Recommended Reading

Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current

WEBLOG

September 30th, 2024 (Permalink)

The Gray Lady's Sins & "Without Evidence"

  • J. Peder Zane, "The Sins of the Gray Lady", Real Clear Politics, 9/18/2024
    Readers of the New York Times know the news may change, but the message is always the same in their paper of record. It will play up every Republican kerfuffle and downplay Democratic scandals while presenting the choice between the two parties as a Manichean struggle between good and evil. … The transformation of the Times, and much of American journalism, during the last decade from a traditional newspaper that largely reports the news into the daily call sheet for the "woke" revolution that seeks to undermine the traditional pillars of American society is now so complete that it may seem unremarkable. Both its defenders and critics know exactly what to expect when they open its pages. Such acceptance, or resignation, is dangerous because it normalizes the great sin of the New York Times: the betrayal of hitherto bedrock journalistic principles of fairness, objectivity and pluralism that made the Fourth Estate a pillar of American democracy during the 20th century.

    The paper's radical reinvention of itself into a results-oriented tool serving leftwing social change has happened quickly―the Times of 2010 bears little resemblance to the paper published today. But enough time has passed so that we can identify both the key incidents and the dynamic political, cultural and economic forces that have transformed America's most influential newspaper, and thus the nation itself.

    That story began to come into focus on August 7, 2016―the day American journalism crossed the Rubicon. That's when the New York Times published a front-page article arguing that Donald Trump was such an "abnormal" candidate that "normal standards" of reporting on him were henceforth "untenable." From now on, the paper made clear, the news columns of the Times would be taking sides. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous," Jim Rutenberg wrote, "then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you've ever been to being oppositional."

    The article never explained why the normal standards of objectivity were insufficient. If Trump were truly a danger to the Republic, wouldn't an honest accounting of his behavior be enough to expose him? As would become clear in the years that followed, the true danger to the nation would come from the license Rutenberg's piece gave to reporters at the Times and the many news outlets that followed its lead to betray the core tenets of modern journalism not just in covering Trump, but regarding a wide array of issues. "All the news that's fit to print" became redefined as all the news that advances the left's narrative on race and crime, climate change and gender, capitalism, and even the history of the United States. …

    The Times did not just radically change what it covered, but also how it covered it. Views on race and other issues that conflicted with the progressive narrative were increasingly seen through the Trumpian lens as "abnormal" and "potentially dangerous." As Rutenberg suggested, journalism's time-honored commitment to "objectivity" fell before the argument that respectfully airing a range of views on consequential issues was to fall prey to the sin of "both-siderism," "whataboutism," or "moral equivalence"―i.e., giving people deemed as liars (conservatives) the same space as truth-tellers (progressives).

    Echoing language once restricted to discussion of the Holocaust, the Times brands anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy or the results of the 2020 presidential race as "climate-change deniers" and "election-deniers." …

    Yes, the Times has always had a liberal bias, and its history is filled with egregious examples of distorted coverage. As Ashley Rindsberg documented in his 2021 book, The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History, these include the downplaying of Stalin's crimes during the 1930s, largely ignoring the Holocaust during World War II, romanticizing Fidel Castro during the 1950s, and retailing a long history of anti-Israel coverage1.

    But its recent turn is different thanks to its aggressive ambition and scope. Rather than serving as an honest broker whose mission is to provide readers with the information needed to make decisions about important issues, it insistently puts its thumb on the scale, both in terms of the stories covered and those ignored. By replacing skepticism with ideology, the Times seeks not to inform, but to persuade. Its aim is not to reflect society but to transform it, and views to the contrary are verboten, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.

    Because the Times is, by far, the most influential news outlet in the United States, its embrace of progressive ideology has had a cascade effect, transforming the coverage and sensibility of thousands of newspapers and websites, TV and radio stations, entertainment companies, and corporations that follow its lead. Deliberately, it has legitimized and mainstreamed far-left views. …

    The remainder of this lengthy article is an account of the NYT's recent sins, including its misreporting of the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia, its capitulation to the backlash against Senator Tom Cotton's opinion piece ending with the forced resignation of editor James Bennet2, and its foray into pseudohistory, the 1619 project3. If you already know about these cases, you might save time by skipping over the details; however, if you're not familiar with them, or could use a quick refresher, read the whole thing.

  • Matt Bai, "I say, without evidence, that the media's Trump qualifiers are backfiring", The Washington Post, 9/18/2024
    [Usual throat-clearing omitted.]

    …[I]t seems tragically obvious to me that, by constantly holding Trump to a different standard of proof than we do anyone else, we in the news media are actually making him less accountable for his mendacity, rather than more so.

    The most recent example of what I'm talking about appeared in this very newspaper. I refer you to this Post headline from Tuesday: "Trump, without evidence, blames 'rhetoric' of Biden, Harris for possible assassination attempt."

    I'm in no way picking on my own news site here, which I hold to be among the very best; these kinds of phrases―"without evidence," "baselessly claimed," etc.―have over the years become ubiquitous in stories about Trump in the national media. …

    There are good reasons that this came to be. Trump is, to put it bluntly, a shameless public liar, which is something we haven't really seen before.

    "We haven't?" Speak for yourself. If you haven't seen it, either you haven't been looking or you just got your wisdom teeth.

    … Here's the dilemma. The news media can't credulously publish things we know to be untrue…

    How do they do it, then?

    …and yet, if the president says them, we can't exactly not publish them, either. At the same time, we find ourselves pressured by critics on social media for whom no level of scrutiny, when it comes to Trump, will ever be enough.

    Why not just ignore such people?

    So, at some point, we decided that the best way to handle Trump's more dubious assertions was to take the unprecedented step of prominently labeling them as baseless or unproven. Problem solved. Except it hasn't solved anything, other than to make a bunch of preening media critics feel good. If anything, in the contest between Trump's credibility and ours, this policy of hyper-skepticism has only made things worse.

    First, it's an unreasonable standard. It's one thing to say that Trump's stories of a stolen election or pet-eating migrants are false―this we know from reporting.

    He says, without evidence. Both claims are unsubstantiated, but we don't know that they're false. How would you prove that the election wasn't stolen? The best that you can do is show there's no strong evidence for it. Similarly, for the "pet-eating migrants": How could you prove that no migrant ever ate a pet? So, pointing out that Trump has not supplied strong evidence for either claim is about the best one could do.

    But when it comes to something like this claim about Democratic rhetoric leading to violence, what kind of evidence is Trump supposed to cite? Must a candidate walk around all day with an armful of data to back up every assertion? Is there really no room to advance a controversial and speculative argument without producing slides to support it?

    In fact, while Trump's latest allegation might be incendiary, there's no reason we ought to dismiss it out of hand. Haven't Democrats repeatedly said he poses an existential threat to the democracy and is a tool of the Russians? (I, for one, believe both of these things.) It's not crazy to think that these kinds of statements could incite violence….

    Gee, thanks for reiterating them, then.

    Second, it's a double standard. Why is Trump the only politician for whom this burden exists? In this month's debate, Vice President Kamala Harris gleefully repeated this [sic] assertion that Trump had promised a "bloodbath" if he weren't elected in November, even though his quote pretty clearly referred to the economics of car manufacturing. Wasn't she speaking baselessly and without evidence?

    No, it was worse than that: she should have known it was false, and if she did then she was lying4. Moreover, this was only one such claim she made during the debate.

    It's worth pointing out that the single greatest legislative achievement of the Biden administration was a law audaciously called the Inflation Reduction Act, despite the fact that it was designed to pour billions of dollars of new social spending into the economy and the fight against climate change―and had pretty much nothing to do with lowering inflation5. Thousands of news stories have referenced that bill by name, and I've not seen one that cast doubt on its principal claim.

    The larger problem with all this selective labeling is that it's almost certainly having the opposite effect of what we intend. Rather than highlight Trump's falsehoods for readers who might be inclined to believe him, our need to append qualifiers to everything he says is making us look like we're out to discredit him.

    Yes, but aren't you?

    In other words, we appear to be proving Trump's entire point not just about the news media but about the nation's elite institutions as a whole. Rather than reinforcing trust in news coverage, I fear we're further eroding it.

    All of which really matters, because in seven weeks Trump could well win a second term. And if that happens, we will have spent almost a decade covering him without figuring out how to hold him accountable for lying without making ourselves seem petty and self-interested. Yes, rebut the things Trump says that are demonstrably untrue, but don't go out of your way to discredit everything he says just because you fear that readers might believe him, or because you don't want the backlash from some sanctimonious journalism professor.

    Surely we can manage to call out blatant mistruths without abandoning all pretense of fairness and objectivity, which is essential to what we do. Although, I admit, I have very little evidence to back that up.

    Ha. I'd be glad if they just abandoned the "pretense" of fairness and objectivity in favor of the real thing. I'm all for pointing out Trump's untruths, but I'm also for pointing out those of his opponents, such as the false claims made during the debate. If you do that, perhaps you'll earn back the trust you've lost, but you better hurry if you need it before the election.

Notes:

  1. See:
  2. Remembering the Sokal Hoax & Another Sign of The Times, 10/29/2021
  3. Fact-Checking Pseudo-History, News Media Self-Censorship & Where's the Harm?, 10/29/2020
  4. The Last "Debate", 9/12/2024.
  5. Doublespeak Inflation, 8/29/2022.

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with everything in these articles, but I think they're worth reading as a whole. In abridging the excerpts, I may have changed the paragraphing.

Debate Watch Debate Watch
September 12th, 2024 (Permalink)

The Last "Debate"?

  • The "Debate": Tuesday's joint news conference with the two major party candidates for president―otherwise known as a "debate"―was certainly better than the previous one between President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump1, though that is a low threshold to cross. For the rest of this entry, I will refer to this event as a "debate", without the scare quotes, but please supply the quotation marks mentally.
  • The Debaters: Vice President Kamala Harris was a much better debater than Biden, which is again a very low bar, although her delivery was often robotic as she recited canned speeches. Unlike Biden, she succeeded in getting under Trump's skin, making him come across as vain and petty. Trump was worse than in the previous contest with Biden, in which he managed to somewhat control his tendency to brag and exaggerate. Here, his braggadocio reached absurd heights, including the claim that he will end the wars in both Ukraine and Gaza before he's even inaugurated.
  • The Format: Like most such debates, this was really a joint news conference of the two candidates, and there was little actual debating. As is also usual, the candidates mostly ignored the questions they were asked and delivered canned responses, in the case of Harris, or rambling non-answers that strayed off onto other topics, in the case of Trump.

    For instance, as the very first question of the debate, moderator David Muir asked Harris whether Americans are better off economically now than they were when the Biden and Harris administration took office2. It was a bad question with no right answer from her point of view: a "no" answer would have been an admission that the economy had worsened on her watch, whereas a "yes" would have seemed to many viewers as out of touch with reality. So, Harris never answered, simply using the question as a launch pad for a canned speech about the economy. Reporters seem to love to ask such "gotcha" questions, but they just encourage candidates to ignore them.

    This was the pattern of the entire debate, which raises the question: why continue to ask questions that serve no purpose other than to cater to the vanity of the moderators? There is no way to force the candidates to answer questions, so the moderator could just announce a topic for a section and then turn the floor over to the debater whose turn it is to speak.

    If we must have questions, why not introduce a cross-examination format so that the moderators can try to get the debaters to address the questions? Alternatively, some debate formats allow for a short cross-examination period in which the other side, rather than a moderator, questions the debater. Either choice would be preferable to continuing this boring charade.

  • The Moderators: I complimented the moderators of the last debate for managing to restrain themselves from trying to fact-check the debaters in real time1. Unfortunately, the moderators of this debate did repeatedly inject themselves into the debate. What's worse, they did so in a one-sided manner, contradicting some of Trump's falsehoods, but none of Harris'. If anyone thinks this is because Harris didn't say anything false, I discuss two of her whoppers below, under "Fallacies".

    This "debate" should be the last nail in the coffin of the multiple-moderator, joint news conference format of presidential debates. One unfortunate effect of abandoning the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has been to bring back this awful format, since the CPD had used single moderators for a long time. The news networks, such as CNN and ABC, who host these debates are the only ones benefitting from this format since it allows their reporters to grandstand. The moderators in this one, to their shame, acted like they were there to debate Trump instead of getting out of the way and letting Harris do so. Here's the worst example from the debate:

    Former President Donald Trump: What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. … In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. …

    David Muir, Moderator: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.

    Trump: Well, I've seen people on television.

    Muir: Let me just say here this―

    Trump: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.

    Muir: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.

    Trump: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.

    Muir: Again, the Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.

    Trump: We'll find out.

    My point here is not who is right or wrong in this debate3, or who got the best of this exchange, but that a moderator is not supposed to argue with the debaters: that's not his job. This is the equivalent of the referee in a boxing match taking a few punches at one of the fighters.

  • Tactics: One of Harris' successful tactics was to needle Trump into losing his cool, especially by attacking his vanity. This is probably the oldest tactic in the debate handbook, and one of the first things debaters should learn is not to lose their tempers or to take things personally, no matter how they are baited. Losing your temper throws you off your game, and it never looks good to the audience. Trump has never learned this lesson despite appearing in many debates. Here's the most notable example:
    Vice President Kamala Harris: …I'm going to actually do something really unusual and I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your desires. And I'll tell you, I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will. …

    Trump: First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. … As far as rallies are concerned, the reason they go is they like what I say.

    Why did Harris mention in passing, apropos of nothing, that some people leave Trump's rallies early? And why did Trump waste so many words defending the attendance at his rallies? She said it because she knows he's vain about his popularity, and she successfully baited him into wasting precious debate time boasting about something no one else cares about.

  • Fallacies: There were many logical fallacies committed, of course; too many to discuss them all, so I'll mention just a couple of the most egregious examples. From the transcript:
    Muir: Mr. President, on January 6th you told your supporters to march to the Capitol. You said you would be right there with them. The country and the world saw what played out at the Capitol that day. The officers coming under attack. Aides in the West Wing say you watched it unfold on television off the Oval Office. You did send out tweets, but it was more than two hours before you sent out that video message telling your supporters to go home. Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?

    Trump: You just said a thing that isn't covered. Peacefully and patriotically, I said during my speech. Not later on. Peacefully and patriotically. And nobody on the other side was killed. Ashli Babbitt was shot by an out-of-control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It's a disgrace. This group of people that have been treated so badly. I ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people? That she allowed to pour in. She was the border czar. Remember that. She was the border czar. She doesn't want to be called the border czar because she's embarrassed by the border. … But when are those, David, when are those people going to be prosecuted? When are the people that burned down Minneapolis going to be prosecuted or in Seattle? … When are those people going to be prosecuted?

    As is typical of this debate, Trump never directly answered Muir's question, but he also used a distraction technique4. Illegal immigration and urban riots are legitimate issues, but riots that happened in Minneapolis or Seattle do not justify rioting in Washington, D. C. That one group of people who should have been prosecuted for rioting were not prosecuted is no justification for others rioting, or a reason for not prosecuting them. Selective prosecution is, of course, unjust, but it's no excuse for Trump's failures on that dreadful day.

    Harris responded to Trump's remarks as follows:

    Harris: I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the Vice President-Elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. … But this is not an isolated situation. Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. … So for everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say we don't have to go back. … And to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. And be clear on that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if the outcome of this election is not to his liking.

    In this response, Harris refers to two contextomies, both of which have been widely debunked5. For that reason, I won't repeat what I've written elsewhere6.

    Given that it is now widely-known that both of these comments were taken out of context in a misleading way7, why did she repeat them? There seem to be only two possibilities: either she did not know, or she knew but decided to use them anyway. If the former, then she's too ignorant to be vice president, let alone president; if the latter, then she's knowingly trying to deceive the American people, that is, lying. I'll let you decide which is the case.

  • Who won?: From the point of view of debate tactics, leaving aside the issue of who was right or wrong about the issues or would make the better president, Harris won the debate. Harris was better prepared than Trump who, as usual, winged it. Trump's lack of preparation showed itself in more than one way. For instance, he lacked detailed evidence and resorted instead to blustering and exaggeration. In addition, Harris laid obvious traps for him, which he obliviously blundered into. Of course, Harris had the advantage of having the moderators on her side, but I suspect that she could have beaten Trump even with neutral moderators.
  • Another Debate?: The Harris campaign soon after the debate suggested a second one in October8, which shows that it realized the debate had gone well for its candidate. Trump, in contrast, waited until today to announce that there will be no third debate―all in capital letters, of course9―revealing that he knows he lost. Nonetheless, there's plenty of time to change his mind between now and the election.

    That he lost is, of course, no reason for dodging an additional debate since he could do better in a rematch. It has happened more than once in the history of presidential debates that an initial debate went badly for a candidate, but a later one repaired the damage. For instance, Ronald Reagan lost his first debate against Walter Mondale10, but won later ones and, more importantly, won the election in a landslide. More recently, Barack Obama lost his first debate against Mitt Romney11, but we all know how that turned out. If Trump would learn from his failure, take the task seriously and properly prepare, the same thing could happen again.

Notes:

  1. After the Debate, 6/29/2024.
  2. Riley Hoffman, "Read: Harris-Trump presidential debate transcript", ABC News, 9/11/2024. All quotes from the debate are from this transcript, and have been edited for length, clarity, and relevance.
  3. "Fact Check: No evidence of Haitian immigrants stealing and eating pets in Ohio", Reuters, 9/11/2024.
  4. Specifically: Two Wrongs Make a Right.
  5. For instance, see:
  6. Specifically:
  7. See: Quoting Out of Context.
  8. Anthony Robledo, "Will there be a second Harris-Trump debate? Where things stand between the two candidates", USA Today, 9/11/2024.
  9. Donald J. Trump, "When a prizefighter loses a fight…", Truth Social, 9/12/2024.
  10. Eli Wizevich, "When a Debate Flop Raised Concerns About Ronald Reagan's Fitness to Run for Re-Election", Smithsonian Magazine, 7/11/2024.
  11. Maeve Reston, "When Romney trounced Obama", CNN, 9/26/2016.
Puzzle
September 1st, 2024 (Permalink)

The Return of Three-Card Monty

"'Three-card Monty*' is the name; three-card monte is the game!" he shouted to the passing crowd on the boardwalk. Monty caught the eyes of a young couple: Jack, and his date, Jillian. The couple approached the large cardboard box that Monty used as a table. Monty took out a deck of cards, spreading it out face up on the box, and assured them that it was a standard deck of playing cards. Then, gracefully gathering the cards together, he riffled through the deck with the faces towards him, and pulled out three cards. He dealt the three cards face down in a row on top of the box.

"Listen close, whatever you do," he said to them, pointing to the row of cards, "to the right of a King is a Queen or two."

"To win or not to win, there's the rub!" he added, "a Heart or two are to the right of a Club."

"If you want to win, here's the thing," he continued, "to the left of a King is another King."

"And here's the most important part: there's a Heart or two to the left of a Heart."

"Now, listen to the final clue," Monty concluded, "to the left of a Queen is a Heart or two."

"Are you ready to find the lady?" he asked them, "find a gent, you won't win a cent!"

Which card should Jack and Jillian pick to win? Be careful! When Monty says that a card is to the right or left of another, he doesn't necessarily mean the immediate right or left. Also, right or left is from the point of view of the two suckers―I mean, the nice young couple.

* If you haven't met Montgomery Banks―not his birth name, I'm sure―he's a trickster who always speaks the truth and nothing but the truth, but he doesn't always tell the whole truth. Moreover, he never uses sleight-of-hand or gimmicked cards. Monty doesn't manipulate cards; he manipulates minds. For previous puzzles involving Monty, see:

Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current