Month: December 2023

Curmie’s Conjectures— Punk’s Guide to Ethics, Part I: The Problem

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

by Curmie

[I am particularly grateful for this installment of Curmie’s Conjectures because it assuages my guilt a bit. As longtime readers here know, I occasionally promise posts that never show up, or do, but so long after the promise that it’s embarrassing. Years ago, I promised a post defining and examining all journalistic tricks that I classify as “fake news,” and I use the term broadly to include misleading headlines, burying the lede, omitting key information that undermines the writer’s agenda, poisoning the well and other techniques. I started the thing, got frustrated and overwhelmed, and never finished it. Here Curmie doesn’t exactly present what I intended, but he touches on much of it, and as an extra bonus, he wrote it more elegantly than I would have (as usual). JM.]

I doubt that this blog has ever before turned to punk rock for ethics advice, but Boomtown Rats composer/frontman (and Live Aid impresario) Bob Geldof had it right in a song that’s probably more relevant today than it was 40+ years ago: “Don’t Believe What You Read.”  Well, not uncritically, at least.  At our host’s suggestion, I’m about to enter the fraught territory of trying to decide if a story published by an obviously biased media outlet might, this time, just be accurate. 

It’s difficult of late to find a news source that only leans in one direction or the other, rather than proselytizing for the cause.  The news networks and major newspapers have carved out their market shares based on feeding their viewers and readers what they want to be fed.  Whether the advent of Fox News was a trigger or a reaction is up to individual interpretation, but there’s absolutely no doubt that we’re now in an era in which news as reported is determined largely by editorial positioning, rather than the other way around.

It’s inevitable that, to steal a line from another of my favorite musicians, Paul Simon, “a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”  Fighting our own biases is not made easier by the knowledge that learning from experience and confirmation bias are opposite sides of the same coin.  If a story appears only on Fox News and the Drudge Report, or only on AlterNet and MSNBC, there’s an excellent chance that the indignation is feigned and the actual events are something of a nothing-burger.

But “usually” is not “always.”  As a society, we’re well aware of the tale of the boy who cried wolf and the miraculous last-second basket from well past half-court.  We nod and smile at the suggestion that stopped clocks are right twice a day. 

There are a few variations on the theme of biased journalism.  The first, editorializing in a news story, is generally the easiest to spot and the easiest to counteract.  If there are words like “communist,” “Nazi,” or “un-American” to describe a US politician, or phrases like “unborn children” or “reproductive freedom,” you’re reading an editorial, whether the article identifies itself as such or not.  There’s nothing wrong with editorializing; it’s what I do here and on my own blog, after all.  But I also try to not to suggest that what I write is completely objective.

Another variation on the theme, and a personal pet peeve, is what I call a Schrödinger sentence, because it is simultaneously true and not true.  For example, I’ve seen a whole lot of conservative commentary on this blog that “progressives want X.”  (“X” in this context, of course, has nothing to do with what Elon Musk renamed Twitter.)  True, there are enough progressives who advocate for X to make the noun plural, but I’m a progressive, and I’m a big fan of not-X.  The implication—or, rather, one possible implication—of the sentence is that in order to be a progressive, one must want X.  That is no more true than suggesting that all conservatives believe in Jewish space lasers.  And I really resent being told what I believe.

Continue reading →

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Much Appreciation To Rep.Stefanik For Validating My Estrangement From Harvard

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

One comment only: It is astounding and damning that a woman with the erudition of Harvard’s president could do not better than repeatedly resorting to pre-memorized, non-responsive, probably lawyer-crafted boilerplate in response to Stefanik’s questions.

It immediately remind me of former slimeball Congressman Gary Condit (well, he’s still probably a slimeball) in the infamous 2001 ABC interview about intern Chandra Levy, then missing. Condit was romantically linked to his intern, and considered a suspect in what was eventually found to be Levy’s murder. Every time Connie Chung asked directly about their relationship, Condit repeated the mantra, “Well, once again, “I’ve been married 34 years. I have not been a perfect man. I have made mistakes in my life. But out of respect for my family, out of a specific request by the Levy family, it is best that I not get into the details of the relationship.”

This, naturally, made him look guilty. As it turned out, he wasn’t.

But President Gay is guilty of hypocrisy and cowardice.

“Dr. Who” Ethics: Isaac Newton Was Indian? I Did Not Know That!

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

In the latest “Dr. Who” adventure on the BBC (if you don’t know about this long-running cult scifi show, google it), Sir Isaac Newton is played by an actor of Indian heritage:

This raises several issues, most of which Ethics Alarms has delved into before:

1. Does it matter? As Curmie declared in his Comment of the Day regarding my post about another BBC production in which Anne Boleyn was played by a black actress…yes, it does, but it depends on the context and the objective of the casting. The major consideration in any non-traditional casting is whether it works, meaning that the casting isn’t distracting, that it adds something to the work beyond being just a gimmick. (The black Anne Boleyn was a gimmick.) In Curmie’s opinion, almost nobody was likely to see the black actress in the role and think, ““I didn’t know Anne Boleyn was black.” I am less certain of that assumption in the case of a brown Isaac Newton.

