|
Cheap Seats 2022 By Rich TrzupekAt a Distance - 06/08 
By Rich Trzupek
If you haven’t done so already, go watch Dinesh D’Souza’s “2,000 Mules.” It is not proof, and does not claim to be proof, of voter fraud alleged to have occurred in the 2020 election. It rather asks compelling questions that should give any fair-minded person pause.
I first started taking allegations of election fraud seriously when the mainstream media declared those allegations to be unequivocally false. The word “lie” started popping in stories about fraud allegations about a year or so ago. When the MSM mounts its throne and passes absolute judgement about a complex issue it is a sure sign they are terrified about losing power and feel compelled to stifle debate.
In my professional world the MSM repeatedly refers to the reality of an ever-changing climate, which happens to be a fact. In the same breath they will refer to the “reality” that climate change is anthropogenic (human caused), which is an opinion at best.
And yet, modern journalists regularly declare that climate change is primarily or entirely anthropogenic. Let’s take a moment to consider how qualified they are to make such a declaration.
Does any mainstream journalist personally understand the subtle chemical and physical interactions between the many diverse factors that generate climatic conditions? I think I’m on pretty safe ground saying that the number of journalists who have a personal knowledge of climate science is about equal to the number of journalists who understand the functionality and purpose of the Large Hadron Collider. To quote Jethro Bodine: “naught times naught equals naught.”
When a MSM journalist declares climate change to be anthropogenic – beyond any doubt – the journalist is basing their statement upon the declaration of some person or organization that claims to correctly and unbiasedly bridge the gap between the academic world and public policy. The journalist cedes responsibility for any personal understanding of the core issues on the basis that such personal understanding is beyond their ability.
If we accept that argument, we must then consider the next logical query: what qualifies an MSM journalist to choose honest, unbiased and authoritative sources that purport to bridge the gap between complex science and public policy?
It’s certainly not any personal understanding of the issue at hand. It’s rather all about trust. The MSM expects you to trust them to find trustworthy, authoritative sources that will give them the ability to create trustworthy themes and narratives. If the MSM was capable of evaluating the trustworthiness of a source based on their (the MSM’s) understanding and competence to examine the issue in detail, that would be okay. That would even be healthy. But that’s not what the MSM does, it evaluates the value of its sources based almost entirely on the political leanings of the source.
Like-minded, leftist sources are granted the glory of infallibility in the MSM universe, not because MSM journalists are able to distinguish the more learned, but because MSM journalists are able to recognize and select the most politically reliable. Those of us on the right often talk about the fallacies and self-destructive nature of identity politics. There is an equally destructive trend in the arena of higher-learning: identify science.
MSM journalists declare climatologist alarmists like Michael Mann 100 percent right beyond any reasonable doubt when discussing the causes of climate change. They also declare skeptics like Roy Spencer to be 100 percent wrong. So do they have any personal understanding of the different ways that Mann and Spencer approach important climatological concepts like radiative feedback, the effects of cloud cover, weather station accuracy, etc.?
Nope. Be it climate change, election fraud, or any other complex, politically-charged issue of the day your average MSM journalist relies on trust, not knowledge, to tell their stories. And that, my friends, is why they are not to be trusted.
richtrzupek@gmail.com
|
