[jsherman999]

.

I have been complaining about False Equivalencies being used by the right for their own benefit, as cover, and then being repeated in the media. Now, I see it called out - and as more folks become attuned to it and aware of it, there will be more. Hopefully that tactic's cover can be blown:


"...When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct."


From ---> Washington Post - Let's Just Say it.


The same False Equivalency tactic is being used as cover for Fox News - the right's propaganda wing, disguised as a general news outlet.

.

[patrick9]

a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

Maybe they were talking about the left. As an independent moderate I see both sides move to the extreme ,but the dem's seem to have moved the farthest. And sorry but the news media is so pro dem they don't even try to hide it anymore. I have gotten so I don't trust any political news . The mainstream news reports only good dem nesw and bad rep news I am sorry but both sides have good and bad idea's and actions . You wouldn't know it listening to the news reports. If you take Fox news and any of the mainstream news combine them some where in the middle is the truth.but to get your info from one or two sources is not the best way IMHO. when I want the true story I want it from multiple sources then I will be more likely to figure out the truth. I don't participate in P&R very often( and will continue that ) as this is so left and closed minded and anti Rep it isn't much interest to me

[boriscleto]

As an independent moderate I see both sides move to the extreme ,but the dem's seem to have moved the farthest.

You do mean furthest to the right, right? Because there has been no leftward movement at all in this country since the 1960s. If you think so then you are not an "independent moderate" at all.

[kswier]

t is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct."

I think this is inevitable. The way the two party system works is that there has to be contrast between their viewpoints. If one party moves toward the center, the other party must move toward an extreme. Otherwise, the media would not be able to make a reality show out of it (my interpretation of fox news, MSNBC, CNN, etc).

[jsherman999]

Maybe they were talking about the left. As an independent moderate I see both sides move to the extreme ,but the dem's seem to have moved the farthest.

To say that, you would have to be looking from the right already, and biased. The Republican party has changed radically in the last 10 years. If the Democratic party has changed, it's moved slightly right from the 70's.

...If you take Fox news and any of the mainstream news combine them some where in the middle is the truth.but to get your info from one or two sources is not the best way IMHO.

This misconception is what I've been talking about. CNN for example already sits smack in the middle. Their news coverage does not lean left - it only apears to be 'left' when compared to Fox News, which is far right. Folks often say "they are equally biased, the truth lies somewhere in the middle." This is false. It's like two people looking at a red shirt, one saying it's a shade of red and another saying it's blue. A third person who happened to be color blind might assume that perhaps it's 'somewhere in the middle', maybe purple.

So many casual news observers these days are the equivalent of that color blind person.

[jogiba]

Maybe they were talking about the left. As an independent moderate I see both sides move to the extreme ,but the dem's seem to have moved the farthest.

The right have gone off the deep end with the tea party.

[wildman]

Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

I think the real danger is that within the public forum all questions have been pretty much, at least implicitly, reduced to mere popular opinion. This rules out the possibility that some questions may be amenable to an objective answer backed by empirical evidence.

It's rather like a women who questions if she is pregnant or not. Instead of going to a doctor she says to herself I may or may not be pregnant, but not knowing for sure which, the best conclusion I can come to is that I'm half pregnant.

There is no necessary truth or wisdom to a given answer just because that answer is within the "center" of popular opinion.

---

Last edited by wildman; 04-30-2012 at 05:19 AM.

[GeneV]

To say that, you would have to be looking from the right already, and biased. The Republican party has changed radically in the last 10 years. If the Democratic party has changed, it's moved slightly right from the 70's..

It only takes a quick look at Nixon or Ford's policies to confirm how far right the party has come from the '70s. Conservative talkers today, even those who call themselves "independents" would call a candidate with their policies a "liberal." BTW, Richard Nixon once said that his party consisted of two groups: Right Wingers who don't like poor people, and pro-business interests who will throw them some money, as long as they don't have to be seen with them. JSTOR: Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Winter, 1996), pp. 131-153

[GeneV]

You do mean furthest to the right, right? Because there has been no leftward movement at all in this country since the 1960s. If you think so then you are not an "independent moderate" at all.

Bill O'Reilly is a registered Independent, too. That label is pretty meaningless.

[jeffkrol]

Registered independent just means you don't want to admit to hating "poor people" and it is their own fault......

As to the "left" becoming more extreme, I'd argue they are just fighting for more sanity.. more" left" hardly in relation to "historic left".........

(both parties are, in my mind, clueless as to even the very fed ground rules of the monetary system, which is why they are both wrong and both right at the same time)

[Wheatfield]

As an outsider looking in, and one who lives in a country that has remained more or less politically stable and centered for the past few decades, it is apparent that the American political scene has moved very sharply to the right. What you call your "left" just hasn't moved quite as far as what you call the "right" (which can't actually move much further to the right at this point).
What it means from our perspective is that America is becoming ever more foreign and less understandable to us.

[riff]

What it means from our perspective is that America is becoming ever more foreign and less understandable to us.

Indeed, it's become foreign enough in a bad way that I will not travel to the USA anymore for any reason. Some may find that to be high drama, so be it!
Top three places I won't go in no particular order; Iran, Iraq, USA.

[dankoBanana]

What you call your "left" just hasn't moved quite as far as what you call the "right" (which can't actually move much further to the right at this point)..

interesting remark. what the people in USA call "the left" could not pass for a "left" in any country in the EU. it would be considered as a party of the "center".
the republicans would be considerd the far far right (todays republicans)

[Nesster]

Which brings us back full circle to the op - false equivalence. Somehow Fox and the right wing punditry seemingly has convinced much of America that the 'left has gone further left', and the lazy 'fair and balanced, equal time' main stream media simply presents two talking heads... Anyone who has any memory even 10 years back would see where things have gone, much less a memory to a generation back.

[GeneV]

Which brings us back full circle to the op - false equivalence. Somehow Fox and the right wing punditry seemingly has convinced much of America that the 'left has gone further left', and the lazy 'fair and balanced, equal time' main stream media simply presents two talking heads......

Or that there are always "two sides" to every issue. No, sometimes there really is only one, and sometimes there are far more than two. However, false equivalency only works in a binary system where every slight loss to one side is declared a gain to the other.