Continue reading →

Trump Babbles, Democrats Pounce, Snopes Performs A Non-Partisan Fact-Check And A Progressive Fake Journalist Outs Himself As A Hack

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Call it “ethics dominoes.”

Long ago I added Snopes.com to the Ethics Alarms blacklist of untrustworthy websites for a series of dishonest and pro-Left “fact-checks” that were nothing of the kind. (You can see the once “urban legends” site’s Ethics Alarms dossier here.) For some reason—-maybe they want to restore their tarnished reputation before the 2024 campaign so they can be an effective Democratic Party hit squad again?—the site did a fact-check on this anti-Trump tweet, another volley in the current Big Lie #3 assault by the Axis of Unethical Conduct as it shifts into first gear in its “by any means necessary”effort to save Joe Biden and defeat Trump:

Snopes concluded that the Biden-Harris claim was contrived and false:

Continue reading →

Someone Couldn’t Count To 6, And It Cost Dr. Pepper $100,000

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Amazing.

Dr. Pepper held its annual, silly, Dr. Pepper Tuition Giveaway at halftime during the game between the Texas Longhorns and the Oklahoma State Cowboys over the weekend. Two college students had to toss as many footballs as they could into their respective Dr. Pepper-branded bins five yards away within the allotted time, with the winner getting $100,000. It was a close contest, with the two tied at 10 successful tosses each at the end, forcing an overtime 15-second period. And they tied again, at 16, forcing a second overtime period.

Ryan Georgian, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania finally defeated Gavin White, a junior at Ohio State University, for the big prize. The students had been chosen for the stunt based on their video submissions to Dr. Pepper.

But wait!

A review of the video showed that Georgian only was successful in five tosses in the first overtime, but was somehow credited with six, forcing the final show-down. I see five “refs” in the picture. Apparently one of them can’t count, and the others weren’t paying attention. Were these real football referees, or just guys dressed up as refs? Was anyone paying attention? The mistake wasn’t flagged until after the game, on social media.

How hard is it to count to six?

Dr. Pepper, which had no choice really, decided to give both students $100,000. So far, no one has taken responsibility for the botch.

Magic Ethics: Making Sexism Appear Out Of Nothing!

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I was not a bit surprised to learn that only around 8% of professional magicians are women, as yesterday’s New York Times feature informed me. Magic was one of my main hobbies well into high school, and I even put on a few magic shows. (I still have a trunk full of magic apparatus under my bed.) It was clear early on that while boys were suckers for magic tricks, girls were mostly bored by them. It is one of those pursuits like fast cars, baseball, ventriloquism, juggling, playing soldier, and poker that somehow tend to be hot-wired into male genes while being mostly absent from the females of the species. I don’t know why, and I don’t care why, frankly.

But that’s not the message the Times wants to convey. Focusing on a few female professional magicians (one of whom is performing because her late husband, Harry Blackstone, Jr, did), it tells us that the dearth of female wand-wavers is due to “sexism, wardrobe limitations and the enduring stereotype that women best serve as the audience’s distraction.”

Yes, it’s the disparate impact fallacy again. “I think for many years, no one really thought of the need for women to be the magician,” Gay Blackstone told the Times. “But now, as we’re coming up with different roles and different things we want to be doing, then there’s no reason why women can’t be just as great as men.”

Continue reading →

Q: If MSM Anti-Trump Propaganda Is Already This Inflammatory, What Will It Be Like In 2024?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Apparently terrified that there is a real chance their team will lose power in the 2024 elections, media pundits are abandoning all restraint already. You see, they want everyone to believe that the President who delivered that most fascist speech in American political history—that’s him above—has to be re-elected to “save democracy” from Donald Trump. The last few days have seen a wave of these screeds, and their audacity and palpable whiff or panic is remarkable. There were three especially notable ones, two from the New York Times and and one from the Washington Post. All three use Big Lie #3 from the Ethics Alarms directory, just recently updated: “Trump Is A Fascist/Hitler/Dictator/Monster.” Apparently a talking points memo went out from the Biden White House or the DNC to the Axis allies in the media as President Biden’s poll numbers have sunk to new lows (though still ridiculously high, given his performance and, well, you know). The theme in all three is the same: there is a “clear and present danger” that if elected, Trump will take over the government and install himself as a dictator. I wrote this three years ago:

David French’s primal scream in the Times, “It’s Time to Fix America’s Most Dangerous Law,” is the most insidious: his theory is that a President Trump would use the Insurrection Act, a federal law permitting the President, in a sufficiently dire emergency, to deploy military troops as a domestic police force under his direct command. The other two pieces (with suspiciously similar headlines), “Trump attempts to spin anti-democracy, authoritarian criticism against Biden” (the Post) and “Trump’s Defense to Charge That He’s Anti-Democratic? Accuse Biden of It” (NYT) spin out Big Lie #3 in more general terms. Isaac Arnsdorf and Marianne LeVine quote cherry picked “expert,” Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric at Texas A&M University, for example: “Trump’s Iowa speech continues his use of fascist rhetoric: it’s us versus them, he tells his supporters, and ‘they’ are enemies who cheat. Authoritarians have a lot of rhetorical tricks for explaining away anti-democratic actions as actually ‘democratic.”

