44 replies to this topic

[Gypsy Bob]

When The Truth Is Found To Be Lies

By Gypsy Bob Nielsen

The Truth simply used to be just that; The Truth. There were 16 ounces in a pint, 16 ounces in a pound and the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. We teach our children to tell the Truth. The Truth is the glue that binds our society together; we build on The Truth. Without Truth there is no Trust and without Trust things fall apart and cannot last. Our Civilization is built upon telling The Truth.

When we fail to tell the truth in a Court of Law we are guilty of perjury. Perjury is a crime. When we lie to a spouse we are planting the seeds of mistrust. When we lie to our employer we risk termination of employment. One glaring exception to the rule is when a Politician fails to tell the Truth it is accepted as business as usual. This has to stop.

The Truth is the cornerstone of our decision making process. We create policies and Laws based on what we perceive as Truths. You can’t tailor to Truth to suit your audience. There is no Republican or Democratic Truth there is just the Truth and it is Universal. Whether they are Half Truths, White Lies, Misleading Statements or outright Fabrications they all fall under the Umbrella of LIES.

Attack ads are successful because they shock while obfuscating the truth. They are laced with Half Truths, Misleading Statements and outright Fabrications. We cringe at their content. On the surface they are designed to be plausible while simultaneously providing us with easy, superficial answers. We blindly accept ostensibly while inside knowing they are less than truthful. Frankly, most folks don’t have the time to investigate and unearth the Truth. We are too busy trying to make ends meet and keep our heads above water. Generally speaking Political Campaigns have come down to the candidate who can hurl the most BS at the wall and have it stick wins. What’s lost in the process are the Issues and the Truth. Occasionally some egregious offense results in a retraction that is a blurb printed in a micro font located somewhere in obscurity. What would happen if those who paid for such ads were held accountable?

Establish a not for profit Fact Verification Organization with the power to levy fines for false or misleading content on Individuals or Organizations that sponsor the ads. Make the perpetrators pay 5 times the ads cost to run plus have them produce a retraction ad that will run as many times as the false or misleading ad appeared in the media it originally aired.

Imagine a Campaign based on Facts, Issues and The Truth.

[hoagie]

The Sun does not "rise" in the East, nor does it "set" in the West.

[cheeseweasel]

All the joy within me dies.

[TakeAStepBack]

Good post, Bob.

You nailed it right here:
Frankly, most folks don’t have the time to investigate and unearth the Truth. We are too busy trying to make ends meet and keep our head above water.
This is what is counted on by the establishment in order to maintain control. Or re-establish control dominance in the two party paradigm. It isn't a matter of "holding them accountable" by some third off shoot where people can maintain listening to what is said because others are there to correct. It's a matter of people actually going through the painful process of digging up the truth out of the rubble pile. That means a majority of folks, not a few.

For thousands of years the truth has been abused by some to maintain control, and unless people get well informed and stay that way, someone will always try to mislead others.

[Lostsailr]

I wonder if there is a problem with truth, as it has no foresight.
The world is flat, was once a truth, then replaced with "round".
Sun rises and sets, not the earth rotates...
Atoms are the smallest particle, wait not really.

I agree that politicians (most of whom are lawyers, so they love this game) try to "spin" the truth, such as we understnad it.
It would be nice however if data was not marginalized in this effort however. As an educated electorate struggles to sift through the piles of manure, I only fear for our system when elections hinge on the undecided voters who they try to swing with their negative campaigns in the final weeks.

I love the concept of demanding a retraction add that they are forced to run for equal time (giving media outlets reason to police this too).
And if we could get to public campaign funding ONLY, we could take out a lot of BS from super pacs who seem to have no reason to bother with the "truth".

[cheeseweasel]

We just have to accept that some people will never believe the sky is blue. That is the problem. There is nobody more stubborn than someone who refuses to accept that what they have believed all their lives turns out to be complete bullshit. Hence, the Tea Party. That is what stubborn denial results in when all those miserable, confused clods form a club.
And now they have their own network on TV. We got to see one in full blown reality denial mode on Tuesday evening. How can igorance get so far as to be presented to America on tv by a supposed news station? Its like having an illiterate edit your term paper.

[hoagie]

Truthiness'd

[TakeAStepBack]

There is nobody more stubborn than someone who refuses to accept that what they have believed all their lives turns out to be complete bullshit. Hence, the Tea Party.

