Searching For The Truth

There was a time when most of us accepted simple facts as true without much question. If Walter Cronkite said there was an oil spill off the coast of San Diego for example, we felt confident in saying there was an oil spill off the coast of San Diego. If our teacher told us that Lansing was the capitol of Michigan we did not question it. I believe such acceptance of what we read or are told began to change with the Kennedy assasination. It was at this time that there appeared to be the beginning of ongoing conspiracy theories, including such questions as to whether men actually walked on the moon. We still accept many things as true, but often it's because these potential truths conform to our particular point of view rather than because they are backed up by any observable facts.

Take the Fox News Network if I may. On a recent news show, not a commentary or opinion show, the lead broadcaster began her news story by saying something like: After one year in office the Obama Administration continues to blame President Bush for leaving him a mess, particularly on the economy. The newscaster went on to talk about how every time there is a question about problems with the economy the Obama administration wants to blame George Bush instead of accepting responsibility for the problems we face. I repeat, this was a news show. However, this represents not an informational newscast, but an agenda driven program. First, the news anchor makes clear that it is not appropriate to blame George Bush for anything that is wrong today. That of course is an opinion, not a fact. Further, it is made clear that it is not appropriate to discuss anything that happened before Obama became President. How does one fix a problem if one can not explore where it came from? But Fox News makes it clear that nothing that happened before January 2009 can be discussed unless you want Fox News to label you as a whiner, complainer, and unwilling to accept responsibility for your own failures. Of course if you agree with this point of view, you may see this as a fair and balanced newscast, which is precisely why it is not. The news media has a responsiblility to report the news, not present a point of view carefully calculated to obtain your agreement.

One result of such a slanted news media is an inability to distinguish fact from opinion. The issue of trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in federal court comes to mind. Again, Fox news over and over questions why Abdulmutallab is not being charged in military court. The impression is given that this can only be because Obama is weak on terrorism. Their reporting makes clear that it is inappropriate to charge this man in federal court, and the fate of our country hangs in the balance if this decision is not changed. Clearly there is a group that believes this man should be tried in a military tribunal. However, when you add Fox news and other right wing media outlets pushing this agenda there is an overwhelming thrust to convince the American people that this position is the only one that makes any sense.

Yet, the facts simply don't support this position. How does one convey how distorted this position is when there is so much noise being made by those who are determined to undo this decision? Consider an article fron the Los Angeles Times of 11/29, 2009 by Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano incidentally has been a legal analyst for the aforementioned Fox News. Napolitano places some inconvenient facts on the table. The Supreme Court has five times challenged the constitutionality of George Bush's military tribunals and Bush lost each time. The Supreme Court has ruled that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite for trying a foreigner in a military court of law. The usual method of trying such defendants is and has been in criminal court, and the track record of doing that has been good. Those tried in a criminal court include, Timothy McVeigh, Omar Abdel Rahmin (convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), Zacarias Moussaoui of the 9/11 attack, John Walker Lindh (known as the American Taliban), and Richard Reed (the famous shoe bomber). There was even the case of the Fort Dix six, five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade Ft. Dix in New Jersey.

It may be that Abdulmutallab should be tried in a military tribunal. However, one would have to prove that there were very unusal circumstances in order to propose such a transfer. The fact, which continues to be obscured by many media outlets, is that the usual and customary venue for such terrorists is federal court, and the courts have been quite successful in litigating these matters.

It just appears to be very difficult for the truth to be heard. There are those who appear to have no interest in truth or in facts. They have a point of view and they are determined to foist it on the public. They repeat their distortions over and over again believing that eventually every one will assume they are facts even though they aren't. When Rudy Giuliani said there had been no terrorist attack during George Bush's administration, but that there had been in Barack Obama's administration, he knew what he was saying. The fact that he was wrong did not matter, because if enough people continue to say what he said it will become conventional wisdom and will be accepted as fact. Only the mainstream media can challenge people on these kinds of utterances. In fairness to the media they actually did a pretty good job on Giuliani's comments, however, I continue to hear this kind of inaccurate statement being made as fact. It would be interesting to poll and see how many people believe that there was no terror attack during the Bush administration. Again, what does it take to pursue the truth?

Of course, the right wing has no monopoly on distorting the truth, but they do seem to have it down to a science. Unfortunately, the mainstream media still seems content to say that all sides are guilty of playing loose with the facts, suggesting that there is no difference between the two parties. Yet as long as distinctions are not made, Fox News and right wing politicians can repeat their clearly distorted assertions over and over again with impunity. As long as health care reform for example, can continue to be characterized as a government take over, without being challenged by the media, it is difficult for reasonable voices to be heard. An entire network posing as fair and balanced news is not informing the public but promoting an agenda. It is time the mainstream news media makes clear that what Fox News is doing is not normal reporting of the news, and it is not fair and balanced. Fox can operate however it chooses, but people need to be able to see it for what it is - a venue for right wing opposition to the current administration.