whYNOT

First off, YOU apparently are not representative of the mass of readers. When it comes to evaluating the Press, one must also consider the general effect on the public, how they would digest it. Following that, it's clear as day to me that any such causal link was UNintended by the paper's headline. A diverting side-play for intellectual-types, one which would be of embarrassment for WaPo to be accused of - especially by Muslims: E.g. "Are you implying that studying Islam MUST lead to violence?!" No, unless the paper has changed its Leftist spots recently, it is too p.c. for that. Don't get over-complicated, the easy explanation should often be first. This was a simple headline to grab everyone's attention, not a thesis. Once in a while and fairly regularly, every media outlet (even my worst, the infantile, obviously slanted CNN) must "do something right" - and/or report a story well, accurately and reasonably impartially. Else, they'd lose credibility and never be believed again by anyone sensible (for times when they -do- wish to play down/exaggerate some news item).

"Acknowledged" - to whom? To themselves? They know better than anyone that radical Islamicism does have violent consequences. The Press receives many more reports daily of incidents than any of us gets to hear about. Acknowledge to the public? They did not and would not. They simply tried to play down Al-Baghdadi's savagery with euphemisms. The Left's 'narrative' has long been firmly on the side of 'the victim' against 'the 'oppressor' meaning elevating Muslims, as a whole, over Christians. (Etc., etc. for any groupings they select). Shame, looks as if they don't have much more purpose to live for... You plainly prefer the convoluted version explaining the headline as WaPo cleverly linking "austere scholar" to "brutal terrorist". That's patently false, unintended by the newspaper and nobody who saw the headline could accept it that way, though I better understand your resistance in this matter. It's hard to stomach that a once trusted media is trying to dupe and manipulate you into the victimhood narrative, isn't it?

In this context, in a headline about a murderer, "austere" is lent ~positive~ connotations. Not unusual are an austere scientist, an austere philosopher - yes, ascetics. Aquinas could accurately have been said to be "an austere, religious scholar". There are many (austere) Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist scholars who don't kill, nor exhort their followers to do so. In their bid for PC apologism, WaPo disingenuously evaded admitting the man's essential nature.

You "addressed" unconvincingly, evidently. Pay attention, yourself. "An austere..scholar " Is INESSENTIAL - and evasive - information in a headline about a mass killer. If you don't see that I can't help you. You don't like the example, make up more. I can't spoon feed you. Imagine the headline "Hitler, the austere artist, is dead". This corresponds, no? In her article Ms Qudosi, does know: It is all about political correctness and hypocrisy, which you seemingly defend by defending the WaPo. Muslims and ex-Muslims made note of the headline, commenting on the hypocrisy of how Islam is treated by the media. Since the start of the war on Islamist terror, the American public has repeatedly had it drummed into their heads that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that terrorists aren’t following “real” Islam. Any message deviating from the this mainstream mantra was punished, including when I challenged what I call “fantasy Islam” (that Islam is only peace) during a congressional hearing on radical Islam in which I testified.

It's not simply about moral judgment, at the very least readers, rightly, expect essential, non-evasive, facts from a reputable newspaper. Headline: "Adolf Hitler is dead" - a fact, without moral judgment. "Adolf Hitler, the global visionary, is dead" - fact-evasion ... and implied moral judgment prejudicial in Hitler's favor.. These contrived, nuanced omissions by media is how "fake news" got its well-deserved notoriety. They don't convey the full story, deliberately .

https://clarionproject.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6f33facd52316b5c258168da6&id=8190a18c92&e=9ccf966c8c

I wouldn't say "nobody" is capable, but consistency (of thinking for themselves) is lacking in many, I estimate. Yeah, bad philosophies (and ethics) have taken a toll and come home to roost. The right and the left aren't much different really, but if I am particularly hard on "Leftism" it's because it seems to me those who follow it, the philosophy, ethics and politics, represent the clearest, present danger to us all. Look on the bright side, an Objectivist is highly, I'd claim, uniquely, equipped to cut through the cultural-political confusion/doubts and gain much certainty--if only for himself (and a few others that matter). Although this is a low point, the war always goes on and there's a definite limit to how much one can fight in it, that doesn't defeat one's highest purpose of leading a damned good life.

You missed what I and others have indicated is most important. The Post's headlines were deliberately misrepresentative of the person in question. They didn't as much explicitly deceive as describe completely inessential details about him, i.e. deceit by omission. He was a vicious killer, period. Therefore, the paper actually did make clear their own "value judgments" - by playing down his doings in the headlines! Result, the justifiable satirizing and lampooning WaPo got. People noticed their evasion and laughed at it. If one has to ask why the Washington Post could evade the only true details that count, the answer is in the question. And yes, headlines generally have been and will always be somewhat dramatic, to attract sales, and one has to accept it and make sure not to be unduly influenced. Newscasters emoting on live TV is another thing altogether. You seldom refer to the bulk of what I write and quibble on minor points.

A news headline is one's first encounter with the story. As such, it has a large significance on a reader's first take; if the facts are simple: e.g. X is dead - he has already and instantly made his value judgment and responded with pertinent emotions (which ones: relief, pleasure, sadness .. etc.). Knowledge is hierarchical, and is, the purpose of a headline, hierarchically-gained. After which one can dig into further and lesser facts, depending on one's interest. Here's the thing to explain how the WaPo headlines were irrational, untrue, and fundamentally amoral. It is not what they articulated, it's what they *didn't*. Where are the words "barbaric" - "murderous leader" - "a fitting end" - "a killer's reign of terror" - I can come up with several headliner's which are fitting to the facts, as anyone can. Again, this moral evaluation of the man is widely uncontroversial and entirely rational. Not a complex issue. Instead - the editors took the equivocal, ambivalent approach, as if this was some innocuous, average world figure who'd died. The editors always anticipate what they are doing, I reiterate. A daily paper which has 2 or 3 editions a day, will often adjust the headline 'message' over the editions according to how popularly/heatedly it has been received, and-or as the story develops. But in the mean time, WaPo have printed their soft/appeasing approach to the story, but could bury it and modify it later as they felt the wind was blowing. Similar to the NYT recently which prominently published an obviously anti-semitic cartoon. Do you think they didn't realise in advance the outcry it would cause? And, knowing in advance that they would pull the cartoon after the reactions, and publish a half-assed apology? Notice, they still managed to get their virtue-signal, critical of Jews, across to millions of readers. Maybe you see that the main point is NOT about including a value-judgment in the headline - that happens too, like the Post's compromised wording - but how it is ingested, relating to an individual reader's own value-judgment. More so in recent decades the publisher-editors in mainstream media are becoming highly pro-active, being greatly aware of their (self-assumed) 'moral responsibility' to 'guide' the public into 'a better way'. Of course that's dangerous. There never was true 'objectivity' in news-gathering - time constraints, space shortage, competitiveness, editorial bias, (as is their right) and many factors (like showing a profit) worked against that. A newspaper is simply another product. Newsmen have tacitly understood that objectivity is a myth; one American journalist admitted something like - objective news is beyond our powers, but, we must concentrate on accuracy. Huge inroads by small, independent, social media platforms are showing the public just how misinformed - even manipulated - they have been lately, with all that 'moralized' and skewed news reportage from the big media. That is mainly where your "loss of trust" has come from, I think. One has to be sickened by anchor people on (especially) CNN and its like, who shamelessly display their outrage, mockery, disbelief, sarcasm, and other emotions live on screen, sensationalizing various news items and so, influencing - they must believe - a viewer's mind.

A fair explanation of how morally dependent are leftists on their politicians and media masters.

Meanwhile, back in the real world... Focus on the facts, eh? What is the "fact"? Baghdadi is dead. The rest is details. According to you, one should now await to read the article before knowing how to evaluate how good/bad the fact is! And too, which emotions will follow. For anyone who respects life, the headline is the fact AND the value-judgment. A simply savage, inspirational leader is dead. Great, one less. "Should not". Private newspapers have every right to print and convey in the headlines their particular judgment, to appeal to readers' emotions and they do so all the time, blatantly or subtly. That's how they sell copies. Reader beware. Editorial decisions reflect the owner-publisher's policies, ethics, politics, etc.. Headlines are *very* carefully worded by editor and sub editor to these ends, so there's nothing accidental here. This case is clear, morally - anything but condemnatory headlines is a joke. You can't be oblivious to how biased was the Post's pussy-footing head-liner attempt to NOT portray al-Baghdadi the only way he deserved, harshly.

