If you do an Internet search on the phrase "Facts are stubborn things" you will find that the cyberworld is full of conflicting information. You get about 60,000 hits. Within the first dozen citations, the quote is attributed to John Adams, Mark Twain, Ronald Regan, Lawrence Peters, and several unknown French guys. So much for stubborn facts, eh?
This, in a nutshell, is the problem for seekers of Truth ever since Al Gore invented the Internets. There is too much conflicting data, misinformation and outright malicious fabrication. As Lincoln observed, "It is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. "
Guys like Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart make their living maliciously distorting the words and deeds of anyone of the other side of their political ideology. They may think they are doing it for entertainment, but too many of their fans miss the humor and believe anything they hear from the lips of their guru.
We do not know who we can trust to tell the truth. The stubborn facts are buried deep in the mine and we do not have time to go in and dig them out ourselves. Google and other search engines are constantly gamed by special interests and clever marketers to make their interest-friendly results appear near the top of the list of returned hits.
Like me, most seekers-of-truth are in a hurry for enlightenment. So, we usually abandon our online research after viewing a few pages of search results. We click on the one or two that seem to agree with our preconceived notions. If the writing is intelligible, and it supports our point-of-view, we hyper-link it to verify our source. We shamelessly ignore contradictory data.
The problem remains:
“Facts are ventriloquists dummies. Sitting on a wise man's knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.” Aldous Huxley. At least, I think he was the one who said it.
10 comments:
How about "You will not be forced to give up your health insurance" -- first said by the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Thank you George for again demonstrating how the dark side thinks.
Putting Rush and Jon Stewart in the same category is like comparing apples to oranges. Jon Stewart bills himself as a satirist who freely acknowledges that he cherry picks for comic effect - and his audience is hip to that "fact." That his satire is often illuminating to the absurdity of the politics is a bonus. Rush on the other hand purports to be a purveyor of the truth and expects his audience to swallow his arguments without any discernment. That he is also humorous at times is due to the absurdity of his rants, not to any insights he provides
Rick, you have to listen to Rush more. He often brags that he is "exhibiting absurdity by being absurd." Stewart most often mocks his political targets by his facial expressions and body language ... as opposed to his logical insights. His audience is as slavish (or possibly more so) than Rush's.
Surprise! I agree with George on this one. Rush clearly thinks of himself as an entertainer with a political shtick. Do you think he really believes his talent is "on loan from God?" Rick, You are right that many of the dittoheads fail to get the satire. Same with Stewart's Daily Show fans who seem to forget that his fake news show is presented on the Comedy channel.
While it may be true that Rush thinks of himself as an entertainer (and my guess is that he does, but occasionally forgets and actually believes that he's a leader of the Republican party) I suspect (admittedly without much personal experience) that his followers (present company excepted) don't think of him this way. Look at it this way, the press gives lots of political weight and coverage to Rush's opinions, where citing Jon Stewart is usually for comic relief.
That is (because) there is seldom a (broadcast that passes) wherein Rush (does not) proffer (an) original thought ... as opposed to (the talking heads) on cable TV (who echo) each other ad infinitum.
May I chime in? If either of these entertainers is acting “maliciously”, the malice is chiefly in the eyes and ears of their ideological adversaries. Since the op-ed pages started quoting Stewart, he’s apparently decided to be a liberal advocate instead of a comedian. I hear Limbaugh’s stuff through the agency of his detractors. He continues to speak to and for a distinct demographic, for whom “facts” are malleable, just as they are on “The Daily Show”.
Aldous Huxley never said that; he merely mouthed the words. That’s a FACT, Jack!
While we're on the topic, another column by a "real" thoughtful pundit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?ref=opinion
LOL moment -- Rush Limbaugh's comment on hearing that Chicago had not won the 2016Olympics: "Oprah Winfrey was so upset that she ate Norway."
He also said that Chicago lost because Acorn did not have a chance to pack the IOC -- good stuff.
Post a Comment