Timothy Egan on the Facts of Political Life
August 28, 2010 by PaulM Posted in Current Events, Election 2010, History, Lowell 9 Comments
Just one more column. Timothy Egan of the NYTimes goes after the fact-less and clueless in our civic culture who are giving the term “know-nothing” a new spin. Read Egan here, and look for the NYT if you appreciate the reasoning.
9 Responses to Timothy Egan on the Facts of Political Life
Yet another condescending column from the ivory tower NY Times. I assume if I go back in the archives I will find that Egan did a similar column on liberals who trashed George Bush, called him Hitler, etc? Ha, who am I kidding?
Brian, I’d be interested if you, or any of the other conservative readers of the blog, could provide criticisms of Egan’s argument, as opposed to him personally. I didn’t see any factual mistakes, but maybe I missed them.
I’ll help you Andrew.
Factual mistake: Democrats are going to suffer monumental losses in November because a lot of people believe President Obama is not American and/or Muslim
Truth: Democrats are going to get the tar beaten out of them because THE POLICIES of Obama and his Congressional partners in crime are un-American and/or more protective of the Muslim faith than Christianity, which most of us are.
See the subtle little differnce there? It’s easy to believe the Prez isn’t one of us, when he doesn’t act like one of us or look out for us. What I believe Brian was trying to point out is how the same intellectuals rushing to Obama’s defense now were nowehre to be found when the whack jobs to the left were painting George Bush as a modern day Hitler and perhaps even directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks by having the Twin Towers blown up himself. Remember Michael Moore? Made a pretty good living out of factually incorrect theories and movies, didn’t he?
Out of hardship, discontent and distrust comes anger. That anger sometimes leads to irrational actions. Mostly though, it leads to incredibly rational behavior at the ballot box. Much as the GOP was ousted in 2006 and 2008 because Americans believe the party had lost touch with us, your party is going on a little vacation in 2010 and 2012 for the exact same reason.
It’s the economy, stupid, as Bill Clinton’s people once said. To believe what’s going to happen November 2nd is due to anything other than the economy, is 100% factually incorrect. Hence, the entire column is basically hogwash because its based on a faulty premise.
You aren’t dealing with what Eagan wrote either. He’s not talking about the November elections; he’s talking about how conservative politicians and members of the media knowingly perpetuate and encourage untruths. His argument is that those who in positions of influence have a responsibility to correct the public when they believe things that are factually incorrect. Where’s the problem with that argument?
You are right about the economy driving this election, which is why I’m amazed that so many so-called conservatives want to vote for Republicans. One simple fact: they will run larger deficits than the Democrats. Now I personally (I guess I’m being a bad Democrat here) object to having my benefits slashed while having my taxes raised, though I won’t be collecting SS or Medicare for quite some time.
If the Republicans get in, will they once again push for privatization of Social Security?
It’s not a republican or democrat issue. Biased analysis and reporting is bi-partisan. If you think it only happens one way, you’re only fooling yourself. If the point of Egan’s column was to call out biased reporting, he’s only proving his case with his own biased reporting on who is responsible for it.
You still haven’t answered my question. It’s not a question of bias; it’s a question of perpetuating untruths. And it is not just the media, it is political leaders as well.
The untruth was pointed out two posts ago. Obama and the Democrats lack of popularity has nothign to do wtih the right wing’s portrayal of him as a muslim or un-american. It has everything to do with his policies. This blaming the media and right wingers for unfairly portraying him is excuse making at its worst. His policies stink and they’ve made things worse instead of better.
Well, your last sentence is highly debatable. I personally prefer the smaller long-term debt projection to if the Republicans were in charge.
And no, that is not an answer. His criticism is not about Obama’s lack of popularity; I know very little about Eagan, but I presume that he’s not that childish. It’s about the fact that conservative media pundits and elected officials encourage, and in some cases actually generate, lies. He’s a Muslim. He’s a socialist. He wasn’t born here. Or healthcare reform: death panels, increasing access to abortions, exploding the deficit. Or financial reform: the end of capitalism. With both: a “government takeover.” All of this is factually incorrect, so much so that a ten-year-old should be able to see through it. But people trust their leaders. And if Gingrich or Hannity or Beck or Palin says something is true when it is not, then they are at fault. And if they fail to correct supporters when the supporters say thing that are not true, they are also at fault. You have yet to explain what is wrong with Eagan’s thesis: he is calling on conservative leaders to have a commitment to the truth.