Who Needs Facts When You Have Faith?

 Sen. Marco Rubio Doesn't Know How Old the Earth Is, But He, "Knows What the Bible Says"

by Tyrone L. Heppard

   I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably have to say it a billion more times before I die: We need to keep our religious views out of domestic policy-making. I’m not saying this because I think that religious folks can't make decisions. I’m saying it because when you have someone who is in the position of representing a constituency and they’re trying to run for public office, we can’t afford to have people passing legislation based on their favorite parable or Bible story. When this takes place, strange things happen.

   Case and point: Sen. Marco Rubio. The republican from Florida was being interviewed by GQ Magazine’s Michael Hainey when the question of the Earth's age came up. I read the full interview and in Rubio’s defense, the question did seem to come out of nowhere. But it's still a simple question, “How old do you think the Earth is?”

   The Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old; everyone generally knows that to be true. The earth is round, it revolves around the sun, it’s the third planet in our Solar System and it’s 4.5 billion years old. These are facts.

   What did Sen. Rubio say? Well, he could have said, “4.5 billion years old. Next question.” He could have said, “Hmm. I don’t know exactly – I know it’s old though; probably a couple billion years old.” But he didn’t. Instead, he said this:

Sen. Rubio, how old is the Earth? It's okay. We'll wait...

   “I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”

   There are plenty of issues with this statement; issues that should concern people who like to think of themselves as rational and educated. I’ll begin with the first part that stood out to me. It was the bit where Rubio said, “I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”

   Really, Marco? That’s like someone coming up to me and saying, “Hey, Tyrone! What do you think two plus two is?” In which case I turn around, smile smugly and respond, “I’m not an accountant, man. I’m not a mathematician. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.” The age of the Earth isn’t unknown or up for debate. It’s a solid, concrete answer that is widely accepted as fact. If someone asked me to add two and two and I came up with 47, they would promptly direct me towards the nearest calculator.

   But Rubio doubles down on this “lack of qualification” response to a well-known fact by saying, “I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.” No it’s not, Marco. You might not know and that’s fine, but everybody else does. Hell, I even saw Pat Robertson’s crazy Christian self on Fox News saying this:

"F**k you, Rubio! You're making us all look stupid!"

   “You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”

   Look him up if you don’t know who he is, but my point is that if this guy says you should know better, Sen. Rubio, you should know better. It seems that you no longer have to vehemently deny science to gain the support of the Christian right anymore; even these guys get it now. I mean, we still need to have a very long, public discussion about how the Earth got here, but we all agree that it got here about 4.5 billion years ago.

   The final thing that bugged me about Sen. Rubio’s ridiculous answer to the equivalent of a 4^th grade science test question was when he said, “I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.” Eh... sure; maybe literally speaking. I don’t think anyone’s expecting an economic bailout from the cosmos.

   But keep in mind there are people currently holding office in this country who have the same views as Sen. Rubio. What happens when they start throwing money towards far-right Christian groups who want to take evolution out of schools or drastically cut spending in the areas of science and technology because whatever the Bible says or doesn’t say about these things is good enough?

  Which leads me back to my original statement: we need to keep our religious views out of our domestic policy-making. We saw what happened when Rubio failed to do that when asked a simple question from a reporter. What happens when a similar but more important question is asked by the American people to a Congress or a president that has the same lack of discipline as Rubio? 

Nothing good. And I can assure you of that just like I can assure you the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? The Final Post

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 6: Mandate of the Fourth Estate

Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein looking straight gangsta in All The President's Men

by Tyrone L. Heppard

So there we have it: there is no media bias, only the myth of one. Conservatives are the ones who are saying it; and not even because they believe it. It’s a political Rubix cube: they use the liberal media bias myth because they know it’s impossible for the average Joe to prove or figure out. At the same time, it helps improve their image and legitimacy to the middle-of-the-road voter and even to the rest of the conservative base. How they get all those colors to line up on different sides of the block I may never know.

Fortunately, the advent of the internet has increased the ability individuals have to find out what's going on in the world around them. For this simple reason, it will be interesting to see just how much the people buy into the biased liberal media argument when people have access to all of this information that tells them otherwise.

When it comes down to it, though, it has been (and will continue to be) good journalists doing their jobs effectively who call out the crazy, ridiculous, offensive and untrue things that will no doubt come from both sides of the aisle. If you or someone you know is seriously considering becoming a member of the Fourth Estate, personally, I think there are a few things that any good journalist who is worth their weight in salt should keep in mind.

See?! Lois Lane gets it; and she's a fictional character!

Number one, as a journalist, your first obligation is to the truth; your first loyalty is to the people. A good journalist always keeps in mind that what they are a part of is a discipline of verification. If you work for print media, don’t try to impress us with your words; you’re not writing a novel. If you work for a TV news outlet, just remember the people care less about your hair and make-up and more about what’s coming out of your mouth; I’m talking to you, Brooke Baldwin….  

Next, there should never (I repeat; NEVER) be a reason a journalist can’t fairly and accurately report a story. It’s as simple as that. I don’t care what side of the aisle they’re from. I don’t care what god they worship. I don’t care what news outlet the work for. Objectivity is the heart of journalism; it’s where reporters get their credibility and what little power and influence they have. The day that we can’t expect a journalist to tell us the whole story is the day we need to start taking a look at the people cutting them a check. If you find yourself working for someone who won’t allow you to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I suggest you hand them your papers of resignation.

Journalism: It's fantastic!

Finally, the media is the Fourth Estate; I know I say that a lot, but it’s important, dammit! The whole reason they’re here is in order to make sure that our government functions the way our forefathers intended and to hold people accountable when it doesn’t. They are the steward of the people and the watchdog of the government. That’s why I always find it funny when people like the Media Research Center label themselves as a “media watchdog”. Often times we find that the people who accuse the media of needing a babysitter are the ones who should probably be getting monitored in the first place. A journalist is an independent monitor of power; they’re supposed to be the only watchdog all of us ever need.

Even though there are people like Rupert Murdoch who claim that their power and responsibility don’t lie with them, we have people like Julian Assange who are willing to take the heat for doing what all of these media outlets were supposed to be doing in the first place: verifying facts and telling the truth.

I believe that as long as there is someone willing to do something shady enough to get ahead, there will be someone gutsy enough to call them out on it. That’s what being a journalist is all about; and it’s going to take a lot more than some baseless claims and rhetoric to put an end to that. Sorry, GOP.

So, hey! Conservatives! You listening, Hannity? You hearing me, Limbaugh? Coulter! Malkin! Reince Preibus?! Why don’t you stop it with the liberal media bias defense? Not only does it make absolutely no sense; it’s getting old, it’s not working and, quite frankly, it’s a little sad. I’m sure you’re all decent people who have some pretty strong convictions, but there’s no way in hell you believe that line about a liberal media. You know better than that, right?

So listen, if you’re looking for me to offer up some political advice or some kind words after a tough loss to a democrat, you’ll get none of that from me. However, if you guys do reinvent your brand, clean up your image, and win a few important elections in the future, I can promise you that I will be there to report on it; fairly and accurately – no matter how much I’ll most likely hate doing every second of it. You have my word.

  

Tommorow: Nothing! ‘Cause we’re done! THANKS FOR READING! DON’T FORGET TO COMMENT!

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? Part 5

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 5: Anatomy of a Calamity

"My own party spent millions to stop me from becoming the nominee AND Obama has the support of nearly every demographic in the country? Oh, this is going to be bad. Really, really bad."

By Tyrone  L. Heppard  

   At this point, it’s pretty much clear that there is no such thing as a media bias; there’s only a small group of people with power who would like the rest of us to believe there is a bias and that it is slanted in favor of the left. But even though the people generally don't buy it, that didn't stop the Romney campaign from trying the same stagnant excuse his compatriots have been using for decades.

   Anyone who followed Romney’s struggle (and that’s truly what it was – a struggle; I believe “rolling calamity” is the term being thrown about now) leading up to him becoming the presidential nominee should’ve noticed one thing. As far as the media is concerned, not even liberals were going out of their way to paint the former governor of Massachusetts in a bad light; he did a fantastic job all by himself. Let’s take a look back shall we?

   From off-color comments like, “I enjoy firing people” and, “I’m not worried about poor people”, to calling Russia our greatest political foe in the world, liking the height of Michigan’s trees, and saying 47 percent of Americans don’t take personal responsibility for their lives, Mitt Romney had portrayed himself as the less-than-desirable GOP nominee for a while.

"I got $10,000 that says you'll never see me again if Obama wins..."

   It’s interesting to see how the republican base did everything they could to try and distance itself from Mitt Romney just to end up stuck with him anyway. After all, in Romney, we see a Mormon (weird enough already…) who had to deal with trying to show the differences between a health care plan he instituted as governor and President Obama’s (because it looks an awful lot like the one republicans are complaining about right now). 

  He had to stick up for the wealthy (because almost every American was at one of the hundreds of Occupy protests last year addressing the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us), and he had to support fighting a possible war with Israel against Iran (even after a majority of Americans said they’re sick of war and want their friends a family back; provided they weren’t killed in combat).

