Fingerquotes: Media Edition

Anytime they state a ‘fact’, put mental quotes around it.

The above video link is parked at 4:43, where they try to equate senior staff for Hillary’s campaign explaining how they commit vote fraud to ‘locker room talk’ like Trump’s pussy comments. This is, of course, absurd to the highest order. Everything that follows is an attempt to acknowledge and deflect from the fact that the DNC just confessed to 50 years of vote fraud.

“It does look damning, and we don’t know how big a deal it is. It’s just more garbage in what’s been a very ugly and divisive campaign. We don’t know if this was locker room talk, to coin a phrase, or whether this actually occurred.”

“It is sort of ironic, that they’re using the term barroom talk when they condemn Donald Trump for saying locker room talk.”

“Exactly, we don’t know how this video was gotten, how it was edited, there are so many unanswered questions to this story, so you need to start peeling the layers of the onion here. What I will say though, on the face of it, you see the story, it first appears on Breitbart, it confirms an existing negative narrative if you are so disposed to believe the Clinton Campaign is dishonest et cetera et cetera, it will do that. I think however this is a story that needs a lot more reporting on it, and the tape is quite disturbing, honestly.”

This is pure damage control.

Considering none of these clowns were calling for a more deep, thorough investigation of the Trump tape to make sure it was fair and nonpartisan, this is laughable. The New Media is exposing these people more and more as the partisan shills they really are, the the MSM is in full damage control mode.

How can they possibly claim that video of actual high ranking people admitting and explaining their illegal practices throughout the last 50 years is ‘barroom talk’? In legal parlance, this is called a ‘confession’.

This is what fascinates me about the Progressive left. As Scott Adams of Dilbert fame (also a trained hypnotist and author on persuasion, and one of the few who predicted Trump’s rise as the Republican Candidate from the beginning) explains, deflection and questioning the source of information first is a tacit admission of guilt. Like with the Wikileaks email dumps and the “Russian Hackers”, nobody is seriously claiming the information is false. It’s entirely ‘where did you get this?!’, which means that the asker believes the information to be correct and true, and is doing damage control after getting caught.

And yet, when faced with overwhelming and damning information, they double down and try to deflect the conversation back to the source of the information. Why?

Because it works if you don’t understand how persuasion works.

Let me illustrate. How often, when the media paints someone you haven’t heard of as a horrible racist bigot NeoNazi misogynist something-something-bad, do you go check out that person’s actual work? Or, do you just see the number of ‘news’ outlets that name them as a bad guy, and assume they must be right? Even though they use the exact same language about people you DO know and like falsely?

This is a cognitive bias issue called illusion of truth effect, which states “[t]hat people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.” There are also elements of Anchoring, which is “[t]he tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor”, on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information that we acquire on that subject)”.

It’s best explained thus: How many times have you seen a news article, TV show, etc. that completely misrepresented your chosen career path? The author displayed a complete lack of understanding about what it is you do, think, feel, etc? Now, how often do you just accept that same news article or TV show as accurate when it portrays a job you are NOT familiar with?

That’s cognitive bias at work. The “news” is objective, they said so. You know it’s not true in cases where you have great knowledge of the subject, but when it comes to things you don’t know about, you default to benefit of the doubt.

The best solution is to treat everything, EVERYTHING, the news says as false. If they say the sky is blue, GO CHECK. If they say someone is a horrible person, go read that person’s work or watch their videos or whatever devoid of media direction. They will always point you towards the most horrifically out of context quotes they can find, either for or against. They want to decide for you what to believe.

Don’t let them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *