whYNOT

The further phase after collection of newsreports, compromised by "reality" NOT existing "independent of any perceiver's[e.g a witness', an informant's] consciousness" is that the reporter, writer, editor, publisher and/or anchorperson - also -supplies their own primacy of consciousness to the substance, tone and delivery of the story. How do we play this one? How do we want it to come across to our public? Who will the report benefit - our side or theirs? What should we include, what leave out? Do we spike the story, tone it down, barely/never mention it, or give it maximum, dramatic coverage? (And make certain Carol over at MSNBC knows what we're doing so they do the same). And so, crudely: "the fake news", which has the power to emotionally influence millions who believe it as Gospel. Who, of course lap it up according to their preconceptions. Since, to finalize the journalistic process, they the end users are just as much given to reality existing *dependent upon* their consciousnesses as are the media people. A ragtag assault on the Capitol is equal to 9/11 is equal to every violent assault in history... why, because I feel so and wish it to be. Countrywide protests/rioting, conversely were innocent and justifiable "protests". CNN wouldn't lie to me.

Wait and see. I'm a fair guy and offer you a chance at double or quits. $20 says that a year from now you will recollect Trump's term with more fondness. As -maybe - the last period of a movement towards independence, individual freedom from others and the state - chaotic as it seemed. Freedom, if one can handle it, can *look* chaotic. Totalitarianism, as contrast is tightly ~organized~ by its nature.

Yes. One can't have one without the other. The feature of Nannyism is psychological and moral dependence on a Leader who reminds one of a mother (or father) who knew best, who took care of all your wants, cocooned you in her embrace and set your moral tone. It is a national reversion to childhood, where one, and all the other kiddies too, have to toe the line and conform. And those bad girls and boys who won't submit in their individual rebelliousness, they, sadly, will need to be publicly punished. Preconceptual and sensationalist, the feelings which one takes from one's nanny's behavior and appearance and comforting words, count above all. A leader today who would buck this trend, encouraging personal responsibility, and, worse - looking and sounding hard and uncompromising, will terrify and anger the children. Big government- and a socialist government - receive ideological-economic critical exposure from us but seldom is the necessarily psychological underpinning of them given attention. Infantilism, the precursor to socialism.

Trying to break this ¬objectivity¬ distinction (from the common parlance about the media) down: Rand: "Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness". Whereas, Press "objectivity" in reportage is entirely ¬dependent¬ upon the "perceiver's consciousness" - on people's minds, emotions and memories. Individuals who usually do not hold to reality existing independent of their minds. At two levels, the second level of subjectivity, what they inform an interviewer they saw, which might dishonestly deviate from the primary level, what they believe they saw. Therefore the uncertainty of eye-witness accounts. Or: He said- she said. That's the material Press people have to go on for their news sources, so would be non-objective. (And if anyone says that "photographs never lie" i.e. are objective, I have to disabuse them).

Right, on federal property. I apologize for the oversight. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/biden-signs-3-executive-orders-mask-mandate-social-distancing-federal-property-racial-equity-rejoins-paris-climate-accord-video/ Not in any hurry, is he.

I'm okay with indulging in some whataboutism. 2017: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/video-exclusive-film-crew-releases-never-seen-footage-2017-inauguration-riots/ Although not as bad as the Capitol attack, which, in turn, who can think was anything comparable to 9/11? (like some drama queens feel). Keeping a sense of proportion is every bit Objectivist, I believe.

Quite. Objectivity is a misnomer for O'ists looking at "Press objectivity". The newspaper people would laugh if Objectvists informed them of its fundamental meaning. No, they'd agree, this absolutist objectivity is an impossible aim in our work. As I'm getting at, human restraints, time and space restraints, profits and Editorial Policy limit them, even with the best of intentions. The best they can aim for I think is tell the facts (as accurately as possible) and outside of Opinion pieces NOT tell us their moralizing of the facts (which has become their No. 1 activity, since facts are accessible all over the internet).

Ha! I think the opposite and I'll take the bet. I had not expected perfection of your ex-president, like I never do of any leader any place. But I understood two essentials: his highest regard for the independent good of Americans and a US not confined (sacrificially) to perform its traditional duty to the world - AND - the completely horrible people he opposed who opposed him and that same US independence. Those two poles I have never found cause to move from, in all that has transpired. You'll see. The horribles are only going to reveal themselves further, in the coming months, in their unashamed desire to dictate to and control Americans and therefore will largely vindicate Trump - so demonstrating how clearly he perceived them to be from the start. Better than most intellectuals, I add. Easiest money I ever made.

The innumerable intricate doings, inter-actions and responses of humanity is the central purpose of the media. There never was or can be an absolute, objective truth to a story, unless anyone thinks human facts are simple, and humans are perfect witnesses, absolutely truthful and themselves, objective. A newspaper etc., only ¬trying¬ to apply those objective standards to every story which arises, would not be able to properly function to publish other stories, lose readers and advertisers and so lose profits. As well as his profit motive, a publisher isn't duty-bound to publish a story which conflicts with his ethical and political stance. I.e. - be "objective" himself.

Why should that be such a problem for anyone to, at minimum consider the evidence. It looks to me that many people desperately WANT the whole ugly affair to be laid at the feet of the Republicans and Trump--alone and unaided. Perhaps that wraps things up nicely for them. Villains or heroes, the intrinsicist's delight and no moral greys. That possible Antifa infiltration doesn't remove ¬any¬ blame from the Trump supporters, mind.

First executive order of business of Biden's: mandatory national masking. The Nanny state has begun.

Aren't you missing something? (besides not being around in the 1890's) The reach the Press had then was about a billionth of what it is now. There was no global network TV and social media. Whomever they were unfair to could only affect a relatively tiny number who read of it, regionally. Now the slightest 'unfairness' or controversy is picked up from the news and regurgitated across social media internationally every second of the day. An individual's reputation can be and is being destroyed in one day. Not only are there degrees of unfairness, but immensely greater degrees of audience numbers, therefore greater influence and vastly more power (by the media) nowadays. If you haven't seen the journalistic decline of the NYT and CNN (which was a quality station at the time of the Iraq war) compromised with a totally "Woke" ideology, I can't help you. CNN's coverage today was plainly gloating about Trump's departure ("in disgrace") and unctuously worshipful of Biden.

"The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day)". Leonard Peikoff, “Pragmatism Versus America,” And sure as we know Pragmatism remains the prevailing American philosophy. For the Right and the Left. The Pragmatic Progressivist (Obama) the Pragmatic, make-a-deal, whatever-works businessman, Trump, and the Pragmatic Left-Socialists, Biden/Harris. When one can't have the luxury of instantly getting rid of that false philosophy, one takes the better option in a given political context and period. That leaves (left) Trump. The pragmatic-Socialist-Leftists will do the greater damage, of that I'm certain. A really good post Mr Van Horn.

An autocrat in personality, AGAINST the (Socialist- leftist) autocrats. You can't be sweet to your sworn enemies. That much "autocracy" I could accept. The rest is superficial. His mannerism and rough behavior, so unlike an urbane and practiced Obama (for instance). Now, naturally, all the critics of Trump, fair and otherwise, will be coming out of the woodwork. Everyone loves a winner and can't stand a loser. The losing is kinda proof of something (I am not sure what, someone's moral depravity?). "My" candidate wins, I gather some of the glory, likewise and obversely with 'losing'. It seems like consequentialism - with a dash of mystical determinism. If you win, you're good, if you're good you win. This isn't a sport or chess game - the objectively better person often 'loses' in love and politics. I return to a year or two ago, before Covid-19, before 'racism' was pushed by the Leftist agenda, before BLM riots and protests, before the election, before the Capitol - when Trump (whatever ARI could sneer about him) was doing well and America was on a good path at home and abroad. Individual freedom was on the rise, if one could see the signs. Nothing is as effective as people active, purposeful and working, and certainly such people have not the time and patience for social metaphysics and social justice or racist nonsense. Given all that, this election would have been a landslide victory. So what changed? I doubt Trump changed. For some, many, the US was doing "too well" - what is there to say about them they haven't already exposed? The body blows the country took swung the situation in their favor. Despicable - were and are the Democrats and Left for feeding and taking advantage of misfortune and the wide havoc and disharmony at the cost of Americans.

I suppose everyone can access that New Ideal video. I listened to the opening, might continue, might not, for the 2 hour duration. "What came to mind was 9/11": said Journo. WHAT was that again?! I've heard much rationalism from ARI over time, the dropping of context all over the place, but this statement is extreme, not to add emotionalist. How does one compare and categorize and evaluate the two such disparate attacks into a single concept? Ghate demurs somewhat. But there I gave up. (and btw, the "death toll" Journo mentions, is two. One man and one woman died violently at others hands. Three others died of natural causes, a stroke and a heart attack for two that I read, deaths which could have happened in a crush at a football game. Therefore, broken down, ONE person was killed by an an attacker in the mob - and that's the sum of the (violent) "death toll" which has been made so much of).

The Storming Of The Capitol. New Ideal. Ghate and Journo. Among the topics covered: How the storming of the Capitol resembled the 9/11 terrorist attacks Trump’s level of moral responsibility for the attack The arbitrariness of Trump’s conspiracy assertions Our culture’s descent into irrationalist tribalism The increasing authoritarianism on both the right and the left The importance of recognizing the varying degrees of support for violence and authoritarianism on both sides of the culture The importance of recognizing the various forms of dictatorial aspiration The tribalistic attempt to claim victimhood in order to scapegoat the other side Why the attackers were not “patriots” but nihilists The commonalities between the storming of the Capitol and the BLM protests The attack as an attempt to defy the rule of law The political institutions worth supporting in an irrational political culture The philosophical causes of tribalism How to think rationally about election fraud claims What should happen to Trump in the future given his moral responsibility for the attack What is the best path forward for America

Trump has conceded. Period. Do you agree? That you'd preferred him to do so gracefully, is beside the point. I said all along, look at his actions beyond his mannerisms. I will boringly have to repeat myself, Trump very plainly placed the highest value in the nation. From the early beginnings until now. I have not seen anything as clear as this. Everyone, including Objectivists, have cynically attributed ~selfish~ motives to his entrance into politics. And have not stopped taking shots at him for everything, fair and foul. That is the greatest injustice O'ists in particular could perpetrate. Actually, Trump's motivation was "selfish" as we know it to be; for the selfish values he had and perceived a great USA to have. If you guys would entertain that proposal for only a minute, more would be clear to you about his erratic actions. Terribly disappointed in the election outcomes - Of course he was and is! Again, for the sake of the nation and his supporters above his ambitions he had to pursue the potential of fraud. He gave up eventually. Now, he probably sees the US as opening the door into Socialism. That notion would drive me dilly if I were in his place. That's who he is "losing" to, from his point of view. His "losing" is secondary. Did he "pull anything immoral"? That's entirely too strong a condemnation, HD. We hear the media and Dems play it, we'd think so: Lies, incitement - and all the rest - The massacre at the Capitol! Horrible people without any value but power, ignore them. Dignity? Personally, I would rather suffer some public indignity in order to stand for my values. Once more, national value came first to Trump. And who cares about what others think about you, apart from the average second-hander public figure? At the end of that, a little empathy for the man would be in order rather than recriminations. By my reckoning you didn't lose the bet. He will be accorded a greater dignity in time to come.

Weird, you are unaware of the radical shift. "Played fair" means that despite a station's/paper's partiality and bias to something or some person, policy or politician they had some integrity, would go to reasonable lengths to give both or other sides a hearing. "Accuracy, if not objectivity - objectivity isn't possible" as a US publisher said. That's true enough. And a publisher- owner is not obliged to give a platform to opposing viewpoints, he has every right to promote his own. Which the viewer has every right to criticize. But at one time they had audiences and readers who came from all bents or persuasions to be taken into account. A reputation with the general public was still important. Now? I have no problem calling e.g. CNN as professionally and ethically corrupt, corrupted for and by an ideological message and political/power goals. Their, the msm's, market is the Left and extreme Left. Therefore, they have given up any pretext of fairness, impartiality, objectivity and even accuracy and integrity. What is Newsmax especially "guilty" of? Ethical? Legal?

TRY to not excite yourself. Try also to remove yourself, from the many others, and how they take in and respond to the media reports that they are given. They are not you and don't think like you. They are the weak links the Press aims at. CNN (etc.) is their direct and authoritative source of - reality.

This goes well past the point of impartiality. Obviously I knew that the media could be and would be partial, that was my background. I said and say again, I've never seen anything as blatant as the media's prejudice lately, that it would deliberately lie, deceive, collude on stories and cover up facts the public needs to have. I said only yesterday that the "ensconced media" will go to any lengths to protect its narrative from "ideological competition". Today, rather timeously, there is confirmation of that, this Youtube I linked about CNN trying to block Newsmax. Do you detect the ¬partiality¬ that CNN demonstrates? Can I rest my case? Is this msm not a "de facto monopoly" exerted for the purpose of mass control? I will say again that the last years have been an attack on the core of America, led by socio-political-media forces.

I haven't any obligation to "be specific" and it would be impossible. If someone says: "There has been an avalanche!" would you require them to ¬specify¬ each rock and stone? Or go see for yourself? There has been an avalanche of Leftist controlled media promoting a single discourse. I heard the rumblings a time back and many, too many to recount, incidences of reports which confirmed that. I repeat, mind control. If it's invisible to a person then he could be under its spell.

Seriously guys. if you can't see the Total Narrative the msmedia promotes in collusion with one another, you need to wake up. Going on while you nitpick the factoids. CNN tries to close down Newsmax and OAN This very day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvIgrPi6Qw

Nor does it make Biden "a good person". And Harris after him, gets worse-er. I'd counted on Objectivists getting past the cult of personality and aesthetic feelings and focusing on the essentials. Trump and increasing American independence - or increasing socialism? What's it to be? (okay, too late, I know). This is Reason. This is a hierarchy of values.

The simplest, un-cynical explanation is normally best. If someone believes xyz is the truth, and it is not, he is not *lying* when he makes such a statement, he is just wrong. Fraudulent elections? Trump patently believed so, pursued all the legal possibilities, as was Constitutional and his right, and found that he was either wrong or he couldn't prove his claim. (More like the latter). I do not for an instant think he foresaw that some among the mob of supporters would break into the Capitol. To achieve what, exactly? A show of mass dissent by his supporters who had the right assemble is the least cynical explanation. Despite all the dire predictions by many cynics, e.g. Barack Obama, of having to drag him out of the White House with the Marines, Trump will hand over as I earlier said he would. But if any believe that Trump's motives were foul from the start, that America means nothing to him or was lesser to his personal ambitions, an ego trip, then it is ¬too¬ easy to believe the rest. Not me.

You could look it up, HD. I had not implied, I stated: " If you condemn one, you condemn both or stand to lose any moral credibility" - or something close. For me but not for thee, the double standard, has consistently been the mainstay of argument by modern (dare I say) Leftists and left media. I think they have no logical validation or moral right to that. So there's Kamala Harris shamelessly encouraging BLM/Antifa to keep going, right through the elections, and warning the public to "beware" (of 'peaceful' protests, mind: what's to beware of in those?). I call that intimidation of minds by force. Something akin to the Capitol invaders' actions.