Go Home

false equivalence

4 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Chuck Todd's Sunday False Equivalence Follies - Updated

This morning, this happened.

I cannot think of anything less equivalent than the controversies over voting machines and the birther theories, and it did not go unnoticed, mostly because it may be one of the dumbest things Chuck Todd has ever uttered from the keyboard of his BlackBerry.

Brad Friedman picked up on it, offering to explain it to Chuck, and from there it snowballed among the Twitterati. Here's a very small sample:

I've heard a lot of false equivalencies from the Villagers, but this one might just take the cake. There are very real concerns about technology proven to be easily hacked without any trail, reports in every election about machines recording votes which are proportionately different from votes cast, and more. In 2008, Tennessee officials went to jail for jacking around with voting and election integrity.

In other words, concerns about voting machine technology are real. They're not some whacko, out there conspiracy theory, and they should be addressed, as Joy Reid pointed out. Joy, by the way, is a veteran of Florida in 2000. It's not like she doesn't have experience with this.

On the other hand, the birther conspiracy theories have been widely investigated, debunked over and over again, and now are the province of people living their lives in a constant state of denial in order to soothe their racist feathers over the fact that a black guy is in the White House.

Simply put, Chuck, there is NO equivalence. None. Zero. For you to try and flip it around to a larger conversation about voter access laws and what you didn't say is just smoke for what you did say, which was stupid and unworthy of someone reporting on this election.

Here's my question: When Obama wins this election, and the right wing claims it was "stolen", will Chuck suddenly give voting machines a hard look?

Update: Brad Friedman has written a powerful answer to Chuck. Will attention be paid?



Joe Scarborough Whines About Meanies on the Left

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1015)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1447)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I am so tired of the constant drumbeat of false equivalence from the likes of Joe Scarborough. Right at the top of his show this morning he jumps out with a little whine in his coffee about how mean the awful left is to him, and how hateful their signs in Wisconsin are.

townhalls.jpg
How quickly they forget. I did a quick Google Image Search on "health care town halls" and then another on Wisconsin union protest signs. There's no comparison. Not even close.

Joe's little rant follows last week's rant where he called Wisconsin teachers "sick and selfish" for standing up for their rights instead of taking their medicine like everyone else. Of course, we all now know right from Governor Walker's own lips that this isn't about the budget, but about union-busting. He's said it over and over again over the past three days. Yet no one took Scarborough to task for calling working people who want the right to collectively bargain "sick and selfish." Not a one.

About that whole civility thing, Joe. Let's talk on that for a minute, because the language of hatefulness seems to be the native tongue of the Tea Party. Let me share a few email headlines I've received over the past couple of days, sent from Tea Party leaders to the Tea Party faithful.

  • President Stupid
  • Run by Fools
  • Obama's Incredible Shrinking America

Those are just a random sampling of headlines. The text is far worse. It's an intentional effort to keep tea party members engaged by enraging them. Those email blasts go out at least three times every day to the membership with little teases in them like this:

The socialists, from Obama on down, are spreading the word that if there is a government shutdown, the world as we know it will come to an end. There will be no military, security, air traffic control and grandma won't get her social security check.

Guess what? They are lying!

Yeah, nothing to see here, move along. Sure, the lefties send emails like this to their members every single day, working them into a lather over the tiniest, most trivial, ginned-up issues. And yeah, sure we have a 24/7 propaganda machine called Fox News out there amplifying that rage for the world to see. Sure we do, Joe.

People on the left understand that we have no mainstream media that can be considered "liberal." At best, we get Rachel Maddow's brilliance offset by Joe Scarborough's whining ways on MSNBC. Meanwhile, Fox News just grinds out the propaganda hour after hour, day after day.

So forgive me, Joe, if I don't weep big salt tears for the nasty emails you receive. I'll delete mine if you delete yours. That's about all anyone can do.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (513)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4796)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t David at VideoCafe)

Well, well, well...look who had to walk back his ludicrous false equivalence that MoveOn is receiving millions from anonymous donors, just like the Chamber of Commerce.

I suppose this is par for the course. But perhaps it should be part of the discussion that right wing commentators who claim lefty groups and unions are running ads funded by anonymous donors -- just as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other righty groups are doing -- are just flat out lying.

This lie is so easily debunked that Joe Scarborough actually retracted it today on Morning Joe after making the claim and getting corrected. Will Karl Rove and Fox News and others spreading this falsehood or letting it go unchecked do the same?

Scarborough, during a discussion this morning of the Obama-and-Dem-versus-Chamber dust-up, called on President Obama to demand disclosure from unions and MoveOn, claiming "blatant hypocrisy."

But the comparison is totally bogus. Under Federal law, unions disclose far more about their funding than other political groups do, and it just so happens that MoveOn's ads are funded by a Federal political committee that has to comply with the same disclosure requirements that candidate and party committees do.

To his credit, Scarborough corrected his false claim after a MoveOn official contacted him to complain. He acknowledged that MoveOn is a "Federal PAC," admitting: "I shoot from the hip."

Uh huh. Or you're just so eager to deflect rightful criticism that the Citizens United ruling and the frightening thought that foreign contributions are now affecting American elections, that you just pulled erroneous facts from a location near that hip. There is no equivalence on the left to the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham). There are no huge paychecks from shadowy billionaires eager to foist their selfish and short-sighted world view on the rest of the country. And Democrats are being outspent 7 to 1.

We've done posts on the foreign interests, as have Think Progress and other liberal blogs. I don't see a need to rehash it, probably not nearly as well as others have. But I do think that the importance of this cannot be overstressed: We will NEVER have any true democracy or fair elections until we demand public financing. All other complaints about weak-kneed Democrats or corporatist Republicans or being sidelined and not listened to take a back seat to that one fact.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (834)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (987)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Anderson Cooper needs to stick to oil spills and hurricanes because when it comes to political commentary he's as lame as the Fox journalists. There's only one story to be told when it comes to the Shirley Sherrod fiasco: Andrew Breitbart lied. That's all. Andrew. Breitbart. lied.

But this is what journalism is today. There is no one with enough of a moral compass to just come out and say that in the media. This is why, by the way, Robert Gibbs and the Obama Administration won't say it either. I'll get to that toward the end of this post, but first let's have a look at Anderson Cooper's Invented America.

COOPER: But we begin with a political storm that nearly destroyed Shirley Sherrod. President Obama spoke with her on the phone today. And we will speak to her in a moment about that conversation.

But first the blogger who slammed Shirley Sherrod, we're "Keeping Them Honest." He is the only actor in this dismal drama that has not apologized to Ms. Sherrod. And, in fact, he says he is the victim and that the Obama administration and mainstream media are out to destroy him.

He told Politico today -- quote -- "I am public enemy number one or two to the Democratic Party, the progressive movement and the Obama administration based upon the successes my journalism has had."

Now, calling what Mr. Breitbart does journalism is hard for those of us who actually check and try to be fair. I'm certainly not perfect, and have made mistakes, and have apologized for them. But journalism shouldn't be about left and right. It should be about the truth.

Up to this point, I'm right there with him. Yes, journalism shouldn't be about left and right. It should be about truth. And facts. And full telling of the truth and facts. If Anderson Cooper had stopped here, I'd be applauding. Andrew Breitbart wouldn't know the truth if it reared up and breathed hot fire in his face.

But this is not what journalists do. We don't live in an age where they actually call it what it is and move on to the next story. No, instead they have to create that false "balance", or equivalence that just doesn't exist.

The single reason that Robert Gibbs and other Obama administration officials, including the President himself, will not call out Fox News and Breitbart is because of stupid assertions like the ones Cooper is about to make. If Gibbs had pointed out that the entire story was the product of a lie manufactured by Andrew Breitbart for attention and giggles, the narrative would have shifted to "Mean President Obama Whines and Picks on Andrew Breitbart".

The administration would have been painted as "petty", "blaming", "ducking the issue". It would have just obfuscated the truth of the matter, which is simple, and which I will repeat a few more times: Andrew Breitbart lied.

What Mr. Breitbart does and what others on the left and the right do may very well be what journalism has become, but it isn't certainly not what it should be. Mr. Breitbart also Politico -- quote -- "The desire here is to make it about me and not the Democratic establishment and the NAACP vs. the Tea Party."

That's been Mr. Breitbart's excuse since it was revealed that his video was not what he said it was. He claims this was never about Shirley Sherrod. In fact, he said to Sean Hannity -- quote -- "I could care less about Shirley Sherrod, to be honest with you."

That is the one thing he has said that is indisputable. He does not care about Shirley Sherrod, doesn't care about making false allegations against her or ruining her career. Andrew Breitbart has his ideology. He believes he is right. And in his mind that justifies any action he takes.

I'm still good with it through this point, even. Cooper has clearly named the villain in the plot and called it non-journalism, which it is. He could have even said Andrew Breitbart just lied, but we all know that would be too good to be true. His next segment is where he falls off the edge of the planet into Outer Journo space:

And that's how ideologues think on the left and on the right. Post a video clip that's misleading? No problem if it helps you make your argument, if it helps boost visitors to your Web site. Make false claims about a person? Why not, if it gets you more Web traffic?

That is where we are today. Andrew Breitbart is conservative. But, as I said, there are liberals online and on TV who do the exact same things. They cherry-pick the facts that prove their arguments, not the facts that reveal the truth.

Oh, really? If you know of any liberal blogger who has intentionally edited a video clip to mislead and cause entire organizations serving poor folks to crumble, post a comment with a link, please. Anderson Cooper's equivalence sounds oh, so lofty until you sit down and ask yourself where exactly are these misleading video clips posted from the left that destroy people?

Where are they? Where is the left saying that an entire organization on the right loaded up voter registrations with bogus Republicans? I've only seen proven allegations with a criminal record to back them up.

Where ARE those lefty videos? Please, show them to me.

Of course, you can't. Because there are none. Huffington Post, which is probably the closest thing to Breitbart's sites, has nothing like that video. This site doesn't. Daily Kos? FireDogLake? I don't see any there. So please, tell me where are these videos?

Of course, Anderson doesn't stop with that. He invokes one of the 'reasonable right' (and I use the term guardedly) to back his assertions.

David Frum, a conservative, said on this program last night the problem is not liberalism or conservatism. It's factionalism, seeing the world through your own limited political lens and never admitting when you have made a mistake, never admitting the other side may be right some of the time, never doing anything that damages your faction.

Funny, I've been known to hammer on those to the left of me about hammering on our own, because they are all too willing sometimes to flog OUR side at the expense of the bigger picture, in my opinion. Whether I hammer or not, there's always someone in the liberal blogosphere willing to take OUR side to task without regard to what the rotten Right might be up to. So again, I'd really like to see the evidence of that. Show us. Quit saying it and show me the goods.

It's a game for people like Mr. Breitbart and others. They don't go out into the field and meet the people they're supposedly reporting on. They don't go out and challenge their assumptions. They stay behind a desk and see the world as black or white, left or right. And it's a lot more complex than that.

Actually, Anderson, here's a news flash for you. I've met Andrew Breitbart and he doesn't sit behind a desk all day. He sits in a bottle a lot, though. Why not call him what he is? A bully, an idealogue, a liar and a likely lush.

This isn't a question of "both sides do it." What Breitbart did, by his own admission, was use a government employee as a weapon to stir racial tension. The fact that it worked at first is another issue entirely. He lied to get a reaction. Andrew Breitbart lied. Repeat after me: Andrew Breitbart lied.

Where I come from, that's dishonest antagonism. Not journalism.