This same thing could be said for lolberals too. It isn't just one side or the other that stubbornly clings bitterly to ignorance.

[cheeseweasel]

You are absolutely correct, but no Democrat in Congress is holding America hostage with liberal stubborness. Wasnt it Bitch McConnell who said his party's only job was to make Obama a one-term President? Or are we all just suffering from Stockholm Syndrome now?

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, Harry Reid and the other lolberal stall-outs are so much better.

[elder]

I tend to believe that where the motivation is money and/or power (politics and religion), the real truth is never told.

[Gypsy Bob]

I tend to believe that where the motivation is money and/or power (politics and religion), the real truth is never told.

Elder, imagine if what I propose caught on, for all intents and purpose it would be a new operating system. Things would be built to last and everyone would win.

[elder]

When you think about it, our whole economy, capitalism, is all based on lies.
What is Marketing? It is selling people something that they didn't need or didn't know that they needed. wink. wink.

When sales level out from going in one direction, the direction is changed.

Its all meant to confuse the general public. To keep them spending.

The reality IS that its up to YOU to seek the truth. Always has been. Its part of the game.

[concert andy]

If I sayeth the sun be the moon then it be the moon.

[PeaceFrog]

when the truth is found out to be lies... lie some more I guess. you can't expect them to do anything else. It's all they know.

[Jwheelz]

This same thing could be said for lolberals too. It isn't just one side or the other that stubbornly clings bitterly to ignorance.

You are absolutely correct, but no Democrat in Congress is holding America hostage with liberal stubborness. Wasnt it Bitch McConnell who said his party's only job was to make Obama a one-term President? Or are we all just suffering from Stockholm Syndrome now?

I don't see this as being an issue isolated to one ideology or any particular political parties. I do have my own opinions about who may be more guilty of distorting reality than others, but that really isn't relevant to the problems. An argument about who is more guilty or what particular ideology is the most guilty is really just a distraction. The real issue at hand is that there really isn't any mechanism for determining the basic objectives facts which everyone is operating from. I believe that used to be taken care of by the media, but the vast majority of professional media seems to be at least to some degree co-opted by either corporate interests or partisan interests or both.

Gypsy Bob brought up an interesting idea by suggesting a nonpartisan panel that can force some degree of honesty back into the process. I can't say whether or not that particular idea would do the job but I think it would be a great start to actually have that discussion in this country. I think it's clear that we really need to try to do something, I for one believe there is an objective reality that everyone can actually agree on if they choose to do so. I think some of the problem is that so many important analytical tools like economics and sociology are soft sciences, meaning to some degree or another they can be influenced by individual ideology or interpreted in varying ways.

Unfortunately we will always have at the very least a fringe that will always dispute the truth even if it appears very objective. We (the majority) need to find a way to marginalize that particular fringe's ability to influence the overall discourse while not shutting out dissenting views that allow us to solidify our understanding of varying problems. I'm not saying that people should be silenced, everyone has the right to speak, but in my opinion that doesn't mean we have to give equal weight to everyone's perspective when it comes time to act. I'm aware that might not be a popular stance among people like to talk politics here but I think it's a necessary thing to consider. That is obviously a very particular challenge and not necessarily one which can be easily addressed.

I think it's important to have debate but there has to be a point at which the debate is settled. Take a look at global warming for example, I'm aware of the varying perspectives on it but we've been having the same arguments for 30 to 40 years. There will always be a group of people that will refuse to believe it no matter what they hear. But even if they are right and the majority of scientists have it wrong, the price of trying to address it unnecessarily is far outweighed by the cost (in human lives and property) of doing nothing if the projections are correct. I think it's a good example of an issue which for better or for worse could and should have been settled a long time ago. I'm not trying to provoke a discussion on that particular issue I'm just pointing to it as an example of one of those endless debates that really isn't beneficial to either side of the discussion.

So that comes back to the idea of holding people accountable to be truthful. It needs to be done in such a way that the interests currently corrupting the process have no influence over the assessment or implementation of this accountability process. I'm not sure how we create something that's truly unbiased. One of the big problems is we have people attacking organizations like the Bureau of Labor Statistics and accusing them of being biased based on spurious evidence and anecdotes. Or even worse just based on a hunch. These organizations have unbelievable amounts of safeguards and checks and balances to make sure that the information they are responsible for producing is not biased on an ideological basis. If we allow people to impact the public trust of such vital data than we won't even be able to have a debate much less settle it.

