Bias

I just read about the shelving of a glossy, monthly publication put out by the U.S. state department. The publication, Hi Magazine, was meant to influence the Arab world so that it would look more favorably on America. Its shelving obviously means that it failed in its mission of propagandize to the Arab world.

What came to mind as I read about this magazine's demise is the idea of bias. I was wondering whether this is an example of conservative bias. Is it conservative bias that did it in? After all it was put out by a conservative administration, anxious to gloss over its rock bottom image. Maybe bias is not the right word to use to explain its demise. But one definition of bias is the idea of being misleading. Another is the idea of something being warped. Why this magazine failed is because it appeared to be slanted and dishonest. The Arab world saw through its bias and ideology, finding it misleading and warped.

Conservative bias is what did in this magazine. Liberals never would have attempted this kind of bias. Liberal bias is more open faced and up front in comparison to conservative bias. Conservative bias in this case presented a whitewash and the Arab world saw it for what it was.

There is something sad about this publication, with its conservative viewpoint. It is sad that it was even considered necessary to publish such a glossy propaganda piece. There was a time when America didn't need this kind of sleazy self-promotion. America's image used to be a positive one. But since the neocons took control of the government, declared war on Iraq and have pushed their weight around, America's image has taken a beating around the world. There is a mean spiritedness, self-righteousness about the present conservative administration in Washington. And the world feels it. The sad thing, and also naive, is that these conservatives thought they could gloss over America's tarnished image with a glossy, bias publication.

A UCLA study has revealed the extent of the liberal bias in the media. It is overwhelmingly liberal. Conservatives say, see we told you so and say that this doesn't bode well for news gathering and reporting. According to them liberal bias in the press distorts social values and doesn't reflect the true nature of things. Well, I would say the opposite is true. I would say that the press is meant to be liberally biased because if it was conservatively biased the true facts about life wouldn't come out and we would have more useless publications like "Hi Magazine". It is the conservative bias in the press that does not reveal the true nature of things. That is why many of them want to take over the press, because they want to hide reality and paint pretty pictures instead.

The conservative bias and propagandizing displayed by the "Hi Magazine" episode reminds me of another time, of communist and totalitarian regimes. To get out their distorted, fabricated message those regimes would 'spin the word' and gloss over reality so as to remain in power. History shows that trying to corner and control politics and society in such a way inevitably fails. Not only do we have a front row seat viewing such a failure occurring again with the demise of Hi Magazine but also with the unravelling of the neoconservative agenda and ideology in Washington. Liberal bias may be exaggerated. But this exaggeration is really a defense mechanism against the persistent attempts of totalitarian, conservative bias to take control. Liberal bias, in a sense, is the guardian of the truth.

Bias in the media will always exist. Liberal bias, though, is preferable to conservative bias any day because it is more open and unvarnished. It also deals with the underbelly of society, something most conservatives would rather not expose. And by not wanting to expose reality, like the realities of Aids and homosexuality, conservative bias often has made things worse by covering things up, glossing them over and being in denial. Overall, liberal bias takes more kindly to being challenged about its claims than conservative bias, making for a more spirited dialogue.

The publication of Hi Magazine is an example of the naivety of conservative bias, thinking that it can improve the world through childish and parochial antics. To make the world better conservatives should be more outward and open-minded, like liberals and their bias.

Hypocrisy - "Evolutionists for Stalin"

I just finished reading an article entitle "Evolutionists for Stalin". Sounds a lot like “Spring time for Hitler.”

The article blames Darwin's theory of evolution and its materialism for the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler. I find that a mighty stretch. I also find a liberal bashing behind the author's conclusion. As a traditional conservative he believes the bulk of societies ills are due to liberal ideas. Darwin's theory of evolution, in traditional conservative thinking, is a liberal idea, responsible for the atheism that led to fascism, tyranny and a whole host of other problems that have befallen humankind.

Hitler and Stalin acted on something Darwin theorized? One might just as well blame the second law of thermodynamics for their atrocities. That excuse was used in the French Revolution.

I had to read the article again because I was amazed at its conclusion. In a sense its argument passes the buck. It is not like traditional conservatives to blame a doctrine or theory for somebody’s criminal actions, as in this instance. Under conservative thinking people are supposed to be responsible for their own actions. According to conservatives, people are the source of their own criminality, not society in general. However, conservatives recently have been doing what they accuse liberals of, blaming a particular social order for their own failings.

I say that conservatives have failed and are hypocritical because they didn’t try hard enough to stop Hitler or Stalin in their nasty deeds. Conservatives are the ones who didn’t want to enter WW2, an entrance that could have tackled fascism and totalitarianism at the outset.

It was a conservative, a conservative!, Herbert Spencer, who first twisted Darwin’s theory and applied to the social order. He is the one who said that life is about 'the survival of the fittest', not Darwin, as many believe. He was the one, who drew it from Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory, as we know from reading here, traditional conservative detest. However, conservatives rallied around that mindset once, as a template for organizing society. As I said, that idea suited them once. They thought it would help create the ideal society. Now I understand that is not the way they think because that idea has caused too much brutality in the world. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Conservatives in America detest FDR for having introduced socialistic policies, in the form of the New Deal. He wanted to make a better society than the survival of the fittest conservative dogma offered. So he enacted the New Deal. With it he wanted to temper the harsh consequences of a survival of the fittest society. To this day conservative detest the New Deal because of its attempts to level the playing field between rich and poor. In contrast Hitler and Stalin continued their conservative thinking in their adhered to the conservative dogma of the survival of the fittest. On this side of the Atlantic many conservatives admired Hitler and insisted in not getting involved in WW2 to stop him. They thought he was creating a model society. Sounds hypocritical.

It is the conservatives in America who wanted to continue doing business with Hitler. In so doing they were essentially appeasing him. According to conservatives, appeasement is supposed to be a liberal failing. They always go on about how we liberals are appeasing the terrorists by criticizing the war in Iraq. And they continually point to Neville Chamberlain and how he appeased Hitler by negotiating with him instead of declaring war. Ironically, Chamberlain was a conservative. I guess this is another example of how hypocritical conservatives can be because they are also capable of appeasement.

It is farfetched to say that Darwinian thinking was responsible for Hitler and Stalin’s atrocities. It is as farfetched as thinking that Bush type thinking - hubrisic, self-righteous, unilateral, isolationist, was responsible for 9/11. Come to think of it, I do think that type of conservative thinking was responsible for 9/11. It brought it on with its mean-spiritedness, shallowness, lack of insight and ideological fervor.

I wonder what caused humankind’s atrocities before Darwin came along? I suspect conservatives might say they were caused in anticipation of Darwin.