Headlines do not only inform, they can and do convey moral judgments. Why not, here, when it's incontrovertibly appropriate? One of the most brutal leaders in modern times - by what his acolytes did, killing, torturing, enslaving people in a large region, and by how visibly they promoted their savagery - receives, um, objective, headlines in one of the world's influential newspapers?? Neutral treatment of evildoers equates with promoting evil. The rational and just reader should expect undiluted condemnation from all the western media. That's what "objectivity" entails. So predictable of the far Left recently. Morally relativist, deterministic, sacrificial and value-skeptical, almost nihilist. With no standard of value by which to evaluate anything or anyone - barring "the people" (while extremely selective about which group of "people" to support and whom not). In effect: How do we know Baghdadi was *so* bad after all - perhaps he was a little over-zealous, maybe brought on by a poor and austere upbringing, and of course he could hardly help hating the West, we know how evil were the Westerners' prior actions which determined his radical responses, and we need to curry favor with the power and huge numbers in Islam - anyway, who are we to judge?

Humorists are having a field day with obituaries. My attempt: Adolf Hitler, the artist, writer, charismatic speaker, uniter of his people, animal lover and vegetarian, dead from overdose; aged 56.

Right, and also it does no favors for those Muslims who openly and bravely oppose such persons, nor many others who quietly do not endorse terrorist savagery. I'd think that's exactly why they originally left where they were and came to the US, only to see appeasement of evil there too, from some media.

I know equivocation and apologism when I see it. This was a blatantly thin attempt to play down this scum's doings, not offend anyone, not invite retaliation, not grant your President any credit, etc.. And no, anyone can see how many news editors now believe that readers do have to be pointedly shown how to feel about any issue. More, that it is their public duty to do so. Don't give me objective and factual. You know full well that if the paper targets anyone they can't stand, the headlines would be screaming. The Post has dropped a long way from when it was held up to those of us as the best in the business.

Do they not realize that "head of ISIS" means he was, individually, the most brutal killer of all of the terror gangs? But no, let's not mention facts in a newspaper.

The unctuously appeasing WaPo. Good riddance to an evil bastard.

Well no, Rand said: "man's life is the standard of value". You could say everyone knows what you mean, but one has to be accurate, and one can't be sure about how experienced are all readers here. (It goes to prove, to those who were critical of Rand being a little quoted earlier, that wrong versions of what she actually wrote *might* be taken for granted, and then wrongful premises - like the subject of this topic - aren't corrected, are accepted, and a sort of drift sets in). Another error up thread was: "man's life is the standard of morality". But here's where and why Rand began at the fundamental of ethics: Values. "What is morality, or ethics?" "It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions". And - "*Why* does man need a code of values?" So what are values and why are they essential to the life of man and individual? Which ~particular~ morality that anyone chooses does not enter, at this stage. I think one first has to run through... man being the one species which *appreciates* values, can have a standard of value, is capable of values (reason, purpose, self-esteem, etc.) must choose values, can *make* values and, even, can *be of* value. Not least, for whom his collected values in a value-hierarchy are non-negotiable for a good and fulfilling life. Therefore, he, 'the self-value', must be the recipient of all the benefits of all the values he utilizes, identifies, creates, struggles for, has to maintain (etc.) That answers the burning question of any ethics: "Who benefits?" Which can be seen to be redundant. The ("moral") actor and the beneficiary must be one and the same person, in moral justice. (Roughly as Rand put this in the VoS Intro, and again, long-time readers are urged to get reacquainted with).

There are I think two tremendous errors and bad consequences of accepting "one's own life is the standard of value". One is the circular illogic of applying one's own standard of value to one's own *value". (And losing any standard). The other is applying one's life as the standard of value - to others. Which means one sets the benchmark of value by one's life for what other individual lives and their values, must match. On one hand, an individual could end up in self-conflict, anxiety and confusion - subconsciously knowing he's living in self-contradiction. On the other, one may turn to "Nietzschean egoism": whatever I say goes. Whatever I choose is good. A possible additional side-effect being second-handedness. Hard to tell which is worse, they are both equally self-less outcomes. Morally, they boil down to self-sacrifice -or- sacrifice of others.

The whole thing starts wrong with not applying the law of identity to man. With the premise that consciousness and one's own mind do not also have specific identity. The very first of which is its autonomy. Staying with just that single attribute, autonomy dictates that one can *only* be mind-independent. In dismissal of the "is/ought dichotomy", a man must act according to, and to the extent of his nature, using all his attributes: rationality, reason, free will, especially. From the identification of the attributes of "man" given to us by an objective metaphysician is how most individuals arrived at identifying one's own capacities. Few ever could achieve that by introspection and induction, nor a lifetime of observation of individual men. That outlines the necessity of a metaphysics, in this case the absolute reality of "man" and man's life. Switching to value - again, the all fits the one. What is one's and one's life-value is anything but arbitrary, subjective, intrinsic. Individual value - explicitly - comes about by one recognizing the "standard of value" (man's life) - to repeat, based upon the identity of those capacities man has. This abstract principle is nothing to fret about in one's daily, general living and pursuit of values, as I see this. E.g. "Am I - properly - living up to the standard of value, man's life?" It 'only' needs to be grasped and acknowledged, (as with the abstraction "reality" denoting every instance of reality). When explicitly recognized, and at times, revisited, the subconscious mind admits and holds that as a guiding principle for one's value-choices .

Yes yes. LIFE. Do I have to repeat goal-directed action, self-generated, etc, etc, in every post? You can read it higher up.

Back to basics. You guys need some revision, from page one: "The first question that has to answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any system of ethics, is: Why does man need any values at all -- and why? "Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all--and why? "Is the concept of *value*, of "good or evil" an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality--or is it based on a *metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man's existence? (I use the word "metaphysical" to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence)." p,1 The Objectivist Ethics. Etc. Right up to and beyond: "...holds man's life as the standard of value..." If there are sensible objections to Rand's justification, fine, I will be glad to hear. If there's agreement, then we agree on the basics, and can dive a little deeper. But we all should know the basics first, not garbled versions from secondary sources, or subjective reproductions that look good. "Independence" means not much, when one has subjective 'standards' of egoism.

This topic concerns "objective value" - derived from objective reality. *Which* value-system is the essential grounds for defining and creating a morality. I.E. Of value to whom? (The three theories of value you should know). Your tree theory is fine as far as objective fact goes; apparently you think the O'ist ethical theory offends or contradicts the utter uniqueness of every individual (which he/she is). That's badly mistaken, and a metaphysical -> individual error again. Further, you are seemingly confusing "personal" with "subjective".

I don't need to search for previous examples of that erroneous interpretation. You are seeing them here. And it's increasingly clear that I have been quite well understood. The reactions demonstrate this. Thank you for the writing advice. You always did worry too much about style over substance.

There's something one takes for granted on an Objectivist forum, that the distinction between an abstraction (man's life) and the concrete (an individual life) will be grasped. That one makes the conceptual connection from one to the other. *Of course* one's morality is individualistic and real to one, as one's life and being is real and concrete; arbitrarily throwing in "fundamentally" and your comments raises the doubt you know what metaphysical fundamentality means. "Man's life" = Fundamental to man and man's existence, according to the nature of his consciousness (consciousness, too, has identity) and the nature of existence. That's my (independent) assessment of the phrase, open to criticism. Therefore - fundamental to ALL men and all individuals. You, otoh, think that "morality" relates to either the individual or the group of people and society. (Even implying altruism...). So you pose a false dichotomy in your question. I suggest the social conception of "men" and "society" stems from universalism rather than a proper metaphysics of man. Before you irrelevantly get down to anyone's "psycho-epistemology and sense of life" you need to understand the abstractions involved here. I have been accurate to Objectivism, I think, but I don't see you being critical of Rand's "sense of life" in her ethics conception. Where do you believe Rand has her ethics wrong? More likely, where do you think you've misinterpreted her? I'll give it again: "The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the STANDARD of value--and HIS OWN LIFE as the ETHICAL PURPOSE of every individual man". (AR's italics).