Calling Mr. Eden

Dearest Readers:

I must begin with a guess—-Michael Eden has graced us with a response. This is only a guess, as the individual who hazarded a comment on my “Missed Opportunities” post opted to remain anonymous. However, I feel somewhat confident that my guess is correct, particularly because our blog’s statistics tell me that some of our recent traffic is coming from his site. Whether or not the comments we received were from Mr. Eden or someone else is unimportant; the option remains for this individual to debate a topic of our mutual selection. Right now I have only a rather paltry response on which to comment. I will post his response below and then follow it with my own thoughts:

Our anonymous respondent wrote, “Fox News smear tactics? You do realize that the vast majority of the mainstream media is liberal, including but not limited to, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC. Don't forget such rags as the New York Times and Newsweek. Besides talk radio, conservatives have Fox News and not much more in the mainstream. Why did the mainstream liberal media try so desperately to demonize the Tea Party but somehow overlook the massive problems within the OWS movement? Why did the liberal media try to smear Tea Party Conservatives in the house who were trying to cap government spending and reduce national debt. During this time the libs were shouting that old people would not get their social security and that everything would be shut down (fear mongering), despite the fact that the government was bringing just under 200 billion a month in revenue. The current president and liberal establishment are the true demagogues and use fear as a tactic on a regular basis, not the conservatives, as you claim. I could go on and on about how the liberal media distorts the truth and out right lies about anything conservative, but I don't have the time.

As far as Michael Eden is concerned, I cannot speak for him, but I would presume that such a debate with an ideologue, "super intellect" like yourself would be a complete waste of time.”

Allow me to pull apart the various weak threads of this argument’s fabric.
1) I am told that “the vast majority of the mainstream media is liberal, including but not limited to, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC.”
a. Clearly, the writer knows little of true liberalism (historical or contemporary) or what a liberal position is. So let me ask, for the sake of clarification, what our nameless respondent means by the word “liberal.” Here is a hint: If you want to know what left-leaning journalism looks like then read some self-acknowledged leftist French and Italian newspapers. Some of them are, gasp, formerly communist newspapers. When you are done reading then tell me how these organizations compare to the ones you mention above. You might want to start here (http://www.liberation.fr/).
b. Next, consider that each and every one of my respondent’s aforementioned news sources is not a charitable or government sponsored entity, meaning that their motives are not philanthropic or even ultimately about the public good. Rather they are business entities whose end purpose is to generate a profit. Their stock in trade just happens to be journalism. I bring up the idea of a profit motive because the owners and shareholders of these companies are not going to sit by if these businesses aggressively push a leftist agenda that has no great public or advertiser appeal. To bolster my argument I urge the unnamed respondent to research cases where mainstream news media have shelved stories, muzzled reporters, and otherwise squelched journalism that threatened their corporations, largest shareholders, or biggest advertisers. Alternately, just read Robert McChesney’s book Rich Media, Poor Democracy.
c. Relatedly, what are these for-profit, capitalistic organizations trying to do? I think we are to believe that there is some socialist cabal or a political machine operating behind the scenes, which smacks of conspiracy theory and oversimplification to me. The main shortcomings I see in the American mainstream media are its blatant pandering to spectacle (see Auditus’ recent post), sexualization, a reliance on simplistic dualisms when approaching an issue, and an unwavering support for late-stage capitalism.

2) Next I am asked “Why did the liberal media try to smear Tea Party Conservatives in the house who were trying to cap government spending and reduce national debt.?” This is both a straw man fallacy and logically inconsistent.
a. First off, this is a straw man fallacy because not every news organization above demonized the Tea Party. Trying to use this unjustified example as proof of the mainstream media’s liberal bias is just making an easy case in order to knock it down. For my own part, I watched many stories that happily chronicled the rise of the Tea Party and their “impressive” effects on national politics, and many of these segments said nothing critical of the Tea Party. Really, how much of the Tea Party logic was deconstructed on national news? Second, by tracking the growth of the Tea Party there was likely a bandwagon effect and, given that a number of Tea Party candidates were elected, are we to believe that the mainstream media hurt, instead of helped, them? On a side note, is not Fox News the most popular and thus mainstream of news organizations? This makes claims of media bias problematic, particularly when the bully pulpit is occupied by one’s champion.
b. As for the “Tea Party Conservatives in the house who were trying to cap government spending and reduce national debt” I can only sigh. Many of these “conservatives” refuse to allow really massive spending cuts. What of cases where a Tea Party candidate like Representative Vicky Hartzler of Missouri’s 4th district refused to cut any defense spending? Defense is the largest part of our national budget, but this sacred cow is untouchable to many members of both parties. This makes the claimed effort to balance the budget unrealistic and claims thereto logically inconsistent.

3. In the third instance we are told “the libs were shouting that old people would not get their social security and that everything would be shut down (fear mongering), despite the fact that the government was bringing just under 200 billion a month in revenue.”
a) At least the nameless one has one thing right—-there is fear mongering. Sadly the truth of the matter is missed; fear mongering is used by all sides of our silly little two party system. The fear mongering that Republicans perpetuate when they say that taxes on the richest Americans will kill growth and lead to further recession is no better. Consider that the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was much higher under Richard Nixon (and many other presidents before G. W. Bush) and our growth rate was higher than it is now. History does not bear out such claims that taxes, in and of themselves, mean an end to growth. The problems of our country and our economy are too important for fear mongering of any sort, which is why I support neither party using it. Did our respondent read my post called “Our Own Fault”?

4. In the fourth place we are told that “The current president and liberal establishment are the true demagogues and use fear as a tactic on a regular basis, not the conservatives, as you claim.” Here is naiveté in its most blatant form. If only our conservative respondent could see that all sides use this form of attack then maybe our underlying critical approach to all matters would be heeded. Moreover, one ought to wonder if the issue is one less of republicans versus democrats and more one of big business, problematic campaign contributions, and an uninformed electorate.

5. Lastly, my critic is not above ad hominem attacks. What is one to take from the phrase, “I would presume that such a debate with an ideologue, ‘super intellect’ like yourself would be a complete waste of time”? Never on this blog have I referred to myself as a “super intellect.” Resorting to such comments just proves the author’s lack of intellectual security. Maybe the person in question attended an institution, or seminary, whose primary criteria for enrollment is based on an acceptance of particular beliefs instead of documented intellectual achievement. To make my point more directly, does Talbot (the alma mater of Mr. Eden) require outstanding GRE scores, impressive college transcripts, and good letters of recommendation? If what I infer from their website is correct, a belief in the inerrancy of the bible, a willingness to pay fees, and a sense of religious calling are all that mark one out as a suitable candidate for Talbot’s program. If this is the case then I am unimpressed, but think I may understand my respondent’s insecurity.