The alternative media delivers a far more accurate and better picture about what is going on in the world, but there are times when they have catastrophic failures and present the same talking points that you would expect from the bobble heads on MSNBC. No matter the source, one must always be vigilant to think critically about what is being said and not blindly trust a source simply because they’ve been correct in the past.
I recently saw 2 extreme failures (or perhaps lapses in judgement). One failure led me to abandon a particular source, while another caused me to lose a lot of respect for a journalist who I would otherwise consider near impeccable.
THE REAL NEWS
In what can only be considered a bubonic nuclear train wreck, Jaisal Noor of The Real News interviewed Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is a leftist hate organisation that targets pretty much anyone that isn’t a neo-liberal communist. While they may “get it right” about some organisations, they group together people like Judge Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul with organisations such as Stormfront.
Jaisal’s interview stopped short of being completely obsequious, but was never-the-less simply pandering to the extreme agenda of the SPLC. Listening to Mark Potok spew his venom and hatred either makes you vomit uncontrollably, or laugh hysterically at his lunacy.
This is that interview:
The lies and deceit out of Mark’s mouth start quick and never stop; he doesn’t waste much time before getting to “racist and anti-semitic”.
But do watch for yourself. If you wonder about any of the points Mark makes, you can easily do a tiny bit of digging to discover that he is lying or twisting the situation.
The comments below the video are filled with people unsubscribing from The Real News.
I got into a mini-discussion on Twitter with Jaisal, condemning his choice to give a platform to a hate group.
— Ryan Smyth (@RenegadeMinds) April 19, 2014
Of course the land issue became “HE’S A RACIST”:
your nut job rancher hero is a raging racist
— Jaisal Noor (@jaisalnoor) April 24, 2014
Which should come as no surprise. The left invariably resorts to name-calling as it loses the debate due to a lack of logic, reason, and supporting facts/evidence.
But whether or not someone is or isn’t a racist has no bearing on their property rights. Though you wouldn’t know this if you’d ever heard any of the rhetoric from the left. For the left, it seems that natural rights are contingent upon your agreement with them.
Had Jaisal taken the time to actually look into what Cliven Bundy said, he would be hard pressed to accuse him of being racist. You can find Cliven Bundy’s remarks here:
And here with a full transcript of what he said, which you can compare against the convenient snippets found in the left-wing media:
For the full video, which is over an hour long, check here:
One of the problems with the left is that leftist rarely ever give anything a charitable read. Their goal is to root out anything that could possibly be (mis)construed as other than what it is so that they can exploit it for political purposes. No big surprise there.
But, all the evidence is readily available and out in the open for anyone to verify.
I was pretty shocked to hear Nick Gillespie in this video:
Reason.TV and Nick Gillespie are generally pretty darn good. They’re still pretty statist, but minarchism is a good deal closer to sanity than the authoritarianism preached by the left-wing communists and the right-wing fascists. (Is there a difference between them?)
The article for the video is here:
From the video:
“Racist rants by federal land moocher Cliven Bundy…”
Seriously Nick? Really? At that point I figured that I’d stepped into the twilight zone. I lost a lot of respect for Reason and Nick there.
Speaking about Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling:
They can go fuck themselves.
Apparently Nick got his news about Bundy from Salon and MSNBC.
NOTE: I don’t watch professional sports. I have zero interest in the athletes, coaches, or team owners. I’ve not read anything significant about Donald Sterling or the accusations against him, and have nothing to say on that topic. So, maybe Nick is right about Donald going off and fucking himself. I don’t know.
Nick is way off base in his comments about Cliven Bundy. But aside from Nick accusing Bundy of being racist, perhaps more concerning are his accusation that Bundy is a “moocher” and assertion that the land belongs to the federal government. Nick’s accusation there is eerily reminiscent of what one would expect to hear out of the SPLC, while his assertion is flat-out statist.
The rest of the article is actually quite good. He nails 3 good points with good support and arguments. The “meat” of the article isn’t objectionable – it is his use of racism and Bundy as a “launch pad” for the article that is off-base.
While the first case with The Real News is more akin to a drinking glass full of poison on a generously prepared banquet table, the second case is far more subtle/insidious. Nick slips in a poison pill into what otherwise would have been a wonderful, tall glass of freshly squeezed juice. i.e. Where The Real News had an entire episode full of poison, Reason.TV merely poisoned a portion of the episode.
SCRUTINY & VIGILANCE
I won’t be watching any of The Real News anymore. The magnitude of the lack of judgement in giving the SPLC a platform is simply far too much to continue to attribute any credibility to them. i.e. There is no point in watching complete garbage and trying to make sense of it.
On the other hand, I’ll still continue to watch Reason.TV and read Reason. However, I will certainly be much more suspicious about what they report from now on.
Everyone has a lapse of judgement or makes an error every now and then. Expecting otherwise would be foolish.
I suppose the take-away lesson from the above is that even from sources that you would normally trust, it is still best to listen and read with a critical mind and not simply accept what is being presented to you. (This blog post included.)
At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. Very often we are deceived into believing horrible things. But it is not the “being deceived” that is the fault – it is the refusal to see through a deception that is a fault. This requires that we question our beliefs with the same or greater vigilance that we would apply to the messages we receive through others and the media, be that mainstream media or the alternative media.