[TEO]

Read an interesting book during the last year: Propaganda by Edward Bernays


“Bernays’ honest and practical manual provides much insight into some of the most powerful and influential institutions of contemporary industrial state capitalist democracies.”—Noam Chomsky

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”—Edward Bernays, Propaganda

A seminal and controversial figure in the history of political thought and public relations, Edward Bernays (1891–1995), pioneered the scientific technique of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which he famously dubbed “engineering of consent.” During World War I, he was an integral part of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a powerful propaganda apparatus that was mobilized to package, advertise and sell the war to the American people as one that would “Make the World Safe for Democracy.” The CPI would become the blueprint in which marketing strategies for future wars would be based upon.

Bernays applied the techniques he had learned in the CPI and, incorporating some of the ideas of Walter Lipmann, became an outspoken proponent of propaganda as a tool for democratic and corporate manipulation of the population. His 1928 bombshell Propaganda lays out his eerily prescient vision for using propaganda to regiment the collective mind in a variety of areas, including government, politics, art, science and education. To read this book today is to frightfully comprehend what our contemporary institutions of government and business have become in regards to organized manipulation of the masses.

This is the first reprint of Propaganda in over 30 years and features an introduction by Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder.

[PeaceFrog]

well, from 1949 until 1987 we had what was known as "The Fairness Doctrine" which required the news organizations to give equal time to opposing sides of every issue... apparently that was too "un-free market" to regulate the news that way.

Yep... the FCC under Clinton... Clinton was OK... too conservative for my tastes giving up the Fairness Doctrine, and signing NAFTA and DADT... still he was way better than any Bush.

[TakeAStepBack]

Any other opinions you'd like to share?

[PeaceFrog]

That was a little bit of fact mixed in with a little bit of opinion... just so you know.

[elder]

[Jwheelz]

[Joker]

Establish a not for profit Fact Verification Organization with the power to levy fines for false or misleading content on Individuals or Organizations that sponsor the ads. Make the perpetrators pay 5 times the ads cost to run plus have them produce a retraction ad that will run as many times as the false or misleading ad appeared in the media it originally aired.

Imagine a Campaign based on Facts, Issues and The Truth.

I like this idea but, as has already been stated, The Truth can be spun and there are people that are damn good at spinning it on both sides of the aisle.

[PeaceFrog]

I can't understand how somebody that criticizes others for playing into the "two-party system" so vehemently could think in terms of "both sides of the aisle"

There's a couple independents in the Senate, you know... so that's three sides of the aisle.

In fact, the aisle has hundreds of sides.

how about this: forget about which "side of the aisle" a thought comes from and think about what is best for the country.

[TEO]

Oops, seems this is political.

[TakeAStepBack]

More like poop-lick-it-all.

Good post though, Bob.

[PeaceFrog]

I thought you were going to test wild mushrooms after the election. We're waiting to hear about your findings.

[TakeAStepBack]

[Jwheelz]

I like this idea but, as has already been stated, The Truth can be spun and there are people that are damn good at spinning it on both sides of the aisle.

Do you believe there is an objective reality? This is a serious question, I'm wondering what your perspective is. What I mean is do you feel there are certain unassailable facts, let's call them basic assumptions, that apply to everyone regardless of ideology? Is there anything that is not up for debate or interpretation, or do you feel everything is fluid?

Personally I believe in objective reality, I think there is some level of truth that cannot be spun. I personally believe this type of truth and reality is evaluated through the scientific method. I believe that true scientific analysis is structured to eliminate personal bias and spin from the process. This is done through the assumption that a finding is incorrect until it can be corroborated, preferably by as many different parties as possible, or through observation in the case of prediction. It is also done through independent testing and review. In the case of statistical analysis it requires using as many different sources of data as you can and adjusting for potential biases in the sources by using past data as a guideline.

[TEO]

Science that is observed is not purely objective as it is observed by the subjective observer. Try as we might, I doubt that humans are capable of pure objectivity.

[TakeAStepBack]

Is this the part where Hoag asks if the color blue is the same to me, as it is to you?