The Times piece, by Michael Gold, states, “While Mr. Trump shattered democratic norms throughout his presidency and has faced voter concerns that he would do so again in a second term, the former president in his speech repeatedly accused Mr. Biden of corrupting politics and waging a repressive “all-out war” on America.” It’s versatile of Gold to bring Big Lie #6, “Trump’s Defiance Of Norms Is A Threat To Democracy,” into the discussion, but like David French and the Post’s Biden campaign soldiers at the Post, #3 is still the weaponized lie of choice.

Continue reading →

From “The Country’s In The Very Best Of Hands” Files: State GOP Chairman Christian Ziegler’s Scandal

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

That song is a high;ight from the film of Broadway musical “Li’l Abner,” based on what was once the most popular political satire comic strip in the funny papers. I immediately thought of it (I’ve staged it many times in musical revues, and written parody lyrics in various decades) when I read the gob-smacking story of Christian Ziegler and his wife, which could have been made up by an evil AI bot dedicated to making Republicans look as hypocritical and ridiculous as possible.

Ziegler has been accused of sexual assault, but that’s just the tip of a very messy iceberg.

CNN obtained a search warrant affidavit from the Florida Center for Government Accountability. It indicates that Ziegler and his wife Bridget planned a “three-way” with the alleged victim and complainant on the day of the alleged assault. “When the victim learned that Bridget could not make it, she changed her mind and canceled with Christian,” the document says.

Well, that’s perfectly reasonable! Let’s not be prudes: Should kinky sex disqualify someone from being the head of a state political party that strives to appeal to conservative values? Only if the public finds out about it: call this the “Kinky Republican State Official Principle.” If you are going to engage in private conduct that will pull you down on the public’s cognitive dissonance scale, you had better make certain the fun stays private, and if you can’t, don’t do it or resign first.

Continue reading →

Musical Ethics Dunces: Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Guess what the two country music stars thought was an appropriate selection to croon at Rosalynn Carter’s memorial service?

They sang “Imagine,” John Lennon’s mush-brained ode to anarchy and nihilism. By the end of the performance, Rolling Stone tells us, “some of the other musicians had delicately joined in, offering choral vocals and soft piano.” Great. These are the deep thinkers who try to influence public opinion, government policies and elections.

Pundit Ed Driscoll put it well: “Because ‘Imagine there’s no heaven’ and ‘Imagine there’s no countries’ are comforting words inside the church funeral for a 96-year-old former first lady of America.”

It would have been more responsible to have sung another Lennon composition, “I am the Walrus” (GOO GOO G’JOOB!). At least that song, gibberish though it may be, doesn’t make one think of Jimmy’s foreign policy botches, which were many and varied.

The American Bar Association Reminds Me Why I Am No Longer A Member

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Ethics duncery, abuse of influence, cowardice, bias…oh, lots of things.

The president of the American Bar Association, Mary Smith, leaped onto the careering Hamas-Israel Ethics Train Wreck on behalf of the organization she leads, issuing a statement two days after the October 7 terrorist attack on music festival attendees in Israel that said,

“The American Bar Association unequivocally condemns the attacks of Hamas on Israeli citizens that have killed hundreds. The kidnapping of helpless civilians by Hamas—including women and children abducted at gunpoint—for use in Gaza as hostages and human shields violates international laws. Brutal attacks on civilians are never a solution to disputes or a justifiable way to air grievances. Israel and the Palestinians have had long-running disagreements and differences, but that in no way justifies the actions of Hamas. The state of Israel has the right to exist, and its citizens are entitled to live in safety and peace. The ABA calls on both sides to show restraint to spare the lives of the innocent people caught up in these attacks. The ABA also calls for all hostages to be released and for all parties to stop hostilities and settle their disputes in a peaceful and legal fashion and with the rule of law.”

For a lawyer (and the supposedly most prestigious lawyer organization), that’s an astoundingly self-contradictory statement. Despite giving lip service to the obvious definition of a terror attack on civilians as unjustifiable, the statement goes on to claim that Israel has no right to respond to the attack as an act of war, calling for a “peaceful solution” while implying that any armed response will breach “the rule of law.” Then she struck again on October 17, writing that the ABA,

Continue reading →