The New Objectivity?

There is often a conception that the self described moderates are somehow more objective than those who espouse ideas on the right. The left, and many on the right, often only get their input from their side, but self described moderates get their news ostensibly from the left.

Oh blessed moderates. They are so well versed and so enlightened, that we should all bask in their glory. Right? I have to clarify, there are relative moderates, and objective conservatives, who can see when both sides have arguments with merit. The more objective avoid guilt by association, conspiracy theory and can see some some validity on both sides. The self described moderates, on the other hand, are those who hang out in liberal circles, only read main stream and liberal sources and look down on the right as ill-informed rubes who need to be corrected rather then heard. So how does one identify as a self described moderate?

…by their words. It was somewhat telling that in a conversation with one of these SDM’s I mentioned what the conservative perspective was on a piece of history. He then answered “I don’t care what conservatives have to say on this subject.” That is the general view of an SDM. For them the right is so wrong that no one should not waste time listening to their views.

What about the relative moderate? The RMs read several varied media sources, including those positions on the far left and right, have friends and acquaintances from varied political perspectives and go to the actual sources of a story, rather than reading what a reporter says that someone said. What does that mean? In several conversations about Glen Beck, I’ve noticed that the most vicious criticism of Glen comes from those have never read, heard or seen any of Beck’s actual words. The SDMs reads what Glen said from some other media source. This is the case of an SDM perspective on Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sara Palin, Jim DeMint and countless others on the right. Pure hearsay. Now that wouldn’t be permissible evidence in court but it is fully permissible in the court of public opinion, at least in the case of the SDM. None of those mentioned above are above criticism. There is plenty to criticize but we expect a deeper look into issues from our kids than that, done by self described moderates.

The point is that while the SDM claims to have a better grasp of real subjects, they get their perspectives from a bubble. Yes a bubble. How can a perspective be otherwise if it comes from hearsay?

So how does one avoid the SDM bubble. Look at the actual source. We can hear the perspective of those who agree with us, but hey those who look at things from a similar political perspective can be wrong. Aren’t we told over and over in school to, “decide for our selves”. That’s what I was taught.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites