Can the singers auditioning for Fox's
American Idol teach us about (conservative) human nature?
Watch the auditions, and undoubtedly you will see earnest twentysomethings who really, truly believe that they can be the show's next big star. And they really, truly cannot sing. Notes flat as a pancake or sharp as an elbow to the eye. No rhthym.
They plead with judges Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson:
I know I can sing!Their proof? They've been told by
biased sources. Their mother says so. Their friends say so. The drunks at the local bar's karaoke contest say so. They've seen today's popular singers, and they know that they have just as good a voice, are just as attractive, can dance just as well, have just as much stage presence.
Except they're wrong.
What can this teach us about (conservative) human nature?
Listen to conservative talk radio, or read most of the conservative blogosphere, and you'll find
political opinion built not on objective facts, but on more opinion.
On conservative talk radio, you are rarely presented with a basic set of objective facts, on which to build an opinion. Maybe the hosts don't trust their listeners?
What do you hear? Rants. Misinformation. Opinion based on opinion. Callers are echo chambers, saying how much they love the host and agree with everything they say. Callers who don't agree are shut out, or hung up on in mid-thought and then lambasted.
For example, on Monday's edition of Mark Levin's radio show, a liberal caller tried to ask a question about the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, President Bush's circumvension of it, and Levin's defense of Bush's action.
"Don't give me your talking points!" Levin yelled, then started a rant about how liberals don't "get it." How sad that Levin's argument is so weak that it can't withstand testing from a caller's question. Facts? Who needs facts when you have opinion?
It reminds me of the Billy Joel
song,
Everybody Loves You Now.
Close your eyes when you don't want to see
Stay at home when you don't want to go
Only speak to those who will agree
Yeah, and close your mind when you don't want to knowMaybe someone should sing that on
American Idol!
Similarly, you find unattributed opinion on most conservative blogs -- comments such as "We all know how (fill in the name of a hated liberal) thinks." Sweeping false statements about how liberals are "un-American," "anti-troop," or "hate Bush." When there is attribution, it most often is to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative talk radio hosts, Charles Krauthammer, Byron York or Bill Kristol editorials, something written in a conservative magazine, the
Washington Times or
New York Post, or transcripts of what President Bush, Vice President Cheney or their spokesmen say.
Conservatives no doubt will respond: Isn't that what JABBS does? But it's not.
Yes, JABBS posts are opinionated, but they are based on what should be accepted as objective facts. JABBS posts --- to use a phrase coined by a commenter -- are "link happy," meaning that they provide access to original newspaper articles, television transcripts, congressional testimony, government reports and other sources of objective information.
You don't see JABBS repeating comments from Air America Radio or
The Nation ad nauseum. It would just be JABBS' opinion of their opinion. In fact, look at JABBS' archives, and you'll find
negative comments directed at Air America's Randi Rhodes and Janeane Garofalo, liberal columnist Tina Brown and Wonkette, to name a few.
In other words, you may not agree with JABBS, but accept that you have been given a chance to study the objective information leading to JABBS' opinion. JABBS trusts its readers to decide whether to agree. The conservative "media"? Not so much. They'd rather be like those dreadful
American Idol rejects -- in a bubble of agreement, free of objective fact.
***
This item first appeared at
Journalists Against Bush's B.S.