It's genuinely alarming how conditioned so much of the US population is to equate skepticism toward the pronouncements of media corporations with mental illness:
"If you don't instantly accept what Wolf Blitzer and Andrea Mitchell claim, then you're a crazy conspiracy theorist."
This happened often during Russiagate: I got texts/DMs/emails from younger journalists inside big media corporations thanking me for being skeptical. They couldn't. One Twitter mob against them for questioning Dem narrative (see @DashaBurns or @BoKnowsNews) can be career-ending.
So who do we lecture about the 9th commandment here?
It seems journalists are the ones bearing false witness by hiding the true story here.
Just like with all things Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia, Covid, and numerous other issues. Journalists lie to us every day and say untrue things about people. Maybe someone in the industry should be calling their co-workers out for it, in order to be consistent mind you….
“Paul Pelosi Attack – Follow The Evidence, Not The Media Spin
The evidence will reveal the truth, the media will not (at least not before the midterms). This supposed MAGA perp “lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree.””
“According to initial reports, Paul Pelosi, the husband of Nancy Pelosi, was the victim of a hammer attack by a man to broke through a back door to attack him, and said he wanted to know where Nancy was. Sounded really simple, at first, an attempted political attack. And maybe it will end up being so, but history tells us to wait for the evidence to come in, and not to rely on politicized media spin.
The Pelosi attack set off a media feeding frenzy immediately terming it a “right wing” or MAGA attack, part of the supposed political violence spurred by demonization of Nancy Pelosi.”
“It “might” be that simple, but I doubt it. We’ve seen this movie before, where supposedly simple facts turn out not to be so simple, and “right wing” motives turn out to be otherwise.
Most recently we’ve seen the Jusse Smollet hoax, and a slew of other politicized hoaxes. In some cases hoaxes mean the violence never happened (Smollet), in others there was violence but the motive was not as portrayed in the media, such as mentally incompetent delusional Jared Loughner’s shooting of Gabby Giffords (which had nothing to do with Sarah Palin’s electoral map, contrary to media claims).
Michael Brown was shot and killed, but not while his hands were up while pleading “don’t shoot” (Brown was shot because he punched a policeman and tried to take his service weapon). Trayvon Martin was not shot because he was wearing a hoodie (NBC News doctored the 911 call to make it appear Martin was targeted because of his race. Martin was shot while beating George Zimmerman Mixed Martial Arts style in what the jury found to be legal self defense). Those cases altered the trajectory of this nation’s politics based on media malpractice and malfeasance all tainted by politics.
In every one of these cases the dominant mainstream liberal media misreported facts and processed everything through a political lens. In 2013 I wrote how At Boston Marathon as in Newtown, initial media reports almost entirely wrong. Do not believe anything the mainstream media says if it is part of a political spin, until the evidence comes.
In the earlier days of Legal Insurretion we covered a lot of these cases, what I called Failed Eliminationist Narratives:
It started with Bill Sparkman, the part-time Census worker who went missing and then was found dead, setting off an avalanche of mainstream media and left-blogosphere accusations that he was the victim of anti-government “right-wing” hate. It turned out that Sparkman killed himself, but there were few if any apologies coming.
The Sparkman accusations were based on nothing more than a desire to demonize the newly formed and rapidly growing Tea Party movement as terrorists and un-American. It was as if they were hoping for an act of Tea Party violence.
Yet there was a theory behind the madness, the Eliminationist Narrative created by Dave Neiwart of Crooks and Liars about an “eliminationist” radical right seeking to dehumanize and eliminate political opposition. It was a play on the over-used narrative of Richard Hofstadter’s “paranoid style” in American politics.
The Eliminationist Narrative was aided and abetted by an abuse of the term “right-wing” to include groups who are the opposite of conservatism and the Tea Party movement.
In the case of Sparkman, the accusations were just Another Failed Eliminationist Narrative. And the Eliminationist Narrative would fail time and time again:
James Holmes
Jared Loughner
The Cabby Stabber
The “killer” of Bill Sparkman
Amy Bishop
The Fort Hood Shooter
The IRS Plane Crasher
The Pentagon Shooter
We can now add the Boston Marathon Bombing to the pile. The wild speculation that there was a Tea Party or “right-wing” connection proved false.”
——
The media leads the field in the lying, bearing false witness, and slander categories. Sorry, that’s the truth.
I see the police are now saying there was no third person. Rumors abound. What the police say is different, of course. When different things are said at different times more rumors start. It is a strange situation. It would be nice to be able, at some point, to hear the details from the person who was attacked and the police who were there. The immediate finger pointing against one party or the other is disgusting.
@8:19: Seeing flat-out rumors here is what was being discussed. I’ve since seen those same rumors on other social media platforms to they are making the rounds. Unbelievers will do what unbelievers do.
As Christians we should remember our higher calling always, even when the mud flies all around us in an especially ugly political season.
That said, we are all guilty of breaking the commandments pretty much every day. All of us. It’s our fallen nature, we haven’t escaped that, none of us.
But writing out a post allows us a unique opportunity to think about what we’re saying first, to check ourselves.
When we spot ourselves taking delight in others’ downfall, real or rumored, that should give us serious pause.
And maybe we don’t spread the rumor any further than it’s already been spread.
AJ – It doesn’t matter what the media does, or what “leftists” do or say. We here on this blog are responsible for what we write and what we share. When we get to Heaven and give an account of ourselves before Jesus, “But others were worse than I was!” isn’t going to cut it.
And I apologize if last night came off as a “lecture.” I personally shudder to think every word I’ve ever uttered will be brought before me at the judgment.
I’ve never once saw you defend Trump from the obviously untrue stuff your industry pushed, such as the supposed pee tape.
Your industry gave each other awards, even pulitzers for stories that pushed such lies and slander.
Where’s the accountability from you guys?
And you know I might take what u ladies have to say about being careful about what u say when it’s not proven true if either one of u had ever once told Ricky the same as he spread lie after lie about Trump, with the aid of DJs industry.
But you didn’t, because u too desperately wanted it to be true, like Ricky.
It rings hollow. Sorry.
And reporting what the media is saying isn’t us breaking the 9th, it’s simply a presentation of the news.
Problems arise when folks dont acknowledge they were wrong when the facts come out.
Like the entirety of mainstream media continues to do to this day.
I have plenty of criticism about the media and have stated, including on this blog, that the media was unfair in the way it covered Trump.
The media, frankly, is in shambles right now and that’s not good for any of us. Just look at Twitter.
But there are still reliable media sources and we have to do the work to seek those out.
The media will change when it changes, it’s a free enterprise and I, personally, (lol), have no control over that.
I am a careful and fair journalist to the best of my ability (we’re all flawed and have our biases). I’m not sure what more you want from me, personally?
As for the 9th commandment, we as believers need to take special care in that being applied with our own words. We’ll all mess up, it comes with the territory of our own natures.
But when I recently re-read the Westminster standards on that commandment, it was pretty eye-opening.
See Questions 143-45 in this link, for those interested in what is a very full treatment.
As for media, I now just try to stay away, for the most part, from the “talking head” opinion programs on either side as they’ve come to dominate too much when it comes to TV journalism. Right wing, left wing, it’s all spin for those shows (or websites) though some opinion guests are much better than others — I like a mix of views, with calm, reasonable folks opining — too often it’s the opposite.
Twitter can be helpful, if one follows fair and reasonable people (my opinion) who are not crazy-into one side or the other. I don’t trust those sources. And Twitter is full of that.
Fox has some good straight news programs, CNN also has those now again, too. We should take most everything with a little grain of salt, however — or sometimes a shaker-full from certain sources.
We now have media outlets that both hate and love Trump, he’s evil incarnate or he can do no wrong, ever.
Neither does the public any favors.
Dispassionate, even detached media has been the best model in our lifetimes, in my view. But those days, for now, are gone and we as a people and a nation need to find a way not to just spiral down into either despair or anger.
And not to believe everything we see or hear, the more salacious the better — and then pass it on and spread what may or may not be true to boot. And that takes us back to the 9th Commandment.
Is there more to the Pelosi story? Maybe, probably?
But just grabbing the latest rumor that supports our personal political bias and then sharing it as fact, becoming talebearers? — that’s a problem, especially for us as believers.
I can’t control the “media empire.” I can control what I say and what I share.
AJ – Quite frankly, I didn’t take the time to read all of what you and Ricky wrote about Trump. And no, I don’t “want” bad things to be true about him or anyone else I dislike or disagree with. Not at all. In fact, it saddens me that so many people DO seem to rejoice in the bad things that happen to those they dislike or disagree with, or in pointing out their failings.
As I have said before, what you haven’t seen is the number of times that I DID defend Trump against false stories on posts on Facebook. (Referring to friends’ posts that you would not have seen.) So often in fact that one friend said that I must be a Trump supporter since I defended him so much.
As for “And reporting what the media is saying isn’t us breaking the 9th, it’s simply a presentation of the news.”
Yes, it is bearing false witness, if someone shares a piece that is merely speculation or rumor. I would go so far as to say that that is so even if the speculation turns out to be true, because the person would not have known that for sure at the time the story was shared.
I will admit that in years past, I have shared or written things that go against what I have said here. But since then, I have grown and matured in my understanding of what the Bible has to say about how we treat others, the things we say (verbally or written), and the words we use, among other matters.
But even if I or DJ were complete hypocrites and went around sharing false stories that impugned the reputations of the public figures we dislike, that would not negate what we have tried to point out about not bearing false witness.
Please stop blaming DJ for what the rest of her industry does. She is doing the best she can, and is not responsible for those who don’t. She has expressed her own disappointment with what is happening in the news business.
One Politico writer is blaming "the political right" for spreading conspiracies, based on information first reported by Politico. Do real journalists understand that?
I don't care if errors happen and are later corrected if it's done in a transparent ethical way. I care that journalists are saying people are spreading conspiracies that THEY reported in their own outlet and blaming the people who read that information. It's mind boggling.
And the matter shared yesterday was not from a reputable news source, but was rather speculation that had gotten lets on … yes, Twitter. Actually posted initially by Elon Musk as a possible explanation he’d “heard” so he passed it on.
Even if true, do we share it — pass it on eagerly, I’m talking we as individuals here — because it’s salacious and is about someone we dislike politically? I think that still is a problem, personally. We are to guard reputations and not spread either falsehoods or details of things that are true and shameful.
Now I did today see a news outlet refer to the latest Pelosi rumor and they managed to do so without blaring out the sordid details (of what we still don’t know is true). That was a good way to handle it at this stage, I thought, and I commend them for doing it. And if one truly must make reference here, if they are personally so persuaded, there is a way to do that in a similar format.
It apparently can’t be ignored as it’s been spread so far and wide now.
But again, for my personal convictions, though I do and will violate it naturally in my own fallenness, my guide and rule is the 9th Commandment.
I suspect that much of the Pelosi dust-up with this latest rumor is a case of trying to find a way to blame the victim.
Sadly, that’s to be expected in our political climate. What if this were a conservative Republican family? Yeah, the left would be doing the same and folks on the right would be fighting back.
We should always honestly test our own motives on these memes that get spread so viciously (and with such glee, apparently).
~ The Justice Department charged the man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a pair of federal charges stemming from the Friday morning assault that stirred fears of politically motivated violence during the midterm elections.
Federal prosecutors charged David DePape, 42 years old, with assault and attempted kidnapping in connection with the break-in, writing in court documents that the attacker brought with him a roll of tape, white rope, zip ties, two hammers and other items. Mr. DePape told police he was going to hold Mrs. Pelosi hostage and was going to “break her knee caps,” according to court documents. Mrs. Pelosi was in Washington, guarded by a security detail.
“DePape articulated that he viewed Nancy as ‘the leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party,” the documents said. He later told police that by “breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions.”
The assault left Paul Pelosi, 82 years old, with skull fractures and other serious injuries and put members of Congress on edge. … ~
DJ, what are the shows on Fox and CNN that you consider straight news? Not asking to criticize or critique, just curious as I’ve stopped watching their news for the most part.
Debra
Both networks offer news coverage, usually during the day, but Fox has an hour at 9 p.m. ? weeknights. Weekends also have some news programs on Fox, Bret Baer is the primary anchor for those, but also John Stott?
CNN also has news in the later evenings.
I wish both offered more of that.
The Sunday news with Shannon Bream on Fox is good but I usually miss most or all of that due to church (I think it comes on at 11 a.m.). She typically has a mixed panel (these days mostly political consultants and observers from both sides, some journalists) who, I think, offer some good and informed perspectives and insight.
The Journal Editorial Report (at 3 p.m., I think, Saturday/Sunday, but I think I get it earlier due to the time difference) is also worth watching on Fox. That leans conservative, as does the editorial board of the WSJ, but participants offer a calm and reasoned look at issues, with not always the same outlook.
I’m not as familiar with the specifics on CNN, it’s more of my default — whenever a talking head comes on, a Hannity or a Tucker, on Fox, I’ll typically switch up to CNN to see if they’re offering just news coverage — and sometimes they are!
In the first news item; its entirely possible a bunch of kids lit a Fetterman sign on fire, took 101 pictures and posted the best ones on various platforms. Eventually someone who had connections with the Fetterman campaign shared it. For anyone to think it was almost impossible for the photo to be taken at the right time and for the Fetterman campaign to find it, has no idea how some people under 30 are connected.
As for the rest of the thread, its bearing false witness to insinuate where there is no evidence. It’s quite clear that some on the right side of the internet wish to stretch the truth and information to turn this into a sordid tale, after all, its San Francisco.
The free enterprise nature of news networks is partly to blame. First there’s the imperative to tell the story as soon as possible so your network gets eyeballs to the screen. Second, each network has their demographic audience and they will need an angle to any news story to appeal to the core demographic. IF FOX won’t give the right the bias they want, there are some fringe “news” sites that will. Given this people should all wait 24 hours before making or believing claims. The WSJ bends right and the NYT is centrist (in my opinion) but they usually get things right. CBC and BBC, funded at arms length from the gov’t, also usually get things right.
The legal insurrection AJ posted claims the media is getting the story wrong but not based on the facts on the ground but because the media didn’t follow the author’s narrative in previous stories. The media makes mistakes therefore this story is also a mistake is not a logical argument or conclusion.
A free media requires a good deal of responsibility, on the part of news outlets and on the general public to be discerning.
I recently read though our own company’s standards which are very strict when it comes to reporters engaging in any kind of partisan politics, to the extent of not signing petitions or putting bumper stickers on our cars (and watching our own social media activity which can easily be discerned as biased in certain instances).
Those kinds of policies are helpful for us. The more we are reminded of our own “observer” role, the more we see the world and events through that lens and can better write about issues and candidates.
Some reporters in the past (maybe now, too, I don’t know) by their own personal choice abstain even from even voting.
We all want free expression to be truly free. But we also have a responsibility, especially those of us who are Christians, to be very careful about how that is used.
It will be abused, but that’s the price, of course. Giving another entity oversight power to say what can or can’t be published is a very dangerous road.
It’s part of the challenge social media sites like Twitter are grappling with in an age that’s become hyper-partisan, unfortunately.
It’s not a site I go to for reliable news tips generally, it’s a mishmash of mostly the more extremist partisan voices — depending on whom you choose to follow, of course. It offers mostly opinion in short, often rude “blasts.”
It pretty much displays what’s gone wrong with our political culture and public discourse these days.
Elon Musk is quickly forming a group of advisers, investors and employees from elsewhere in his business empire to help reimagine Twitter in his first days as its new owner https://t.co/LuklaKupAY
Wandering Views 
I love the smell of desperation in the morning…. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So who do we lecture about the 9th commandment here?
It seems journalists are the ones bearing false witness by hiding the true story here.
Just like with all things Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia, Covid, and numerous other issues. Journalists lie to us every day and say untrue things about people. Maybe someone in the industry should be calling their co-workers out for it, in order to be consistent mind you….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exhibit A.
“Paul Pelosi Attack – Follow The Evidence, Not The Media Spin
The evidence will reveal the truth, the media will not (at least not before the midterms). This supposed MAGA perp “lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree.””
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/10/paul-pelosi-attack-follow-the-evidence-not-the-media-spin/
“According to initial reports, Paul Pelosi, the husband of Nancy Pelosi, was the victim of a hammer attack by a man to broke through a back door to attack him, and said he wanted to know where Nancy was. Sounded really simple, at first, an attempted political attack. And maybe it will end up being so, but history tells us to wait for the evidence to come in, and not to rely on politicized media spin.
The Pelosi attack set off a media feeding frenzy immediately terming it a “right wing” or MAGA attack, part of the supposed political violence spurred by demonization of Nancy Pelosi.”
“It “might” be that simple, but I doubt it. We’ve seen this movie before, where supposedly simple facts turn out not to be so simple, and “right wing” motives turn out to be otherwise.
Most recently we’ve seen the Jusse Smollet hoax, and a slew of other politicized hoaxes. In some cases hoaxes mean the violence never happened (Smollet), in others there was violence but the motive was not as portrayed in the media, such as mentally incompetent delusional Jared Loughner’s shooting of Gabby Giffords (which had nothing to do with Sarah Palin’s electoral map, contrary to media claims).
Michael Brown was shot and killed, but not while his hands were up while pleading “don’t shoot” (Brown was shot because he punched a policeman and tried to take his service weapon). Trayvon Martin was not shot because he was wearing a hoodie (NBC News doctored the 911 call to make it appear Martin was targeted because of his race. Martin was shot while beating George Zimmerman Mixed Martial Arts style in what the jury found to be legal self defense). Those cases altered the trajectory of this nation’s politics based on media malpractice and malfeasance all tainted by politics.
In every one of these cases the dominant mainstream liberal media misreported facts and processed everything through a political lens. In 2013 I wrote how At Boston Marathon as in Newtown, initial media reports almost entirely wrong. Do not believe anything the mainstream media says if it is part of a political spin, until the evidence comes.
In the earlier days of Legal Insurretion we covered a lot of these cases, what I called Failed Eliminationist Narratives:
It started with Bill Sparkman, the part-time Census worker who went missing and then was found dead, setting off an avalanche of mainstream media and left-blogosphere accusations that he was the victim of anti-government “right-wing” hate. It turned out that Sparkman killed himself, but there were few if any apologies coming.
The Sparkman accusations were based on nothing more than a desire to demonize the newly formed and rapidly growing Tea Party movement as terrorists and un-American. It was as if they were hoping for an act of Tea Party violence.
Yet there was a theory behind the madness, the Eliminationist Narrative created by Dave Neiwart of Crooks and Liars about an “eliminationist” radical right seeking to dehumanize and eliminate political opposition. It was a play on the over-used narrative of Richard Hofstadter’s “paranoid style” in American politics.
The Eliminationist Narrative was aided and abetted by an abuse of the term “right-wing” to include groups who are the opposite of conservatism and the Tea Party movement.
In the case of Sparkman, the accusations were just Another Failed Eliminationist Narrative. And the Eliminationist Narrative would fail time and time again:
James Holmes
Jared Loughner
The Cabby Stabber
The “killer” of Bill Sparkman
Amy Bishop
The Fort Hood Shooter
The IRS Plane Crasher
The Pentagon Shooter
We can now add the Boston Marathon Bombing to the pile. The wild speculation that there was a Tea Party or “right-wing” connection proved false.”
——
The media leads the field in the lying, bearing false witness, and slander categories. Sorry, that’s the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see the police are now saying there was no third person. Rumors abound. What the police say is different, of course. When different things are said at different times more rumors start. It is a strange situation. It would be nice to be able, at some point, to hear the details from the person who was attacked and the police who were there. The immediate finger pointing against one party or the other is disgusting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@8:19: Seeing flat-out rumors here is what was being discussed. I’ve since seen those same rumors on other social media platforms to they are making the rounds. Unbelievers will do what unbelievers do.
As Christians we should remember our higher calling always, even when the mud flies all around us in an especially ugly political season.
That said, we are all guilty of breaking the commandments pretty much every day. All of us. It’s our fallen nature, we haven’t escaped that, none of us.
But writing out a post allows us a unique opportunity to think about what we’re saying first, to check ourselves.
When we spot ourselves taking delight in others’ downfall, real or rumored, that should give us serious pause.
And maybe we don’t spread the rumor any further than it’s already been spread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ – Exactly.
AJ – It doesn’t matter what the media does, or what “leftists” do or say. We here on this blog are responsible for what we write and what we share. When we get to Heaven and give an account of ourselves before Jesus, “But others were worse than I was!” isn’t going to cut it.
LikeLike
And I apologize if last night came off as a “lecture.” I personally shudder to think every word I’ve ever uttered will be brought before me at the judgment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you did not address my point.
I’ve never once saw you defend Trump from the obviously untrue stuff your industry pushed, such as the supposed pee tape.
Your industry gave each other awards, even pulitzers for stories that pushed such lies and slander.
Where’s the accountability from you guys?
And you know I might take what u ladies have to say about being careful about what u say when it’s not proven true if either one of u had ever once told Ricky the same as he spread lie after lie about Trump, with the aid of DJs industry.
But you didn’t, because u too desperately wanted it to be true, like Ricky.
It rings hollow. Sorry.
And reporting what the media is saying isn’t us breaking the 9th, it’s simply a presentation of the news.
Problems arise when folks dont acknowledge they were wrong when the facts come out.
Like the entirety of mainstream media continues to do to this day.
LikeLike
I have plenty of criticism about the media and have stated, including on this blog, that the media was unfair in the way it covered Trump.
The media, frankly, is in shambles right now and that’s not good for any of us. Just look at Twitter.
But there are still reliable media sources and we have to do the work to seek those out.
The media will change when it changes, it’s a free enterprise and I, personally, (lol), have no control over that.
I am a careful and fair journalist to the best of my ability (we’re all flawed and have our biases). I’m not sure what more you want from me, personally?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As for the 9th commandment, we as believers need to take special care in that being applied with our own words. We’ll all mess up, it comes with the territory of our own natures.
But when I recently re-read the Westminster standards on that commandment, it was pretty eye-opening.
See Questions 143-45 in this link, for those interested in what is a very full treatment.
https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/larger-catechism-questions-141-150/
LikeLiked by 1 person
So where did that 3rd person story come from?
Wasn’t the right,but it was one of the usual suspects…
Police the media, they’re were this idea came from.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As for media, I now just try to stay away, for the most part, from the “talking head” opinion programs on either side as they’ve come to dominate too much when it comes to TV journalism. Right wing, left wing, it’s all spin for those shows (or websites) though some opinion guests are much better than others — I like a mix of views, with calm, reasonable folks opining — too often it’s the opposite.
Twitter can be helpful, if one follows fair and reasonable people (my opinion) who are not crazy-into one side or the other. I don’t trust those sources. And Twitter is full of that.
Fox has some good straight news programs, CNN also has those now again, too. We should take most everything with a little grain of salt, however — or sometimes a shaker-full from certain sources.
We now have media outlets that both hate and love Trump, he’s evil incarnate or he can do no wrong, ever.
Neither does the public any favors.
Dispassionate, even detached media has been the best model in our lifetimes, in my view. But those days, for now, are gone and we as a people and a nation need to find a way not to just spiral down into either despair or anger.
And not to believe everything we see or hear, the more salacious the better — and then pass it on and spread what may or may not be true to boot. And that takes us back to the 9th Commandment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there more to the Pelosi story? Maybe, probably?
But just grabbing the latest rumor that supports our personal political bias and then sharing it as fact, becoming talebearers? — that’s a problem, especially for us as believers.
I can’t control the “media empire.” I can control what I say and what I share.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ – Quite frankly, I didn’t take the time to read all of what you and Ricky wrote about Trump. And no, I don’t “want” bad things to be true about him or anyone else I dislike or disagree with. Not at all. In fact, it saddens me that so many people DO seem to rejoice in the bad things that happen to those they dislike or disagree with, or in pointing out their failings.
As I have said before, what you haven’t seen is the number of times that I DID defend Trump against false stories on posts on Facebook. (Referring to friends’ posts that you would not have seen.) So often in fact that one friend said that I must be a Trump supporter since I defended him so much.
As for “And reporting what the media is saying isn’t us breaking the 9th, it’s simply a presentation of the news.”
Yes, it is bearing false witness, if someone shares a piece that is merely speculation or rumor. I would go so far as to say that that is so even if the speculation turns out to be true, because the person would not have known that for sure at the time the story was shared.
I will admit that in years past, I have shared or written things that go against what I have said here. But since then, I have grown and matured in my understanding of what the Bible has to say about how we treat others, the things we say (verbally or written), and the words we use, among other matters.
But even if I or DJ were complete hypocrites and went around sharing false stories that impugned the reputations of the public figures we dislike, that would not negate what we have tried to point out about not bearing false witness.
Please stop blaming DJ for what the rest of her industry does. She is doing the best she can, and is not responsible for those who don’t. She has expressed her own disappointment with what is happening in the news business.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
And the matter shared yesterday was not from a reputable news source, but was rather speculation that had gotten lets on … yes, Twitter. Actually posted initially by Elon Musk as a possible explanation he’d “heard” so he passed it on.
Even if true, do we share it — pass it on eagerly, I’m talking we as individuals here — because it’s salacious and is about someone we dislike politically? I think that still is a problem, personally. We are to guard reputations and not spread either falsehoods or details of things that are true and shameful.
Now I did today see a news outlet refer to the latest Pelosi rumor and they managed to do so without blaring out the sordid details (of what we still don’t know is true). That was a good way to handle it at this stage, I thought, and I commend them for doing it. And if one truly must make reference here, if they are personally so persuaded, there is a way to do that in a similar format.
It apparently can’t be ignored as it’s been spread so far and wide now.
But again, for my personal convictions, though I do and will violate it naturally in my own fallenness, my guide and rule is the 9th Commandment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And how do we “police” the media, exactly? And do we really want to do that? Who would you put in charge of doing that? The government?
Me (lol)?
Cute phrase, but meaningless in a free society. (Not to mention a little scary if it’s meant seriously.)
Democracy isn’t easy as we’re finding out in spades. Its survival depends on people taking personal responsibility.
So we start there perhaps, going back, we as Christians, to our primary source in how to live and best treat one another.
Politics should not divide believers despite our different opinions and viewpoints.
It’s not the most important thing. It just isn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect that much of the Pelosi dust-up with this latest rumor is a case of trying to find a way to blame the victim.
Sadly, that’s to be expected in our political climate. What if this were a conservative Republican family? Yeah, the left would be doing the same and folks on the right would be fighting back.
We should always honestly test our own motives on these memes that get spread so viciously (and with such glee, apparently).
LikeLike
For ‘just the news,’ here’s what we seem to actually know as fact, at this point:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-prosecutors-charge-man-accused-of-attacking-paul-pelosi-11667243665?st=fqe7398qy8sqtcx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
~ The Justice Department charged the man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a pair of federal charges stemming from the Friday morning assault that stirred fears of politically motivated violence during the midterm elections.
Federal prosecutors charged David DePape, 42 years old, with assault and attempted kidnapping in connection with the break-in, writing in court documents that the attacker brought with him a roll of tape, white rope, zip ties, two hammers and other items. Mr. DePape told police he was going to hold Mrs. Pelosi hostage and was going to “break her knee caps,” according to court documents. Mrs. Pelosi was in Washington, guarded by a security detail.
“DePape articulated that he viewed Nancy as ‘the leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party,” the documents said. He later told police that by “breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions.”
The assault left Paul Pelosi, 82 years old, with skull fractures and other serious injuries and put members of Congress on edge. … ~
LikeLike
DJ, what are the shows on Fox and CNN that you consider straight news? Not asking to criticize or critique, just curious as I’ve stopped watching their news for the most part.
Debra
LikeLike
Both networks offer news coverage, usually during the day, but Fox has an hour at 9 p.m. ? weeknights. Weekends also have some news programs on Fox, Bret Baer is the primary anchor for those, but also John Stott?
CNN also has news in the later evenings.
I wish both offered more of that.
The Sunday news with Shannon Bream on Fox is good but I usually miss most or all of that due to church (I think it comes on at 11 a.m.). She typically has a mixed panel (these days mostly political consultants and observers from both sides, some journalists) who, I think, offer some good and informed perspectives and insight.
LikeLike
The Journal Editorial Report (at 3 p.m., I think, Saturday/Sunday, but I think I get it earlier due to the time difference) is also worth watching on Fox. That leans conservative, as does the editorial board of the WSJ, but participants offer a calm and reasoned look at issues, with not always the same outlook.
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/journal-editorial-report
LikeLike
I’m not as familiar with the specifics on CNN, it’s more of my default — whenever a talking head comes on, a Hannity or a Tucker, on Fox, I’ll typically switch up to CNN to see if they’re offering just news coverage — and sometimes they are!
LikeLike
In the first news item; its entirely possible a bunch of kids lit a Fetterman sign on fire, took 101 pictures and posted the best ones on various platforms. Eventually someone who had connections with the Fetterman campaign shared it. For anyone to think it was almost impossible for the photo to be taken at the right time and for the Fetterman campaign to find it, has no idea how some people under 30 are connected.
As for the rest of the thread, its bearing false witness to insinuate where there is no evidence. It’s quite clear that some on the right side of the internet wish to stretch the truth and information to turn this into a sordid tale, after all, its San Francisco.
The free enterprise nature of news networks is partly to blame. First there’s the imperative to tell the story as soon as possible so your network gets eyeballs to the screen. Second, each network has their demographic audience and they will need an angle to any news story to appeal to the core demographic. IF FOX won’t give the right the bias they want, there are some fringe “news” sites that will. Given this people should all wait 24 hours before making or believing claims. The WSJ bends right and the NYT is centrist (in my opinion) but they usually get things right. CBC and BBC, funded at arms length from the gov’t, also usually get things right.
The legal insurrection AJ posted claims the media is getting the story wrong but not based on the facts on the ground but because the media didn’t follow the author’s narrative in previous stories. The media makes mistakes therefore this story is also a mistake is not a logical argument or conclusion.
LikeLike
A free media requires a good deal of responsibility, on the part of news outlets and on the general public to be discerning.
I recently read though our own company’s standards which are very strict when it comes to reporters engaging in any kind of partisan politics, to the extent of not signing petitions or putting bumper stickers on our cars (and watching our own social media activity which can easily be discerned as biased in certain instances).
Those kinds of policies are helpful for us. The more we are reminded of our own “observer” role, the more we see the world and events through that lens and can better write about issues and candidates.
Some reporters in the past (maybe now, too, I don’t know) by their own personal choice abstain even from even voting.
We all want free expression to be truly free. But we also have a responsibility, especially those of us who are Christians, to be very careful about how that is used.
It will be abused, but that’s the price, of course. Giving another entity oversight power to say what can or can’t be published is a very dangerous road.
It’s part of the challenge social media sites like Twitter are grappling with in an age that’s become hyper-partisan, unfortunately.
LikeLike
And Twitter, well, what can you say?
It’s not a site I go to for reliable news tips generally, it’s a mishmash of mostly the more extremist partisan voices — depending on whom you choose to follow, of course. It offers mostly opinion in short, often rude “blasts.”
It pretty much displays what’s gone wrong with our political culture and public discourse these days.
LikeLike
We’ll see where it goes from here …
LikeLike