Dandolo Stirring up the Fourth Crusade
What goes on in a court?
1) A jury is set.
2) Attorneys make some opening statements; these
statements lean toward the conclusion they wish the jury to reach.
3) The attorneys present evidence that is to be convincing
towards their respective opening remarks and eventual conclusion. They also "interrogate" one another's evidence openly and before the jury.
4) The attorneys make closing remarks — arguments about evidence — in
favor of their own opinions and their own agenda for the case in a last attempt
to sway the jury toward their respective conclusions.
5) The judge instructs the jury to make a decision not on the basis of the opening or closing remarks, but solely on the evidence presented.
6) The jury deliberates solely on the evidence. Even though they have listened to arguments by both parties regarding that evidence, they are still to deliberate only on the evidence.
The opening and closing remarks are not evidence: these remarks are slant toward the conclusion that the attorneys on each side want the jury to believe. The evidence is to be strictly factual, but some evidence may sway the jury one direction or another in their final determination on which attorney’s view is valid. Because of this "sway" of factual evidence, attorneys, and law enforcement as well, often attempt to conceal or suppress evidence that would sway the jury away from their conclusions.
While it is true that facts do not interpret themselves and need to be set within their context and be presented fully, attorneys are not after the “truth” of a matter; they are out to present their own slant on an event.
In a world that is highly charged politically, a great deal rides on
what a "jury" does with slant on the facts.
So much for courts. What about the "news"?
When we watch the “News” (or, rather, what is Infotainment), there is mostly slant and very little raw evidence for us, the "jury" of viewers, to consider. Sound bytes and 3-second video clips mostly conceal
the whole of facts, the whole story. In
many cases, the news is little more than deceptively cooked-up fare set on the viewer-jury’s plate. We have things like Fox (not "news" -- Murdoch's recent testimonies revealed what we knew) and Epoc Times and Newsmax (Far-right, conservative propaganda) on one side. On the other side, we have things
like CNN (again, definitely not news) and The Guardian (Far-left, liberal propaganda) on the other hand. These news outlets act as “attorneys,” each arguing for their
own versions of what “facts” illustrate on a matter, and likewise, they may suppress, conceal, and in some cases simply lie (again, Murdoch's recent evidence concerning the Fox/Dominion case) about the facts....
The problem? It's that there is no judge present to keep attorneys in line (as if they do so in court anyway...) when we watch the news; there is no one watching whether one news outlet or another (i.e. the “attorneys”) are concealing evidence. And no one in court or on the news watches as to whether or not they are making statements that are logical fallacies like these:
False analogy (analogies cannot prove anything, but only illustrate a point, and false analogies lead further away from real issues and facts)
Red herring (a distraction from the facts: “sure the economy is bad in this state, but what about India?” – India is a different matter altogether)
Guilt or Glory by association (“the [conservative/liberal] speaker in this clip is truthful because they have an American flag lapel pin”; “choosy mother choose Jif"; Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes — a person being judged by an association with something or someone else, not on their own merits)
Ad hominem (Latin: "to the man": “This senator is telling lies because she doesn’t bathe and smells!” — an argument toward the person, not the issue)
Tu quoque ("Latin: "you too!": a type of ad hominem that turns the argument back to the person, to say in essence "Yeah? What about you?!" — which is not the issue)
Slippery slope (“either you fix the economy today or the country will be taken over by terrorists” — pointing to a dire end result, usually impossible, that will not arise from the immediate situation)
Either/or fallacy (“either you vote for our candidate or you will never have a balanced budget” — does not prove an outcome)
Begs the Question (“This man guilty!" — actually asserts the question at hand without offering evidence and arguments as to whether he is or is not guilty)
Oversimplification ("Balancing the US budget is easy: just have people stop using social services" — it's way more complicated than that)
And there are other fallacies and tricks that are used to sway the jury, such as "leading the witness," the use of "hearsay," and asserting "speculation" as fact.
Equivocation
Opening and closing remarks, because they are not actually evidence but interpretation, are largely equivocation. What is equivocation? Equivocation is, “in logic, a fallacy depending upon the double signification of some one word: distinguished from amphibology, which depends upon the doubtful interpretation of a whole sentence” (Wordnik).
Example, courtesy of Bill Clinton: “What is IS?” Everyone knows what “is” means. To deliberate on the meaning of is distracts from the actual question about a factual event:
“Is not X or Y actually a form of sex?” Equivocation is, in another definition, “the use of equivocal
or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge;
prevarication” (Webster).
So where is the truth in a courtroom if attorneys practice such tricks about the facts — and they do this every day, are good at it, make their livings at it, and hope to sway (and often deceive) a jury about facts?
Likewise, we have to ask: where is the truth in a news report? Reporters on any side of the political spectrum are equivocators for their own slant and want to sway (often deceive) their viewers about the facts. Just because they produce a sound byte or the 3-second clip (not in context and not the entire event), they still have not provided evidence of the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
To think that a news organization — any news organization, left or right — would be about the truth of an event these days is such a preciously innocent notion that we should require the holder of it to be put back in the cradle.
One maxim (attributed to journalism professor Johnathan Foster) has it this way:
If someone says it is raining
outside, and someone else says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both but to look out
the [expletive] window and see which is true.
Journalists don't do this today. They have a long equivocation session on "rain" and sway their audiences toward their view. If you listen to that equivocation and let them decide for you, in that moment you have given up your duty to maintain yourself as a rational human.
From Courts to News Media
So what is our job in watching the news? It is to think critically about what we see,
what we hear. It is, I said, to THINK. And that means to think about all
sides of an issue, all the facts we may discover, not merely those presented by select "attorneys," (News outlets) — by your favorite news channel.
If you are in the habit of eating only what is set before
you by one single news outlet, only one "news-chef" (even your favorite), then you are eating imaginary food — it doesn't exist, like the food in Tennessee Williams' play The Glass Menagerie. And to swallow the content which a single news source puts on your plate without chewing means you have
given up thinking — thinking critically. It means you have relinquished your responsibility to own and maintain your independent mind, and relinquished it to news magnates who simply do not care about you or society or the "truth" of a situation, but who only care about their own appetite for viewers, revenue, and the power of influence.
T. S. Eliot argued, before TV even existed (he was
speaking about literature), that we all are “affected by [what we view] as human
beings, whether we intend to be or not [….] It affects us during the process of
assimilation and digestion; and I believe that exactly the same is true of
anything we read” (and I would say anything we view — like the news) (Eliot,
148). What we view unequivocally shapes our minds.
Further, Eliot says, we are most influenced not by what we view when we are thinking critically, when we are on our mental toes, but most by what we view at our leisure. That is, by the way, when we view our favored news sources — end of day, sitting down to “unwind," to see what’s going on in the world.
Eliot:
“I incline to come to the alarming conclusion that it is just the literature that we read for ‘amusement' or 'purely for pleasure' that may have the greatest and least suspected influence upon us.” (Eliot 150)
Where did Hitler place his propaganda posters depicting Jewish people as rats and as the cause of Germany’s desolate economy? He placed them in train stations, along bus routes, and tram stops where people, not thinking critically, were going into or emerging from a hard day of work in which they toiled but saw no success in their economic lives. If you tell someone something long enough, consistently enough, they will begin to believe it, whether it is true or not. —And so daily, Uncle Heinrich steps off the tram after a frustrating day — sees a poster, and...feels (does not think), "Yes. There's the problem with our society!" And that sentiment feels good to him ("it must be true!"), and it feels better every day...and eventually his feelings lead to unthinking (and unthinkable) actions.
Ideas have consequences. That is precisely why we are each obligated to know the veracity of our ideas, whether they are true or not.
This is precisely why it is imperative that people not view and adhere to one news source — and why it is imperative to look at them all skeptically: people are to be a jury that thinks critically, comparing the facts provided (and those not provided), and about which every news organization will offer their opening and closing remarks to sway your opinion. Their job, as they see it, is to make you see, remember, feel about an issue solely as they do. They info-tain you (Eliot's leisure-time turned "news" so you are not looking at them critically). And the talking heads can be so nice and fawning, with a facade of empathy so cloyingly obsequious (CBS) that, if we step back and look plainly at the BS on the plate before us, we shall literally gag. They don't want you to think. They equivocate, suppress the whole truth, offer slant. Like the used car dealer: "Would I lie to you?!" Yes, they would. Their job is not to inform you fully so that you may shape your own, informed and critical view.
We are not talking about the facts of a car crash or a plane landing wheels up.
During a coup (such as in Myanmar today), alternate news sources have been shut down. Why? Obviously, so that only one news source (the overtaking government's) may influence the people, and that news is controlled by one side of the political argument — "news" written by the organizers of the coup. What if the arguments in a court were controlled solely by one of the attorneys? You know what would happen. And that's happening to you if you watch the news from a single slant.
How might a cult continue to usurp the minds of its adherents if they were allowed to think and hold views that differed from the leader's? You know the answer. This is why people who actually think critically are anathema not only to cult leaders but also to politicians and news outlets who work by manipulation — ultimately anathema to corrupt governments. It is interesting that attorneys, in choosing jury members, do not want people who can actually think critically, who are well informed, and who can reason without emotion: no, they want a blank slate on which they can write their own slanted opinions — for their own agenda.
So: we are affected by what we see. So: we must actually think about what is on the plate before us, recognize that there are sides (plural) that must be thought about solely for the evidence presented. So: we must be critical in our thinking about them — suspicious about even a “trusted” network (everyone has an agenda, and no one tells all...). And it is not a private duty you have to think: you must speak the truth and reason with others (unless they are deep in their cult: no one can actually talk to or reason with someone in a cult — they can't hear you).
Unless we do this, we become (or already are) unthinking fools led by the nose of our favorite news sources. When people cease to think, they are like cows, all too easily led by the promise of more of the (comfort) food they are already used to.
Jaurès (whose politics I differ from in most points), put things this way (and I can weigh these words even though I disagree with him because what he says here is, to me, a proven value worth upholding):
“Courage is to seek the truth and tell it; it is not to be subjected to the law of the triumphant lie that passes, and not to echo, from our soul, mouth, and hands [...] foolish applause and fanatical booing.”
Now go back and look at the image at the start of this posting. Hopefully you see it differently.
~~~~~~
Eliot, T. S. “Religion
and Literature” in The Christian Imagination: Essays on
Literature and the
Arts. Ed. Leland Ryken. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981;
141-154.
