Entry 2245, on 2022-10-27 at 20:20:25 (Rating 3, Politics)
Political satire is often very entertaining, possibly because it usually carries some element of truth. And sometimes a humorous approach is actually more effective than a more restrained attempt at serious discourse. Additionally, satire can sometimes present a situation in a more realistic way, despite it being primarily humour.
I guess my favourite source of satire today is the Babylon Bee. Previously it might have been the Onion, but I think they have been clearly surpassed in recent times by the Bee.
Anyway, one recent post was titled "16 Common Phrases In The News And What They Actually Mean" and, as I suggested above, there was a significant component of truth here,, that I thought was worth exploring.
So here are the phrases (actually, not all of them; just the ones I considered most relevant), the Bee's interpretation of them, and my additional interpretation and comments...
Phase 1: Debunked conspiracy theory.
The Bee: A completely factual event that is 100% true and we don't like it.
My comments: Of course, I would never claim that this explanation is literally true, because there are numerous conspiracy theories which are genuinely pretty silly. But a conspiracy theory is really just the idea that some sort of secret plan explains a current phenomenon, to some extent.
And who would deny that there are dishonest, manipulative, and secret actions going on "behind the scenes", especially in international politics?
Calling something a conspiracy theory is often a way to discredit the idea, and shut it down. But while it's really silly to say all claimed conspiracies are real, it is equally bad to say that labelling something a conspiracy automatically discredits it.
I will probably write a post in the near future on what conspiracies I think are worth taking seriously, but at this point I would offer things like: the biased media conspiracy, the Chinese lab leak conspiracy, and the extremist climate change conspiracy, which should not be automatically rejected.
Phrase 2: This is dangerous misinformation.
The Bee: We don't really agree with it, but people are still sharing it.
My comments: The current trend to initiate attacks against what is labelled "misinformation" is very concerning. The word "misinformation" and the accompanying "disinformation" have become popular recently, and in some ways have taken over as a popular way to attempt to discredit ideas which might have been previously called conspiracies.
Of course, misinformation really does exist, but it's not always clear what it is until it has been thoroughly scrutinised, a process which often can only happen after a period of time after the information (I'll use a neutral term here) has appeared.
Additionally, the people who want to repress misinformation are often significant sources of it themselves. For example, the early pronouncements of the New Zealand government about COVID have not stood the test of time particularly well. I have to assume they were originally offered as genuine information, but in hindsight, they were clearly misinformation by any reasonable definition of the word
Phrase 3: Conservative panelist.
The Bee: Some guy who once voted for Ronald Reagan, possibly by mistake.
My comments: I am not a conservative, although I am definitely against many modern principles expounded by the left. If anything, I am a libertarian, but even that doesn't describe some of my views very well. Despite this, I would like to see more conservatives offering their opinion on subjects current dominated by the left.
Note that I keep using the word "left" here, which I don't like. But I refuse to use alternatives like "progressive" or "liberal", because they are neither of those based on conventional definitions.
And, as the Bee implies, on the odd occasion a conservative is given a chance to offer an alternative view, thy are rarely given a fair chance to do that even if they are a genuine conservative and not just some insipid substitution the media deems suitable.
Phrase 4: This is the end of democracy.
The Bee: Trump said a thing.
My comments: The Bee is a US web site, so these definitions are oriented around US politics, but a similar phenomenon can be seen in many places. So criticism of the the hysterical over-reaction we often see to anything said or done by Trump can also be applied to other political figures the media disapprove of.
Here in New Zealand it is the left who are anti-democratic. They literally want to introduce processes where unelected people from favoured groups (mostly indigenous) can be given power over public assets when everyone else has not go through a democratic process instead.
Phrase 5: Settled science.
The Bee: A non-reviewed study by a possibly fictitious organisation that just came out this morning.
My comments: Again, I couldn't accept this as literally true, but it would be reasonable to say that many claims thet the science has been settled are unwarranted. We could say that science is never settled, of course, because a major part of it is that people are always trying to find problems with current theories and go on to create better ones. But there are some things where it is OK to say the science is settled, as an approximation to the actual situation.
So I would say that evolution, quantum theory, and relativity are examples of settled science. Will these theories ever change? Probably, but at least it will be recognised that current theories in these areas are very good approximations to the truth, and that new theories are more like a refinement than a replacement of them.
Whether climate change and current COVID research is settled science is moire difficult to establish. I would say that climate changes is fairly well settled, but COVID modeling, vaccine research, and other measures are probably less so.
Phrase 6: Widespread outrage
The Bee: 3 people on Twitter got mad.
My comments: It is difficult to truly establish the extent to which people in general are outraged by current events. The true extent of objection to them is often disguised by the amount of noise which comes from a small but vocal part of the population in general, and that includes the mainstream media.
So while many outraged responses to political events might seem widespread, any fairly conducted poll or survey might reveal a very different story. This would include the extent of opposition to the actions of various groups, government policies, and social trends.
Phrase 7: Racist statements.
The Bee: Means literally means nothing.
This one is close to being literally true. Thta's not to say that racism doesn't exist, or that racist statements aren't possible, but it is to say that the vast majority of times when racism is alleged, it doesn't really exist. The same applies to similarly over-used words like misogyny, Islamophobia, or transphobia.
Words like "racist" are just used today as a cheap and quick way to try to shut down views a person (usually from the left) doesn't like. Often race isn't even an issue, and the word is used as a sort of automatic response with no real thought about its relevance.
So overuse really has made the idea of "racist statements" completely meaningless. It sometimes works, because people don't want to be labelled this way and back off, but more often today it is just ignored, or the person making the statement is ridiculed, which seems appropriate.
Phrase 8: Mostly peaceful
The Bee: It was hyper-violent but we agree with it.
My comments: This one mainly originated during the peak of the Black Lives Matter riots. While the riots resulted in numerous deaths and massive destruction of property - often belonging to the very groups the activists were allegedly supporting - they were often described by the media as "mostly peaceful".
They say that soldiers during war-time spend most of their time waiting for action, then a small amount of time in actual combat, so maybe wars could also be described as mostly peaceful too. World War II: mostly peaceful!
It is very obvious that by using deliberately misleading statements like this, the media want to minimise the bad aspects of the activities of any group they agree with, even when that group is clearly engaging in violence and other crimes. Maybe it's effective in fooling many people, but it also encourages the use of more violence, through the belief it is justified.
Phrase 9: Racist dog whistle.
The Bee: A super-secret whistle that only racists can hear and only we heard it.
My comments: This implies that certain statements and actions are designed as signals to allies of the person making the statement, and signal some sort of secret action they should take. The irony is the media have figured out the meaning, but the majority of people they accuse of being the intended recipients of the message didn't get it!
An example is the phrase "All Lives Matter" which is often used as a counter to Black Lives Matter rhetoric. I don't use it, because it's just too easy and is rarely taken seriously, but I think it is fair and is being critical of BLM - which is a very easy organisation to criticise, and has many white people as members - rather than being critical of black people in general.
Again, it is possible that people who really are racist use this as an excuse to denigrate black people, but it shouldn't be automatically interpreted that way. In a small fraction of cases it might be a dog whistle, but it's safer to assume it isn't.
Phrase 10: Anonymous sources.
The Bee: We totally made this up.
My comments: There might be several different reasons why a source is anonymous. For example, maybe a person made a statment they might be persecuted for, so they really do want to remain anonymous to protect themselves. But without a source, or if the source is not stated or is anonymous, the item under discussion must have far less credibility.
And I'm sure that some articles in the MSM with "anonymous sources" really are just made up. The problem is knowing which are this type and which really are from anonymous sources, which might be quite credible if their identity was revealed.
So be aware of these MSM catchphrases, and that they might or might not have a lot of meaning. And if you work in the MSM, just to be safe, stop using them!
Comment 1 (7328) by Anonymous on 2022-10-28 at 11:39:00:
Got to agree with you and the "Bee".
Comment 2 (7329) by OJB on 2022-10-28 at 14:38:14:
It's not as simple as saying that every time any of these phrases are used it is for malicious or dishonest reasons, but they are used that way so often that I think that should be our default position.
So when someone mentions "racist statements" for example, I assume they are just making stuff up and are too lazy to engage in real debate. And most of the time that is true, which unfortunately means I am less likely to take notice of where there is genuine racism. It's a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf", isn't it.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE