The Insidious notion that there is no such thing as truth. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 11:05:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  The Insidious notion that there is no such thing as truth. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Insidious notion that there is no such thing as truth.  (Read 3462 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,994


« on: November 19, 2009, 10:10:16 PM »

As the mainstream media has been collapsing, the Rupert Murdoch worshippers on the right now claim that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as bias, that all journalists are hacks, that any assertion that they may have aspired to ethics or professional standards is a naive religion, and the media consists of nothing but a cacophony of text with no particular meaning.

Very well then, if there is no such thing as truth, why do people even dialogue with one another? They have no chance of arriving any closer to the truth. Why talk politics at all? What is the point? Why even believe in things like 'freedom' and 'democracy', in fact, why even care at all about one's country, in our case the United States and its Constitution? What's to prevent us from dissolving into civil war and secession? Nothing! After all, there is no truth, right? If that's the direction the right wants to head down, then so be it; but then they will get a fight on those terms, and it will be a damned good one.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,994


« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2009, 10:31:27 PM »
« Edited: November 19, 2009, 10:35:23 PM by Beet »

I don't want this to be a glib dismissal. There are serious questions here. When I raised the idea of unbiased news, I was challenged into a pretty ugly and ad hoc definition of unbiased. And the critics may be right that news was never anything more than pure hackery.

I just wonder though-- are there any standards? The prominence of freedom of speech and freedom of press in democratic political theory has been high for centuries. Is this prominence meant to be a pure balance of powers play-- or is there supposed to be any meaning, any point, to the actual words that are used in this speech?

When two people debate a policy, are they actually supposed to enlighten each other and be able to influence one another on the basis of some shared understanding? If the idea of public dialogue is stripped of all notion of truth, standards, then how is it anything but lies? How does any political conversation people have become anything but lies?

As for "who said this", I recently heard the top paragraph here said by the founder of Newser.com, a news aggregator and Murdoch biographer (update- his name is Michael Wolff), on NPR. True to form, he rudely and repeatedly interrupted the other hosts and callers, practically shouting, and was only gently called on it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.016 seconds with 10 queries.