Re: Underhanded Humiliation Edition (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)
for consistency's sake: ann on one hand seems to believe that glenn beck viewers and the viewing public at large is capable of discerning truth from fiction as it concerns our collective news consumption and digestion proficiencies. she also asserts that glenn beck's sizable viewership indicates that there are many who hold his beliefs to be true. viewership, namely the popularity of an idea should not be the criterion for truth. the world was once flat, and this belief was accepted as truth due to the conclusions reached by a sizable yet uninformed public. what ann gets right is that it's up to the naysayers to dispel the overt falsehoods. bob failed to explain why the left has fallen short of using its own sizable audience to successfully produce a glenn beck of its own in both popularity and efficacy.
nevertheless, bob and ann both ignored the most looming issue - there is no popular, impartial forum for the two sides of the debate to engage a demographically stratified audience. bob wright's appearance on fox news would be a futile endeavor thanks to its partisan viewership. hence, bob's idealistic, but needed request for a higher standard of journalism. (who would be the arbiter for such a standard? the venue?)
finally, though ann places confidence in the marketplace of ideas regarding an idea's concomitant validity, she conversely, is highly skeptical of a taxpaying citizen's ability to discern whether or not such a tax is detrimental or beneficial in the context of the controversial health care law. this dissonance confuses me. i hope she can clarify her seemingly conflicting viewpoints.
Last edited by uninformedcomment; 02-01-2011 at 09:46 PM..