[MeOmYo]

[Joker]

I think there's probably room to debate just about anything as far as politics go but overall I believe there are some truths that can't be spun.

[Jwheelz]

Science that is observed is not purely objective as it is observed by the subjective observer. Try as we might, I doubt that humans are capable of pure objectivity.

I know that observation affects the results in quantum mechanics, but l don't tend to think observation always affects the results in every other area. And I think with the use of technology we can achieve some level of objectivity. Perhaps we can never achieve 100% objectivity, but I believe we can achieve enough certainty to the point where we can actually have useful discussions based upon that data.

If we accept that because we cannot be 100% objective the data is not reliable enough to be dependent on, and therefore do not use that data, to me that would lead us to passivity and we would give up on trying to do anything in the world.

I'm aware you're probably not saying that but to me it seems like it could easily lead to people thinking "well we don't know anything, so why bother trying?"

[Joker]

Is this the part where Hoag asks if the color blue is the same to me, as it is to you?

Funny you should say that. I was almost going to suggest an argument against "the sky is blue" with this

[TEO]

Jwheelz, would those involved in the discussion then need to first agree on which facts are objective truth, who gets to decide when perceptions vary?

[Jwheelz]

I think there's probably room to debate just about anything as far as politics go but overall I believe there are some truths that can't be spun.

I agree that politics is essentially opinion to begin with which necessarily makes it difficult to evaluate objectively. if a panel like Gypsy Bob suggests were to exist, who would get to decide what is "true" and what isn't.

So then, is the solution to eliminate paid advertising for political campaigns? Is that something that can be done in the first place or is it unconstitutional?

Are there other solutions that could be explored that would discourage the rampant dishonesty in political advertising?

I tend to think the message of all the advertising tends to get lost in the noise in the first place, and I don't know how much of an effect it has. We are at an unusual and dangerous point I think where a lot of mass media is no longer trustworthy to begin with. Ultimately the purported objectivity or subjectivity of any news outlet is a matter of opinion. If a media outlet is truly unbiased they will tend to cultivate the trust of the public. There will never be anything guaranteeing that they be objective or as objective as reasonably possible. So then who do you trust?

I'm not trying to make this ideological but during this election cycle there was a pretty big disconnect between opinion based journalism and punditry and hard data. People like Nate Silver ended up being pretty much correct in terms of the way they analyzed the polling data, but a large swath of the electorate was told something different. Supposedly unbiased "mainstream" media was talking about momentum in favor of Mitt Romney that really didn't exist. And I don't just mean anecdotal momentum, a feeling that things were going his way, but the implication that the poll numbers were shifting towards him. If you looked at the state-by-state polls including traditionally "conservative" organizations, traditionally "liberal" organizations and middle-of-the-road pollsters, there was no such shift happening when it was all over CNN and MSNBC and Fox.

I've seen people here talking about how they don't trust any of the media for a long time, and I agree that it really can't be trusted no matter what your point of view. Many of us are lucky enough to be able to look around at different sources and use critical thinking to figure out what's really going on, or at least to get some idea, but I'm very worried about people who don't have the time or know-how to be able to do that. How do people form their opinions when they're getting distorted pictures of what's happening in the first place?

[Jwheelz]

Jwheelz, would those involved in the discussion then need to first agree on which facts are objective truth, who gets to decide when perceptions vary?

That's precisely the problem I think. How do we differentiate between the two? And the thing that makes it worse is that many issues are way too complex to truly wrap our minds around. One thing that I talked about a lot in school when I was growing up was dichotomous thinking. A lot of people tend to simplify issues to being black and white when there are shades of gray, and pink and red blue green etc. Ultimately there's no way to make any decisions that make everyone happy, not in a world of billions of people, so the constant question is what's the best way to deal with the world we live in?

[TakeAStepBack]

Stop making decisions for everyone.

[Jwheelz]

What about collective decisions like should we have a government and if so, what kind?

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure, why not?

[PeaceFrog]

What about collective decisions like should we have a government and if so, what kind?

I feel like I'm in elementary school when we have to go over this basic shit again...

[PeaceFrog]

Sure, why not?

because Governments lead to tyrannical dictatorships. or so you say.

[TakeAStepBack]

Is that what I said?

[PeaceFrog]

how do you have a Government without some type of central planning involved?

I know you're against central planning.