Aaron Swartz has lots of interesting ideas about politics and copyright in the age of digital media. I disagree with a lot of his ideas on both but they are often well-thought and interesting. This month he continues his trend of interesting posts about politics with two entries Up is Down: How Stating the False Hides the True excerpted below
One of the more interesting Republican strategies is saying things whose opposite is true. They say that the Democratic nominee is bought off by special interests, the Democrats are outspending them, the Democrats are playing dirty, the Democrats don’t care about homeland security, the Democrats hate America, all when this is far more true of the Republicans. They say Joseph McCarthy was a noble man, the media has a liberal bias, affirmative action is bad for equality, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and Ronald Reagan was our greatest President, all when the opposite is far more true. At first glance this seems bizarre — why draw attention to your weaknesses? But it’s actually a very clever use of the media. The media tries hard to be “fair and balanced”, and it generally believes the best way to do this is to present the opinions from both sides and make as few judgement calls as possible (to avoid introducing their own bias). And if there’s a debate on some issue, taking a side is seen as a judgement call.
One of the more interesting Republican strategies is saying things whose opposite is true. They say that the Democratic nominee is bought off by special interests, the Democrats are outspending them, the Democrats are playing dirty, the Democrats don’t care about homeland security, the Democrats hate America, all when this is far more true of the Republicans. They say Joseph McCarthy was a noble man, the media has a liberal bias, affirmative action is bad for equality, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and Ronald Reagan was our greatest President, all when the opposite is far more true.
At first glance this seems bizarre — why draw attention to your weaknesses? But it’s actually a very clever use of the media. The media tries hard to be “fair and balanced”, and it generally believes the best way to do this is to present the opinions from both sides and make as few judgement calls as possible (to avoid introducing their own bias). And if there’s a debate on some issue, taking a side is seen as a judgement call.
and Down is Up: What This Stuff Is where he writes
I got a lot of responses to my previous post, Up is Down, along the lines of “oh, the Democrats lie as much as the Republicans”. But the piece was not about lies. For lack of a better term, it was about anti-truths. Anti-truths have two parts: They’re completely false. They’re more accurate when directly reversed. It’s hard to find a completely unobjectionable one, but take “Ronald Reagan was our greatest President.” As for part one, I have seen no evidence that Reagan actually did anything particularly good on purpose and as for two, “Ronald Reagan was our worst President” seems to be a far more accurate statement, since he did lots of things that were quite bad.
I got a lot of responses to my previous post, Up is Down, along the lines of “oh, the Democrats lie as much as the Republicans”. But the piece was not about lies. For lack of a better term, it was about anti-truths. Anti-truths have two parts:
It’s hard to find a completely unobjectionable one, but take “Ronald Reagan was our greatest President.” As for part one, I have seen no evidence that Reagan actually did anything particularly good on purpose and as for two, “Ronald Reagan was our worst President” seems to be a far more accurate statement, since he did lots of things that were quite bad.
My example of an anti-truth would have been “John Ashcroft respects the US constitution”. :)