What happens when the purveyors of knowledge become the perverters of information?
Like Louie in the gambling scene from Casablanca, we’ve all been shocked, shocked mind you, to rediscover a simple truth: word and actions have consequences.
For adults — and people in general with an IQ higher than 75 — this was never a matter in any serious doubt. Call your boss an idiot to his face and you’ll spend the next two hours cleaning out your desk, after which two burly guys from security will escort you from the building. Refuse to stop when a police car signals you to pull over, and in about three months your friends and family will be able to watch what happens next on the latest episode of Cops or The World’s Wildest Police Chases.
But for Democrats, Liberals and their fellow travelers in the press, the disconnect is real. These “little Louies” aren’t theatrically shocked by the same things that normal human beings routinely take for granted. They are absolutely, totally, unmitigatedly, stunned that their words and actions should have real-world consequences.
As Case in Point Number One, I direct you to the announcement made by the Halliburton company a few days ago that they are leaving their U.S. base of operation to set up headquarters in Dubai. Now I ask you, as a normal human being, why is it a shock that a company vilified since the 2000 election by every member of the Democrat party (including its own Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee), as well as by the mainstream press, as a corrupt, profiteering, evil “oil” company that is still controlled by Dick Cheney, would decide to leave all this bilge behind and head for friendlier waters?
Consider the words of Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who upon hearing the news said, "I think Congress ought to hold hearings to try to determine why one of this country's major defense contractors has decided to move its principal offices offshore. What's behind it?" Let me save American taxpayers a lot of money by not holding any unnecessary hearings, and the U.S. Senate a lot of wasted hot air that would otherwise contribute to increased global warming, and simply suggest that you Google the phrase “Halliburton-evil.” Up will pop enough Democrat/Leftist/Liberal Press quotes to fill in any missing pieces to this mystery.
Or consider the statement of Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who has spent the last seven years vilifying Halliburton for everything it represents and/or does. For her the decision was a total shock. “The arrogance of this company would suggest that they could make announcements in the brightness of sunlight on Sunday, and not engage their local community leaders, their employees, and others who might be vested in the relocation of corporate headquarters.” Unfortunately, there is no antidote, web-reference or easy fix for stupidity, so pointing out all of Ms. Lee’s own contributions to the process of driving Halliburton’s headquarters from U.S. shores would not edify her in the least.
But for those of us with at least half a brain — or more than a third grade understanding of the world — it’s not so hard to see why the Halliburton company might feel a tiny bit more welcome outside the U.S. than it did while operating inside the U.S as the Democrat Party and press’ favorite whipping boy, particularly after the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006. Words and actions do have consequences, and this is a perfect example of a political cause and effect.
Case in Point Number Two: CNN and the New York Times. There was a time when CNN meant “Cable News Network,” and was the only 24-hour national and international news channel in operation. Talk about dominating an industry sector, CNN was the industry sector! And lest we forget, the New York Times was no slouch either. What it printed on page 1 at 6:00 am was the lead story at 6:00 pm on ABC, NBC and CBS, as well as in the evening edition of every other newspaper in the country. It simply wasn’t news if the NYT didn’t say it was news, and that’s all there was to it.
Now fast forward a couple of years where the “Clinton News Network” saw an upstart competitor, named after a small furry animal, put its toe in the water. This right-wing, obviously biased (because it wasn’t a left-wing, obviously unbiased) news channel was destined for failure. No one was going to turn away from the official organ of TV cable news any more than the readership of the vaunted New York Times would ever diminish in the face of alternative news outlets.
And yet, in less than 10 years, the Fox News Channel has a viewership that exceeds all of its cable rivals combined — from CNN to MSNBC to Headline News and beyond. And as far as the New York Times goes, when people aren’t getting upset over (or simply laughing about) the obvious editorialization of front page news, they’re reading about yet another round of staff lay-offs at this once-proud newspaper.
Why is this happening? Because, to return to the central theme of this essay, words and actions have consequences. The daily assault from both news outlets on deeply held American values, the relentless partisan attacks on Republicans and Conservatives coupled with the corresponding failure to take any real note of Democrat or Liberal shortcomings, has steadily driven viewership and readership away.
When I wanted to get a rise out of my conservative friends back in 2000, I used to start off with, “Did you hear what Dan Rather/CNN/The New York Times said yesterday?” They’d foment for a few moments, sputtering profanities about what they could imagine as the latest outrage, only to be met with my response: “Neither did I. I don’t watch/read them anymore.” I don’t do this any longer because after several years of not watching or reading the house propaganda organs for the Democrat party, neither I nor my friends have the slightest idea what these rags say. Unless we hear Rush or Laura or Sean make mention of them, we wouldn’t even know they are still in existence.
This is what happens when the purveyors of knowledge become the perverters of information. Their thinly disguised efforts to proselytize or cajole alienate their audience, who gravitate toward sources of information that are less-biased and more reliable. Like Halliburton leaving U.S. shores, the viewing and reading public has deserted CNN and its like-minded news buddies.
Still have your doubts about the truth of this? In a recent poll conducted in 10 countries on behalf of Reuters and BBC by the Pew Research Center (paragons of conservative philosophy all!), the best these liberal apologists could do is relate the following:
"Even CNN, which leads all other outlets in credibility, doesn’t command the level of trust it did a decade ago. Its credibility ratings have been slipping steadily since 1993 (the channel was launched in 1981). In 1998, 42% of all those surveyed said they ‘believed all or most’ of what they saw on CNN, the primary metric Pew has used to measure credibility. In 2006, the figure was 28% . . . The next most trusted sources [were] CBS’s 60 Minutes (27%), C-SPAN (25%) and Fox News (25%)," all of which, I’ll point out because news analyses of this story didn’t, fall within the statistical margin of error for this survey.
The survey findings continue: “Fox News, on the other hand, has a loyal audience whose belief in what they see on the channel remains unchanged. The number of people who believe all or most of what they see on the channel didn’t fall in 2006, making Fox News one of the few media outlets not to have suffered a decline.” However, this was followed by a few gratuitous comments about how people who watch CNN, although fewer in number, are better informed and more moderate than us dumb old, reactionary, lock-step Fox News watchers. So there!
Now imagine the story that would have been told — even more unfavorable to CNN and its fellow travelers — if there was a genuine, non-biased study of this same subject, instead of one conducted by Pew on behalf of the BBC and Reuters! But then again, that would call for honesty and impartiality as a guide to actions, which returns us to the main theme of this essay. Words and actions have consequences.
If you’re still not convinced after all this, I have a simple little test you can employ. Berate your spouse for a year or two about everything and anything they do, then ask him/her to meet you for a romantic getaway some weekend. When he/she doesn’t show, or if they do show but doesn’t act like it’s a second honeymoon, ask yourself if the things you’ve said and done over the past 24 months may have had any impact on their behavior.
Or, you can shortcut all of this and just beat your dog for a week, then sneak up on him and try to pet the back of his head. When the emergency room doctor is stitching the fingers that were severed but not swallowed back on your hand, you can ask him to explain why your pet was so ungrateful.
Either way the point is made. For those of us who like our news news and editorials editorials, and not a creative mixture of the two, we intuitively understand this. The Democrats, Liberals and mainstream press may understand it as well on some deep level, but until this recognition rises to the surface, my best advice to them is avoid believing everything you hear or read on CNN and the New York Times.
And, if you’re feeling particularly loving, pet your kid’s gerbil instead of the family dog.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
