In her dKos post today on Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, SusanG writes “We are a country that’s been stretched to the breaking point with lies.”
Recently, I have been exploring David Horowitz’s sites for his Front Page Magazine and Moonbat Central: Hunting the Radical Snark. It has been a perplexing and disturbing experience.
It’s not just the lies that bother me, but their artfulness. There’s always just enough truth in them (these people are much more skillful than JG) to ultimately distract discussion from the real issues, allowing the liars to move the debate to a “gotcha” form that does no one any good–except the liars, who can then crow that they’ve been vindicated because they’ve found errors in the statements of others.
In fact, I am pretty sure that the Horowitz crowd deliberately sets out to trap their opponents by making claims that seem outrageous but have just enough truth to allow them to weasel out. Horowitz’s incredible claim that professors make $150,000 for only 6 to 9 hours of work, for example, does have an element of truth–and sets up a “gotcha.” There are stars in academia (as there are in every field) who bring in high salaries (some even beyond Horowitz’s figure), and many professors at research institutions teach only two or three classes per semester (6 or 9 classroom hours). So, no matter how you argue with Horowitz, he can claim he was telling the truth–and will leave the impression that all professors have this kind of life. Few do, of course, and even those work more than 6 to 9 hours a week. That’s only classroom time. It doesn’t include prep time, advising, grading, committee work, or research–all of which are part of a professor’s job. The other extreme is closer to the truth: I have met few professors who work less than 40 hours a week. Many work as many as 60 or more. Horowitz’s lie isn’t in the details that he knows he can defend, but in the larger realm.
Horowitz can get away with this because he lacks the one element that keeps most of the rest of us from lying (even if we were tempted to): accountability. He is accountable to no one. All he has to do is fool enough people to insure that his profile remains high (and I, too, have obviously fallen into that trap–in a certain way, I am helping him even by this small post). That keeps the money flowing in from speaking dates and right-wing foundations.
Here is where Horowitz and Gannon come together: neither has to be responsible for the truth of their words. There is no independent editorial apparatus telling them no, you have to be a little more straight-forward. There is no peer review process saying this isn’t exploration, it is propaganda. They both have taken advantage of this; by doing so, they are both tearing at the fabric of America; with their lies, they both stand apart from the traditions of honest debate that created this country.
With their lies, they become inherently un-American.
I get scared when academics start getting targeted. When the intellectuals are targeted, the perniciousness of the war seems especially pronounced. After all, if you remove from the culture those who offer intellectual criticisms, well. We know the rest.
On the other hand, one of my complaints to my colleagues is that they abdicated the role of “public intellectuals” a while ago. What we need are professors to step forward and declare what they see in this culture.
Public intellectuals?
Yes, we have lost those. In part, because they had to submit to vilification.
Take B.F. Skinner, for example. Many shudder at the mention of his name–but really know little about him. He wasn’t a devil who raised his daughters in boxes; he wasn’t any of the things his detractors have claimed.
What he wanted to do was spark debate and discussion.
Who wants to go through what Skinner went through in the public arena? Who wants lies about one’s family to follow you about for decades?
No one.
Today, few of us have the guts to follow in Skinner’s footsteps. We’ve seen what happens.
As Bob Dylan wrote in one of his first songs, “Talkin’ New York”: “A lot of people don’t have much food on the table, but they’ve got a lot of knives and forks, and they’ve gotta cut something.”
For me, the whole ides that these liars(and there are so many of them now)are never held to account. I do not understand when one has their written word and it is based on lies, why is someone not sueing them? Why is there not a “fact checker” that has to say wait a minute. These words are not based on fact. Someone, some system has to call these people out. It amazes me especially with politicians that they will not use the word liar.
That is very scarey to me. The media doesn’t police their own, the politicians won’t say anything because it might sound too “radical”. These people haven’t been playing by the rules of truth, law and justice for a very long time. Do we set up our own media and everytime they lie we prove it? I certainly don’t have the answers. Do any of us have them?
Remember the good old days? Three networks. Watch Cronkite, or Huntley & Brinkley, or whoever it was on ABC. That was it.
Or go to the library looking for information on… anything. Brittanica? World Book? Columbia Encyclopedia? Take your pick.
Librarians and journalists and teachers are naturally horrified at the idea of no gatekeepers: no editors, no professional judgment. Just a deluge of information, misinformation, and disinformation… and we’re all on our own. Is it true? Half-true? A flaming lie? A sophisticated diversion from the real issue? Who will you trust to decide for you?
This democracy thing sounds good, but in practice it’s messy, confusing, and exhausting.
Enjoy the ride!
Good comments.
And it is always good to see the last line of Candide…
I like your sig, too; reminds me that’s it’s been far too long since I did any dancing… ; )