Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Camelot Can Wait — Fact-Check the Coconuts
No less than King Arthur himself (in Monty Python’s telling, that is) was subjected to ruthless, disinterested — nay, uninterested — fact-checkers, even in a cause so great as the quest for the Holy Grail:
ARTHUR: We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercea, through–
GUARD #1: Where’d you get the coconut?
ARTHUR: We found them.
GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut’s tropical!
ARTHUR: What do you mean?
GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not strangers to our land.
GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.
GUARD #1: What — a swallow carrying a coconut?
ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!
GUARD #1: It’s not a question of where he grips it! It’s a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound coconut.
Needless to say, Arthur’s invitation to join his Court at Camelot never made it to the fact-checkers’ master.
Monty Python’s quest for the Holy Grail was farce, of course, but today’s improbably serious fact-checkers blur the distinction to near seamlessness. Mark Twain said “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.” Left out, however, was misdirected. The press, observed Bernard Cohen in 1963, “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” Cohen was echoing a similar sentiment expressed in the 1922 classic Public Opinion by Walter Lippman, co-founder with Herbert Croly of The New Republic.
The problem is a sort of inverse of the “don’t think of an elephant” trick: Do think of an elephant. Think of a whole herd of wild, aggressive elephants. And they’re stampeding their way toward a populated area. Now think of the journalists covering the discussion of what is to be done:
Candidate X says “swift action must be taken to defend against the mammoth beasts, as the populations in harm’s way lack the necessary resources and equipment to divert or repel them on their own.”
But fact-checking Candidate X’s claims reveals the animals in question are in fact not “mammoths” at all, but a species of African bush elephant. The extinct mammoth line is actually most closely related to the Asian elephant. We rate Candidate X’s claim partly false.
This kind of “journalism” about elephants does not bear the slightest relevance to the elephant story at hand: to the reader concerned for his family’s orchards the journalist talks only about the elephant’s family tree. It is not the connection the elephant’s tusks have with the mammoth that troubles the reader, but the connection the tusks are about to have with him.
That example is hypothetical. But it is not exaggeration:
Were you curious about the Democratic nominee’s participation in the professional-grade wiping of the same server she claimed hosted only yoga and wedding-planning emails? I.e., why was the server wiped, and was Clinton involved? Did this “journalism” satisfy? After parsing it, do you even remember the question?
Or were you confused — do you know anybody who was confused, was even capable of being confused — about whether there is some kind of meaningful distinction between a “red line” and a “line in the sand?”?
Meanwhile, the elephants are upon us. And thus the first question an intelligent people will ask of their journalists is: what is their motive? For a disinterested journalist is less than worthless — is positively harmful — if he has become also uninterested in the things the public values. As in the case of John Harwood, whose thumb is putatively so squarely on the pulse of the American public he was chosen to moderate one of the Republican debates, yet confessed he found it “[a]mazing…that some people still think it’s worth burning so much interview time with [the] person most likely to be [the] next president on her emails.”
“Granted that he states only facts,” said G.K. Chesterton, “it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive. It may be that twelve hundred men in Tottenham are down with smallpox; but we want to know whether this is stated by some great philosopher who wants to curse the gods, or only by some common clergyman who wants to help the men.”
Or by some fact-checker mooching for coconuts.
Published in Politics
I’d love to see some serious fact checking about the source of the abuse that David French cites in his recent cri de coeur.
Fact checking? Why? I don’t have reason to doubt Mr. French’s account. Or do you mean investigation?
I don’t doubt Mr. French’s account. I only doubt the source of the outrageous postings and emails he cites.
Another recent example of this was done by HuffPost about Trump and his statement about partial-birth abortions. The buffoon apparently thinks the baby is “ripped” from the womb and is totally unaware that it’s actually dissection:
You remind me of why I’m glad I don’t read HuffPo – but I am grateful to you for subjecting yourself to it and bringing back reports.
This is tantamount to satire. Actually, all the examples are.
I never take the fact-check judgement at face value. Any half-way intelligent person who reads the excerpt can figure out how absurd the judgement is. The issue is no one reads the excerpt.
By design. Buried under a link, under the NYT’s verdict. Jury dismissed.
Thanks for the link, @bereketkelile.
That particularly grotesque euphemism had escaped me. Avoid “ripping”; choose instead “blunt dissection,” defined as “the careful separation of tissues by fingers or convenient blunt instruments,” a process “not changed significantly in centuries,” and is “contrasted to sharp dissection, the practice of slicing through tissues with scalpels.”
This is why the left loves to avoid imagery when discussing abortion — images put an end to sophistic and soporific wordplay. (Showing a provocative and liberal-narrative-upsetting photo without comment is what got my co-blogger got banned from the leftish site we used to write for.)
The left’s sophistry played a big part in my evolution from moderately liberal to Buckleyite conservative. Long years ago when the anti-abortion groups began their campaign against partial-birth abortion, I heard a physician on NPR declaring that there was no such thing. Partial-birth abortion didn’t exist.
I thought, “Hunh, this guy says it doesn’t happen. These activists say it does. I need to look into this.” The result of my investigation (pre-Google, yea, verily, pre-web) was that the procedure was indeed a thing. It just wasn’t called “partial-birth abortion” by the people performing it.
I began to doubt the liberal orthodoxy from that moment on.
I’m scared to know. If it’s who we’re led to believe, I’ll be horrified. If they’re plants, I’d be gaslighted as a crackpot, and my sanity can handle only so much deception.
Reminds me of this from Chesterton:
What is this force that drives people to defend procedures for being needful while also defending them as nonexistent? This begins to become alarming, when a cause does not merely have some problems but that any stick is good enough to beat it with.