Facts or Demagoguery?

steelheart

Moderator
From www.townhall.com author Thomas Sowell asks the question, "Are Facts Obsolete?"

An interesting read...

What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way: "Demagoguery beats data."

People who urge us to rely on the United Nations, instead of acting "unilaterally," or who urge us to follow other countries in creating a government-run medical care system, often show not the slightest interest in getting facts about the actual track record of either the UN or government-run medical systems.

Those who believe in affirmative action likewise usually see no reason to find out what actually happens under such policies, as distinguished from what they wish, hope, or imagine happens.


The crusade for "a living wage" that will enable a worker to support a family proceeds without the slightest interest in finding out whether most people who are making low wages actually have any family to support -- much less seeking out the facts about what actually happens after the government sets wages.

People who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts are a danger to the whole society. Since the votes of such people count just as much as the votes of people who know what they are talking about, politicians have every incentive to pass laws and create policies that pander to ignorant notions, if those notions are widespread.

Even institutions that are set up to pass on facts -- the media, schools, academia -- too often treat facts as expendable and use their strategic positions to filter out facts which go against their own preconceptions.

Crimes against homosexuals, blacks, or the homeless are big news to be dramatized, repeated, and denounced. Crimes committed by homosexuals, blacks, or the homeless are not -- and are often passed over in silence by much of the media. The net result is that the public gets filtered facts, which can create an impression the direct opposite of the truth.

We learn from the media's filtered facts that there are countries with stronger gun-control laws than ours which have lower murder rates. We seldom, if ever, learn from the media about countries which have stronger gun-control laws than ours and whose murder rates are two or three times higher than ours.

The media also filter out facts about countries where gun ownership is far more widespread than in the United States -- and who nevertheless have lower murder rates.

Those who are in the business of teaching the young, whether in the public schools or on college campuses, too often see this not as a responsibility to pass on what is known but as an opportunity to indoctrinate students with their own beliefs. Many "educators" and the gurus who indoctrinated them actively disparage "mere facts," which they say you can get from an almanac or encyclopedia.

The net result is a student population that does not even know enough to know what needs to be looked up, much less how to analyze facts, so as to test opposing beliefs -- as distinguished from how to gather information to support a preconceived notion that happens to be fashionable in the schools and colleges.

Yet people are considered to be "educated" after they have spent so many years in ivy-covered buildings, absorbing the preconceptions that prevail there.

Facts that go against preconceived notions are likely to be ignored, even by many scholars. For example, slavery is an issue that is widely discussed as if it were something peculiar to Africans enslaved by Europeans, instead of something suffered and inflicted around the world by people of every race, color, and religion.

Two books about a million European slaves taken to North Africa have been published in recent years. That is more than the number of African slaves brought to America. The books are "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters" by Robert Davis and "White Gold" by Giles Milton. Both books have been largely ignored by the media and academia alike.

Apparently scholars, as well as journalists, have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.
Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics.

Reformatted and proper URL added for citation. - Antipitas
 
MM... to people today, that is just too much work. They want their infotainment in quick, easy to digest (and forget) soundbites...
 
Reminds me of another study that found that partisans are more interested in spin than fact. Hearing statements that agree with their politics stimulates pleasure centers in their brain whether they're factual or not.
 
Anyone else see the irony that much of Steelheart's post contains the demogogery he decries?

It is a tactic used by the "true believers" on either side of the aisle to support their polar and mutually exclusive claims. Like the creation of this baseless paradigm that black and homosexual crime is not reported - source please?


As near as I can tell, much of this media filtering goes on because so many Americans are no longer able to process anything that doesn't fit neatly within their preconceived notions. Fox News is never going to report that ANYTHING any Democrat did was positive, not because they believe it or not, but because the Fox News audience is going to get so upset with having their apple cart turned that they'll write angry letters and stop watching.


Americans are their own worst enemy. It is a market economy, and we get what we ask for: Neatly segregated information selected for the appeasement of prejudice. Every person who declares that one group, party or perspective is all good and their opposition all bad reinforces the paradigm.


We're lied to because we ask to be lied to. You can't demand " I want the truth", and then rage when it isn't what you already decided it must be.
 
Thomas Sowell is decried by many of his ethnic community as being an "Uncle Tom". I think he is one of the most compelling authors/columnists/thinkers.

Remember this is what Cynthia McKinney thinks about Sowell's "type";

"My impression of modern-day black Republicans is they have to pass a litmus test in which all black blood is extracted,"

I think it is fair to say Sowell can think and talk McKinney under the table.
 
Just like beauty, truth really IS in the eye of the beholder. For the most part, it is just a matter of perception. If a scientist is conducting research, but his research is tainted with preconceived notions, his results are going to be questionably interpreted. Considering the difficulty involved in segregating bias from fact on the scientist`s end, just imagine the level of difficulty for the general populace. Thinking logically and putting aside general bias is not really a common trait among the masses. The vast majority (of the masses)prefer that the thinking be reserved for our omnipotent rulers, who we love to ostracize when they screw up.


Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
Handy, I don't see how Sowell is appealing to emotion in his article, so I don't see any demagoguery there.

His point is an excellent one and a particularly strong condemnation on our educational system. What happened to simple compare and contrast exercises in reading and writing in school? It required reviewing multiple sources and coming to your own conclusions. I rarely run across younger people capable of the simplest of comparisons.

