All Opinions Are Not Equally Valid

[oselle]

From time to time, I've been called out by commenters regarding my intolerance of Republican and conservative ideology and the people who support them. And one thing that's often said is that even if I can't agree with those positions, I should "at least" respect the opinions of others.

I think we've gotten to a place where people think their opinions are sort of like babies -- darling creatures that should be universally cooed over merely by virtue of being babies. Just as no decent person would ever tell someone their baby is ugly or even funny-looking, no decent person should ever call out someone's opinion as being misguided or bigoted or just completely nuts. Every opinion has become equally valid merely by virtue of being someone's darling opinion.

This problem of course didn't start online or among the everyday public -- it was created and nurtured by our mainstream media and our press. Within the last couple of decades, it has somehow become mandatory for the media to cover "all sides" of a debate -- even when some or at least one of those sides may be absolutely deranged. This is called "fair and balanced" reporting and not what it really is -- giving a national platform, and thereby lending credibility, to hidden-agenda idealogues, corporate shills, religious fanatics, and in some cases, flat-out lunatics. In the mainstream media's case, I don't think it has much to do with "respecting" opinions and more to do with ratings, sensationalism, and the fact that we don't have a free press -- we have a press that is essentially controlled by huge corporations that lean heavily right. This nonsense has become so entrenched that many of us now believe that the polite thing to do is to have -- or at least, to express -- respect for all opinions.

It wasn't always like this. There was certainly a time when the press did a better job of reporting reality instead of giving a voice to blathering idiocy in the name of "balance." Rick Perlstein has a great piece about it in The Washington Post:

"It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.

The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest."

Read the whole article here.

We need to abandon the fallacy that all opinions are equally valid and that every crack-brained theory, manufactured paranoia and demonstrable lie somehow deserves thoughtful, respectful public debate in our largest media channels. All this fairness and balance is killing the country.

Comments

Re: hear! hear!

[oselle.livejournal.com]

LOL, it sucks, doesn't it?

[elanorgardner.livejournal.com]

I am really worried about our country at this moment in time. Unless the more intelligent progressive elements choose to speak up, we are really in a fix. We can elect a marvelous President, but we can't manage to get anything done. . .

Bravo. Good points!

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I am disappointed in the president and the Democracts for bending over backwards to try and appease a Republican minority that has stated flat-out they will obstruct anything the Dems try to get done.

[elanorgardner.livejournal.com]

Actually, I didn't really comment on your post topic, but went off on my own rant. My apologies. There have been some good discussions recently over on Huffington and Alternet about the Fairness Doctrine and codifying the anti-distortion guidelines of the FCC. Just as deregulating the banks resulted in the chaos on Wall Street, deregulating the airwaves by getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine resulted in the right wing radio entertainment industry whose idiotic rantings are treated as if they are authentic news -- as if they are true statements worthy of analysis when in reality, they are entertainment. But the rise of entertainment as a big chunk of what our legitimate news channels cover tells us something I think.

[ladymirth.livejournal.com]

I must respectfully disagree. I believe that every opinion must heard no matter how outlandish it appears at first, and the reasoning behind it weighed in as fair a manner as possible so that its validity can be ascertained through respectful debate and argument. It is only once the basis for such an argument is reasonably debunked that an opinion becomes "invalid".

This because it serves no one to alienate, marginalize and condescend to people with differing views when, in my experience, most people are wiling to hear out and understand another person's POV as long as they are not insulted in the process. Yes, there is a minority who are too arrogant to back down or are la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you. But it is in engaging these people in fair debate that fence-sitters and others more reasonable will be able to judge and evaluate for themselves.

Liberals accuse the media of leaning too right-wing and Conservatives claim, as they did during Obama's run for presidency, that the media has become extremely left-leaning. My problem is that the media should be neither - journalism should be about reporting facts, not feeding speculation and opinions. As someone on metaquotes said: I'd really like the U.S. Mass News Media, as a whole, to remember that their job is to tell me that the dog bit the man, not to speculate on the dog's Nazi German Shepherd descent, or that maybe the man smelled like bacon at the time.

The trouble today is that there is NO fairness and balance. We simply have extreme liberals and extreme conservatives shouting themselves hoarse and completely unable to establish any kind of dialogue on either end with a confused and disillusioned majority who have given up trying to listen to either one.

I believe in The Middle Way, as explained in Buddhism. I don't think that all arguments have merit, but I believe that they must all first be fairly heard to be judged. Otherwise you stop growing as a person and become quite as narrow of mind and intolerant as the people you claim to oppose. That is after all, the one shared characteristic of all extremist factions - they cannot tolerate, and they unconsiously condition themselves to hear none but their own voices.

[sixth-queen.livejournal.com]

*My* problem is that these arguments have already been fairly heard, and already fairly judged to be bunk. Yet the liars on TV

a) recurit different people to repeat the lie with the same words, hoping to make it true.
b) make up a new lie, forcing yet another round of fair-and-balanced debate. Lather, rinse repeat, thereby running out the clock.
c) resort to la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you, also running out the clock.

You give them an inch, and they take a mile. They take advantage of that, knowing full well that you can't stop them, because *oh horrors* that would be "impolite" and "intolerant."

Nope, not this woman. Maybe Obama has the talent to thread the needle through the Middle Way, but I sure as hell don't.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I think when the folks on one side of the road are frothing at the mouth with lies and brandishing semi-automatic weapons, it's time to get the hell off the Middle Way. Hewing to the path of righteousness is not worth it if you get your ass blown off.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

But that assumes that there is the ability to judge something untrue and move on, and I think the point Oselle is making is that right now there isn't. That's why things that should have been judged untrue and dropped are instead presented as just "the other side" of a debate. If one side can be proved wrong with facts, they don't want the facts to count.

For instance, look at something like Intelligent Design and Creationism. The whole idea is to present Intelligent Design as an alternate scientific theory when it isn't. In order to make it an alternate theory you have to (as ID people do) claim that all science is just people acting on faith, whether they "choose to believe" evolution or ID or creationism.

I remember people complaining about a Daily Show "debate" with a scientist, an ID person and a Creationist. I didn't even like the idea of this being a debate since only one person was dealing with scientific facts, but other people were angry at it not being "balanced" enough because they felt the ID guy was made to look bad because the scientist supporting evolution got to speak last, and also they also had on a creationist guy which they thought suggested ID was the same as creationism (which is basically is).

[oselle.livejournal.com]

The whole idea is to present Intelligent Design as an alternate scientific theory when it isn't.

Exactly, and the supporters of ID very cleverly use the argument that they "just" have a differing opinion that deserves to be heard...even though their opinion that ID is a scientific theory as valid as evolution is absolute bunk. They want schools to "teach the controversy" but the problem is that there is no controversy except the one they've manufactured. At the rate we are going, we'll soon be "teaching the controversy" that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth may actually be flat -- hey, why can't those be valid "opinions" as well, deserving of public debate? While we're at it, let's have a debate over whether witches are causing the drought in the southwest or whether raindrops are actually God's tears. Those are opinions too, so surely they must also have some validity.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

We simply have extreme liberals and extreme conservatives shouting themselves hoarse and completely unable to establish any kind of dialogue on either end with a confused and disillusioned majority who have given up trying to listen to either one.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this statement at all. It's just this sort of thinking, pleasant and conciliatory though it may be, that has gotten us in trouble. It's on a par with the usual false equivalencies, for example, that Rush Limbaugh is "just like" Keith Olbermann. Whether you like Keith Olbermann's blustering style or not, his program usually presents the truth. Rush Limbaugh, and others like him, present lies and spin, and spew violent, bigoted rhetoric designed to inflame the passions of a certain segment of the population. There is no equivalency.

I often hear this stuff about "extreme liberals" who are just as bad as their conservative counterparts, and I always wonder -- where are they? If you can find me an example of an "extreme liberal" with a huge national audience who is doing exactly the sort of shouting (and deliberate lying) that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and more than a few of our elected Republican officials engage in on a daily basis, please do so. And Jeremiah Wright doesn't count. Please show me an "extreme liberal" with a national forum who has been formulating and spreading liberal lies that are equal to death panels and where's the birth certificate and national healthcare is fascism, etc.

This because it serves no one to alienate, marginalize and condescend to people with differing views

There are "differing views" and then there are lies. It truly serves no one to present a bold-faced lie such as "global warming is a myth" or "healthcare reform = death panels" as merely "differing views." These sorts of opinions have no validity. Views and opinions of this sort deserve to be marginalized straight out existence. People who promote them deserve to be scorned, not provided with a national platform on which to engage in "debate" that bestows an air of legitimacy upon pure bullshit. You might say these opinions should be aired precisely so they can be debunked, but it just doesn't work that way. The birth certificate story has effectively been debunked and yet something like half of all Republicans in a recent poll still believed that Obama was not born in the United States. There are things so ludicrous and pernicious that even giving them enough time to debunk them lends them more credibility than they deserve.

That is after all, the one shared characteristic of all extremist factions - they cannot tolerate, and they unconsiously condition themselves to hear none but their own voices.

Once again, I would like to know where are these "extremists" on the left because they seem to be keeping quite a low profile. I'd also like to know which conservative voices of late deserve this tolerance of which you speak. The Democrats have repeatedly tried the "Middle Way" in the form of bipartisan outreach and allowances and continually get kicked in the teeth for it -- and the American people suffer as a result. The Middle Way has become a dead end, and Democrats and liberals are absolute fools if they keep traveling it.

[mirabile-dictu.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you, Oselle -- this is something I feel quite passionate about. No, there are not always two equal and balanced sides to an issue, or to anything else. Sometimes one side vomits a clusterfuck of absolute lies which should be called out as such. I'm utterly infuriated by most of what passes as news these days and have lost respect for most people with the job title of "reporter" or "journalist."

So: YES.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Sometimes one side vomits a clusterfuck of absolute lies which should be called out as such.

Called out at most, and then dropped from discussion, not brought up endlessly as though, "oh, maybe there's something to this after all." It's like Rick Perlstein said in that op-ed -- you didn't see Walter Cronkite "debunking" the theory that President Kennedy was building concentration camps for right-wing dissenters. It was ludicrous, fantastical nonsense, not news, and so it wasn't even worth a passing mention. How have we gotten stupider in the past 40 years?

[dnalia.livejournal.com]

I always heard that opinions are like butts: everyone has them and they all stink ;)

Seriously, though, if someone feels strongly enough about something to have an opinion, they should realize that other people also feel the same way and may not agree with them. I respect someone's right to voice their opinions (be it vocally or electronically) even though I don't agree with them. I appreciate the same in return.

When opinions cross the line to slander or libel, then we have a problem.

ETA: Then again, I also think that the problem with all the back-and-forth between opposing opinions in the media would be solved if they would just report, you know, news.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

The problem is that no one seems to know what the news is...or rather, they're afraid to report the real news. As Stephen Colbert once said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." In order to report reality, the media would constantly have to refute conservative falsehoods...and then be accused of being too liberal. It is funny though, that it is always a problem to be seen as too liberal, but there is never anything wrong with being seen as too conservative. In fact, it seems that if you're a reporter, you gain legitimacy by being more and more conservative, as if liberalism were somehow the American default setting which must be struggled against by the thoughtful few. My God, what a mess.

[tskterata.livejournal.com]

Word.

We live in weird times. It seems like now everyone is supposed to have an opinion on everything and expected to express these opinions all the time because they are 'valid'.

But really they're not. When NAFTA was first being discussed someone asked me my opinion on it. I thought it was a ridiculous question. They wanted my opinion on a 900 page piece of legislation that I had never read. Why? My opinion would be meaningless.

I listen to the news in my car to and from work. They present these short little news items that are basically just a string of quotes. They don't do any real research into anything, they just interview. He said this; she said that. The few times I've had some inside knowledge of the real facts of a story, I've been disgusted with the lack of depth and truth in the story as reported. It scares me that all of the news is thoughtless bunk, not just the bits I know about.

And then, of course, the station invites people to call in with their opinions on the lameass piece of fact-free reporting they just aired. And people do. And they're all very sure that they're opinions are important and correct even when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

It drives me nuts.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Our news reporting has been reduced to nothing but sound bites. I was reading something about the Depression and about how Roosevelt's "fireside chats" really inspired the nation and drew people together and if you read the text of Roosevelt's speeches they were elegant and nuanced in a way that at least half of the country today would not even be able to understand -- and yet I'm sure we have far more formally educated people in America now than we did in the 1930s. It's just that we've lost the ability to absorb anything that isn't a slogan. So "death panels" capture the American consciousness while sensible, well thought-out discussion on healthcare reform flies right over everyone's head.

[merylmarie.livejournal.com]

In the mainstream media's case, I don't think it has much to do with "respecting" opinions and more to do with ratings, sensationalism, and the fact that we don't have a free press -- we have a press that is essentially controlled by huge corporations that lean heavily right.

Bingo. How can there possibly be such a thing as "fair and balanced" reporting with the situation as it is?

One person's daffy theory is another's nugget of truth. The left and right leaning networks will pound away at what they know their viewers want until kingdom come.

Way too many people in this country watch Fox and believe its "fair and balanced" credo. The Right, by its sheer volume and consistency, has managed to bring down Obama's poll numbers. MSNBC just aids their cause by its own reporting of that nonsense. Where are the loud liberals?

[oselle.livejournal.com]

MSNBC just aids their cause by its own reporting of that nonsense.

I'm sort of on the fence about what MSNBC does because it's really the only mainstream media outlet willing to call these people what they are -- liars. At the same time, I sometimes do feel that they give too much publicity to these crazies -- but then, Rush Limbaugh et al are not fringe characters with small audiences. At this point, someone does need to be out there saying that they are liars or else they go completely unchallenged. And yes, I would love to see some loud liberals. Where are the "left wing extremists" I'm always being warned about?