Ethics Dunce: Howard Kurtz

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

It’s impossible to keep up with our hopeless news media’s dishonesty and incompetence.

My five minutes of watching Fox News today (I have added PBS to Fox News, MSNBC and CNN as my “five minutes a day” sampling chores) yielded this inexcusable botch by Fox News “media watchdog” Howard Kurtz:

Exiting a discussion of the McDonald’s flap, Kurtz quickly said, “A freind of Harris came forward and said that she worked with Harris at McDonalds, but moving on….”

That’s completely false. That “friend” (she’ works’s employed bythe Harris campaign) did not work with Harris at McDonald’s and only said that Harris’s mother, who has been dead for 15 years, told her that Harris worked at McDonald’s. That’s double hearsay even if it’s true. X says that Y said that Z did something she didn’t actually see her do. Such testimony proves nothing, but Kurtz, because he’s sloppy or lazy or has a bad staff, misinformed his audience that the woman worked with Harris at the still unidentified McDonalds.

Worse, he’s supposed to report on news media ethics, and then, as a national TV reporter, gives out wrong information.

Fox News should trade Kurtz back to CNN for Jake Tapper and a box of Crackerjacks.

Note: The WordPress bot says I should tag this post “Heart of Darkness.”

End of an Ugly Week Ethics Warm-Up, 10/27/24: “Boo!”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Commenter Chris Marschner’s observation that Kamala Harris is “no Jackie Robinson….She is tying an anchor around the candidacy of future black women candidates. Her campaign will be remembered” reminded me of an old Ethics Alarms post about Barack Obama. The fact that he (and Michelle, that feminist who has based her prominence, wealth and influence on her husband’s career and popularity: “Hear her roar!”) is viewed as having any positive influence over voters at all testifies to the fact that Obama played President as well as any POTUS we have had since George Washington. Oh, there have been many others as good at it: Lincoln, Harding, FDR, Ike, JFK and Reagan among the masters. This is the aspect of the job that Donald Trump is epically terrible at, and a main reason he isn’t leading in the polls by double digits. Obama, was the opposite: an inept and destructive President who survived his two terms, an election he should have lost, and, in all likelihood, the assessment of historians by looking and acting like a leader. From that post…

“The tragic legacy of Barack Obama will be recorded in three parts: his groundbreaking achievement as the nation’s first black President, his utter incompetence at governing and leadership, and his dishonesty and the dishonesty he engendered by those who reported to him. The first has been fatally undermined by the second and third, and the third, dishonesty, necessitated by the second, the relentless incompetence. The reason this is so tragic should be obvious to all. President Obama, like all trailblazers, needed to be a stand-out, exemplary performer to avoid setting back the causes his ascension needed to advance. But instead of Jackie Robinson, he has been Pumpsie Green, and that may be unfair to Pumpsie, the first black player to wear a Boston Red Sox uniform who knew his limitations, and did the best he could for as long as he could. It is also tragic because America, as much as any time in its history prior to the Civil War, needed a strong, wise, confident, unifying leader to deal with great and difficult problems that will only get worse with time. The challenges would have tested the best of leaders; for President Obama, with neither leadership instincts or talent, they have proven impossible. Worse, the basic requirements of governing have been proven to be beyond him, and he does not have the self-awareness or humility to seek the help he needs.

Key word: “unifying.”

One other note before we get into the weeds: I am always searching for signals regarding cultural emanations, and I am puzzled by the spectacular drop in Halloween decorations in my Alexandria, Virginia neighborhood compared to last year or any year within memory. This area usually goes nuts over Halloween. What’s going on here? Is it the election? Do people regard all of the “Harris-Walz” signs scary enough? Theories welcome….

Continue reading →

Unethical (But Unsurprising) Quote of the Month: Michelle Obama

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

“It’s clear to me that the question isn’t whether Kamala is ready for this moment because by every measure, she has demonstrated that she’s ready.The real question is: as a country, are we ready for this moment?”

—-Former First Lady Michelle Obama, suggesting that not electing Kamala Harris President will prove that America is “not ready” to have female president of color.

And there it is. The missing piece, and again, the standard accusation every time a black or female Democrat is judged by accomplishments, character and ability and found wanting: the critics are bigots. The race card, the gender card, and the fact that we have to put up with this insult and default accusation repeatedly is, all by itself, a good reason to have second thoughts about electing Democratic female and/or “of color” candidates. We had to put up with this when Barack Obama, a weak and divisive President, was called tor account, and when Hillary Clinton, corrupt and repellent, wasn’t able to win the 2016 election against a vilified real estate mogul with no previous experience in elected office.

Continue reading →

Well Yes, This Phenomenon Was Inevitable and I’ve Been Predicting It For Decades…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

In a New York Times op-ed (that’s a gift link, getting you past the pay-wall: You’re welcome!), a writing professor from Southern Methodist University reveals his epiphany regarding why today’s college students generally don’t read books. He writes in part,

Nationwide, college professors report steep declines in students’ willingness and ability to read on their own. To adapt, instructors are assigning less reading and giving students time in class to complete it.

It’s tempting to lament the death of a reliable pathway to learning and even pleasure. But I’m beginning to think students who don’t read are responding rationally to the vision of professional life our society sells them. In that vision, productivity does not depend on labor, and a paycheck has little to do with talent or effort. For decades, students have been told that college is about career readiness and little else. And the task of puzzling out an author’s argument will not prepare students to thrive in an economy that seems to run on vibes…

Once students graduate, the jobs they most ardently desire are in what they proudly call the “sellout” fields of finance, consulting and tech. To outsiders, these industries are abstract and opaque, trading on bluster and jargon. One thing is certain, though: That’s where the money is….All in all, it looks as if success follows not from knowledge and skill but from luck, hype and access to the right companies. If this is the economy students believe they’re entering, then why should they make the effort to read? For that matter, how will any effort in school prepare them for careers in which, apparently, effort is not rewarded?

Duh. You just figured this out, did you?

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

That post was partially triggered by the bombardment of intellectually dishonest or outright false pro-abortion campaign ads I’ve had to endure lately from Maryland and Virginia Democratic candidates. (Did you know that the Republicans will enact a national abortion ban?) In one, a GOP candidate is mocked for saying that the Dobbs decision overturning Roe was legally correct. “Huh?” says a woman or actress whom I guarantee didn’t read the opinion (or Roe) and who couldn’t explain the legal arguments if a gun was pointed at her head. Almost all legal scholars and lawyer admit that Roe v. Wade was incompetent; their major argument for not reversing it is “It’s too late: stare decisus!” Let’s ask that “Huh” lady to define stare decisus.

As he/she/it often does, one of Extradimensional Cephalopod‘s posts, this time an argument for abortion, prompted a sterling response. Here is Ryan Harkins’ Comment of the Day on the post, “Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?”.….

***

The topic of “nature” is an important one to discuss, because ethics follows nature. Classically, we can ask what something is, and what about that thing makes it what it is. The whole notion of taxonomy relies on defining “what” something is. When we examine things, we notice two main categories of details. One category is essentials, and the other category is accidentals. It is essential to the nature of water to be composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, and it is essential to the nature of water to be a solid at some temperature, a liquid at another temperature, and a gas at a third temperature. It is accidental to water to be wet, because ice and super-heated steam are not wet, and it is an accident of water to be white, because snow is white but steam is transparent. Another way to put that is water can lose wetness and still be water, but if water loses its hydrogen atoms, it is no longer water.

There is such a thing as human nature. We can discuss and reason and argue about what details of human existence are essential and which are accidental, but I think we can agree that at some point if enough details are removed, what remains is no longer human. If we take the evolution of species (which Catholics are allowed to believe in), while we notice a gradation of speciation, we nevertheless notice that distinct species have disparate traits that are essential to being that species. Certainly it seems that a very distinct and essential detail of being human is being a rational creature. What Sarah B. brought up about rational kinds notices that a rational nature, while necessary, is not sufficient to identify as human, as there could be rational alien races in the universe, and the Catholic belief in purely spiritual beings that we call angels and demons postulates rational natures that are not human. In a similar way, there are shared details among primates, but there are different details about humans that distinguish them from other primates.

Continue reading →

The Guardian Shows How To Disarm Your Own ‘Bombshell Report’

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

This made me laugh out loud. After my Trump-Deranged relative repeatedly defaulted to “If Trump isn’t dangerous, how come so many of those who worked closely with him now say he’s unfit and a fascist?,” I saw a Guardian headline in Memeorandum: “‘Fascist’, ‘conman’, ‘predator’, ‘cheat’: what 11 former Trump staffers say about him now.” So I looked at the article.

Continue reading →

Further Observations on the Washington Post Declining To Endorse Harris

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

1. The surprise move has sparked a “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias” spectacular! Editor-at-large Robert Kagan, resigned in protest. “People are shocked, furious, surprised,” said an editorial board member. Wait: why does the staff care so much that the Post isn’t officially endorsing Harris? They care because they are partisan and biased. They want their paper to do everything it can to help Harris and defeat Trump, not to to report the news objectively, and not to be officially neutral. That the staff reacted this way tells us all we need to know about the Post’s trustworthiness, if we didn’t know it already.

2. Endorsements were justifiable when newspapers maintained some semblance of objectivity. In today’s rotting journalism, however, with “advocacy journalism” holding sway and the Post being a particularly flagrant offender (I cancelled my Post subscription because the New York Time was less biased!) an endorsement doesn’t mean what it once did. That was, “We have assessed the candidates and their positions. We now can state our measured conclusion: X is the responsible choice for voters.” Now, an endorsement only means, “We have been favorably reporting on the Democratic candidate while being relentlessly negative about the Republican candidate, and all our reporters and editors are Democrats and progressives. Of course we’re endorsing X.”

Continue reading →

Observations on This Trump Derangement Video…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

1. Are there any videos of Trump supporters acting like this? As with the many episodes of violence against citizens wearing MAGA caps: if the Trump supporters are the Nazis, why is it that the Democrats are the only ones engaging in violence and harassment?

2. I asked this question of a Trump Deranged relative today. The “But Trump…!” answer I got was “What do you call the Capitol riot?” I call it a bunch of idiots trying to remedy what they thought was an attempt to steal a Presidential election through a protest that got out of control. It was not Americans targeting those whose political views did not align with theirs.

Continue reading →

Academic Ethics Villains: Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

It is time to call these two partisan operatives in the guise of professors what they are: hypocrites, hacks, abusers of authority and totalitarian enablers. Naturally, they are Harvard government professors, my college and my major. I already have my Harvard diploma turned face to the wall and on the floor; there’s not much else I can do is burn it. But I consider these two unethical academics—they shouldn’t be called “scholars”—and insult to me, and any readers who are capable of non-Trump-Deranged thought. The New York Times is complicit by repeatedly giving them a platform to sell books and mislead the public.

But that’s the Times: an institutional ethics villain assisting two individual ethics villains. Nice.

I’ve been flagging the indefensible dishonesty and scholarship-as-propaganda of these two since 2018, when they were lionized by the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) for their Big Lie launching book, “How Democracies Die.” They’ve published more similar screeds since. I wrote in part (If you like, skip to the end of the long quote, but this is necessary perspective for the rest of the post):

Continue reading →

Breaking: Not Only Can Democrats and Harris Not Fool All the People All the Time, They Can’t Even Fool The Washington Post!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I just posted on “X”:

“!! The Washington Post just announced it won’t endorse a Presidential candidate. This is not only a victory for Trump, it should send Democrats to their panic rooms. The message is how terrible a candidate Harris is, and the narrative that she is otherwise has collapsed.”

Good.

There is hope.