidential election is going to be a real whopper.

“The Democratic National Convention was seen by an average of 22.5 million households. The Associated Press reported no other convention — Republican or Democratic — had been seen in as many homes since 1960, when Nielsen Media Research started tracking convention viewers. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s acceptance speech drew around 40 million viewers.

“If the numbers from Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech are any indication, the Republican National Convention drew equally impressive numbers. The news service reported her speech on Wednesday was seen by more than 40 million Americans.”

[RWC] Let’s look at the data presented in the previous two paragraphs. While it was true NMR reported more households viewed the Democrat convention than any other since 1960, the editorial failed to note the Republican convention exceeded that level (25.1 million vs. 22.5 million) the following week. FYI, the 1976 Republican convention held the previous record.

As far as the figures for the specific speeches, the editorial danced around the facts that John McCain outdrew Barack Obama (38.9 million viewers vs. 38.4 million) and Sarah Palin crushed Joe Biden (37.2 million viewers vs. 24 million).

Keep in mind the editorial didn’t lie above. It simply didn’t provide all the data.

“The bipartisan numbers are a good indicator of the level of interest in this year’s presidential election.

“But interest alone isn’t enough. Voters need to be informed as well.

“With that in mind, we offer the following caveat emptor: Truth is the first victim of politics. Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear. Don’t be skeptical; be cynical.”

[RWC] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the primary definition of skepticism is “an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.” That same dictionary says cynical “implies having a sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity.”

Given that Times editorials frequently engage in name-calling and other personal attacks, that the Times would prefer cynicism over skepticism should come as no surprise. Skepticism is more about debating the facts while cynicism is more about a personal attack on the info source. For example, a skeptic would describe why he believes Bob’s data is wrong while a cynic would simply assert Bob was bought, et cetera.

“Most important of all, be informed. That means checking out the charges and allegations that are going to be thrown around in television and radio ads and on talk radio and the infotainment programs on the cable news (so-called) networks.”

[RWC] So we can trust “the charges and allegations that are going to be thrown around in” old media “ads?”

I always get a kick out of the Times throwing in the term “infotainment” when writing about “the cable news (so-called) networks.” Remember, the Times itself has sections labeled “Sports” and “Entertainment” and prints cartoons and puzzles. I guess when you’re part of the “old media” that doesn’t count as “infotainment.”

“To do that, go to reliable sources — newspapers and news magazines in the old media and Web sites like PolitiFact.com, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com (Urban Legends), Politico.com, etc. in the new media — to check out the charges. (If you want straight talk on cable TV, go to ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ and ‘The Colbert Report’ on Comedy Central. They at least have some concept of the importance of truth.)”

[RWC] “[N]ewspapers and news magazines in the old media” are “reliable sources?” Is this the same reliability that led to the Times “12 alive – only 1 trapped miner doesn’t survive ordeal” headline after the Sago Mine explosion? You can read more about this here and here.

That the Times considers “The Daily Show” and its spinoff “The Colbert Report” to be sources of “straight talk” is sad, though completely predictable. Since October 2004, at least 10 Times editorials have afforded credibility to these shows. Why? These shows (not infotainment?) tend to give favorable treatment to those on the left while jumping on those on the right. For example, “The Daily Show” put up a billboard in Minneapolis for the Republican convention. Demonstrating a bit of projection, the billboard read, “Welcome, Rich White Oligarchs!” As far as I can tell, “The Daily Show” didn’t have any billboards in Denver skewering Democrats.

“Learn to differentiate between political propaganda and news. This year more than ever, it’s important.”

[RWC] Did you catch the “sleight of hand” above? The editorial says, “Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear” then goes on to set up the Times as an arbiter of what’s true when it told us “go to reliable sources — newspapers [like the Times] and news magazines in the old media.”

Finally, remember that at least one member (J.D. Prose) of the Times staff writes both “political propaganda and news” stories. Just as it is with the editorial board, can we expect an opinion writer to write objective “news” stories when doing so would conflict with his opinion?