I think the spoon fed infotainment is a problem, but a basic lack of normal curiosity is a bigger one. Information is much easier to access today than just ten years ago, yet the capacity or, perhaps, desire to interpret the information is sorely lacking.
 
No emotional content, Matt? Facts only?
Crimes against homosexuals, blacks, or the homeless are big news to be dramatized, repeated, and denounced. Crimes committed by homosexuals, blacks, or the homeless are not -- and are often passed over in silence by much of the media.
Answer me this: What (for example) is a "homosexual crime"? Any crime that is committed by a homosexual? A 'hate crime' against a heterosexual?

Which homosexual crimes are not dramatized, repeated and denounced? Are there any? Is a purse snatching committed by a gay man noteworthy because of his sexuality?


The author sets up a false conflict to make a point about inequity, but his example is a phantom designed to play well to those who aren't particularly enamored with blacks, homosexuals and homeless. It leverages emotion to get the reader believing there is an injustice where one never before existed. Everything does not have an opposite, but the author is using that logic to make his appeal.



Okie, what does "passed over in silence by much of the media" mean?
 
Steelheart didn't say they weren't reported. Reread the post, it says "...dramatized, repeated, and denounced..."
As a matter of fact, I didn't say a damn thing - Thomas Sowell did the saying. I merely posted his article, which was thought provoking. Once again, Handy's compulsive need to attack merely for the sake of attacking rears its ugly head.
 
Attack what? Character? I leave that to your posts.

I attack irrational BS. And it is in Sowell's article, so you have nothing to get upset about.
 
Crimes committed by homosexuals, blacks, or the homeless are not -- and are often passed over in silence by much of the media.

I dunno, seems like somebody better inform the various media outlets of this, since they seem to report virtually all major crimes committed by anybody, regardless of background, with apparent zeal and barely concealed glee (yeay, our ratings!).

Crimes (or alleged crimes) by African-Americans not reported by mainstream media, ok then: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/05/mckinney.scuffle.ap/index.html

steelheart, I hate to say this, but due to your not setting quoted text off as such, and your various font modifications to the same quoted text (highlighting, italicizing, etc.), it becomes a little difficult to tell where you stop writing and the quoted author begins, especially when the reader is unfamilliar with the text or author being quoted. Just an observation.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Steelheart, I meant you by way of association to your post.
Passing over by "much" of the media does not mean the same thing as "not reported."Yes, some media outlets report, but not all, things that fit their definition as news. For instance, if I want news on Native American issues, I have to search for "media" tailored to that type of issue.

"As I get older, I notice I have to explain myself more often. Especially to children and the media." Bill Clinton
 
Handy,

Sowell could have appealed emotionally by using some specific examples that fit the viewpoint you indicate he is pushing - for example certain NAMBLA people taking advantage of young boys. Is it a hate crime, thought crime or homosexual crime for a man to take advantage of a young boy?

Using conceptual examples that are being demogogued currently and challenging the "conventional wisdom" is hardly the demagoguery he's identifying. Sowell isn't providing any facts in his article to rebut the areas he points out as being demogogued. Its an opinion piece. Sowell is challenging people to see the other side of an issue with whatever facts are available. The subject matter itself can be volatile and the reader needs to make up their own mind.

Perhaps we should revisit Prohibition in this discussion about demogoguery. It's the demon rum that is at the root of our problems in society. Or perhaps global warming. The drum beat is fairly one sided on that issue right now from the major media. A quick search will reveal that there are some reasonable differences of opinion on that, too.

Or to bring it back to firearms, its only in the last few years that most media outlets would present anything approaching positive about self defense much less a reasonable comparison of the various positions on right to arms and self defense. Even in gun friendly zones the good stories (Boy Saves Grandma with Gun) are relegated to deep in the paper.

How's that for demogoguery?
 
As near as I can tell, much of this media filtering goes on because so many Americans are no longer able to process anything that doesn't fit neatly within their preconceived notions. Fox News is never going to report that ANYTHING any Democrat did was positive, not because they believe it or not, but because the Fox News audience is going to get so upset with having their apple cart turned that they'll write angry letters and stop watching.

Just like CBS will never fabricate documents that portray conservatives in a positive light?:)
 
Just like CBS will never fabricate documents that portray conservatives in a positive light?
CBS is only good at fabricating documents that attempt to tear down Republican candidates and attempt to sweep Democrat candidates into offices that they cannot win otherwise.

Dan Rather was the father of this corrupt and leftist biased "news" pimping - remember the forged service records he tried to use to damage Bush in the 2004 Presidential race?
 
Lol!

Handy,

"Anyone else see the irony that much of Steelheart's post contains the demogogery he decries? It is a tactic used by the "true believers" on either side of the aisle to support their polar and mutually exclusive claims."

"Fox News is never going to report that ANYTHING any Democrat did was positive, not because they believe it or not, but because the Fox News audience is going to get so upset with having their apple cart turned that they'll write angry letters and stop watching."

How was your 2nd statement not proof that you were engaging in demogoguery yourself? How was it not a polar and mutually exclusive claim decrying the hated Fox News? How is it not ironic as well?
 
Back
Top