   To any political junkie, it’s clear that the Mitt Romney isn’t your traditional republican candidate, and even if you don’t have conservative viewpoints, you have to be impressed with the way that Romney bumbled and stumbled his way to the GOP’s nomination.

   With that being the case, most of us would agree that earlier on, the Romney campaign needed to bring their base together before they started worrying about how to unite the country. And, at first, it seemed like they found a way to do that. They decided to go to that old stand-by: the liberal media bias.

   It was actually a brilliant plan. For a “non-traditional” republican like Romney looking for the support of the party, nothing says you’re a conservative more than blaming the left when you say/do something a majority of the people (or, of your party for that matter) don’t agree with while you’re in front of a news camera.

Romney probably realized this soon after Rick Santorum dropped out of the race and, like any good republican; he tried to play up the liberal media bias angle. 

   On conservative Andrew Breitbart’s radio show in April he said, “Many in the media are inclined to do the president’s bidding. I know that’s an uphill battle we fight with the media generally, but fortunately, there are other voices… which have, in many cases, a lot more credibility.”

I totally would have used this as my official presidential photo

  What’s funny is that Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism’s polls show that from January 2, until April 15 – when he made those remarks – Romney’s coverage had been 39 percent positive and 34 percent negative. President Obama would have no idea what that felt like, seeing as how at that point, there wasn’t a single week where positive coverage for him outweighed the negative. How did this happen? The answer shouldn’t be that surprising. It turns out that it was due to all of the republican candidates (including Mitt Romney) bashing the president at their televised campaign stops and during all of those televised debates.

   You remember the republican debates, right?! The debates the ‘liberal’ media would hold three to four of in one week (during prime time hours). The debates with campaign stops in between where the ‘liberal’ TV news outlets would broadcast live for 15-20 minutes and air random clips from throughout the day. The debates and campaign stops that the ‘liberal’ media frequently took sound bites and talking points from; the ones they talked into the ground with pundits for hours and hours. Those debates and those press campaign stops. Plus, the whole Supreme Court-challenge-to-a-healthcare-bill thing didn’t help Barack Obama either.

   On top of that, data shows that out of all the republicans running for president, the media treated Romney the best. Go Figure! Pew Research says that Romney was treated most favorably while Santorum was treated just as bad as Obama. Newt Gingrich only got positive coverage after he won South Carolina (but that only lasted a week), and Ron Paul?

   Well, the media barely covered Ron Paul, and that might sound like liberal media bias. However, if you do some research on what Ron Paul stands for and what a traditional conservative believes in, it wouldn’t be hard to understand why politically nobody even want to acknowledge him: Ron Paul and the republican base have virtually nothing in common and some of his views were a little too extreme for even the bluest of liberals.

   With this helpful data from Pew Research we learned that the myth of a liberal media bias is a fundamental part in hiding the fact that there isn't a media bias. In addition, we’ve learned that as a conservative, it’s you’re duty to say that you’re a victim of the “leftist propaganda machine”, even if it’s treated you pretty well.

  So now that future journalists know that they are probably going to be accused of working for hippies and communists for a majority of their careers, they should remember that their job isn't just to tell us stories; it's to deliver the truth to the American people as often as possible.

Tomorrow: Part 6: Mandate of The Fourth Estate

What He Really Thought of Your Halloween Costume

 By Bryant Clark

This is a first in a series about insight into the heterosexual male perspective for the sake of the lady folk. This is not your typical feel good Cosmo advice so buyer beware. Don’t think of it as advice as much as helpful hints when dealing with the heterosexual male variety.

Our first order of business regards how men view female Halloween costumes. To understand how men view the costumes you first need to understand how men view Halloween itself.

Halloween is a grand opportunity to show off not just your body but also your personality (no bullshit). Men want to see your tits, this is true, but what you choose to dress as will speak volumes to the men around you. What you have to understand is that, for men, Halloween costumes are almost completely synonymous with role-playing costumes (you know...like sex). Because of this, what you choose to wear will impact the snap, almost unconscious judgements that men will make about your sexual personality.

For example, if you showed up in the bedroom dressed like a power ranger, you’re either weird, not secure enough to wear a sexy outfit, or you’re cool as hell... just not all that sexy.

If you role-play as a school girl, you might be smart and you probably like to be spanked.

If you role-play as a cheerleader, you’re probably really enthusiastic, you love to yell out things in the sack, you love attention...and you LOVE the penis.

And while we’re at it... don’t be a cat. On Halloween, a guy sees cat ears and thinks BORING or at the very best generic. The costume that is too safe shows lack of commitment and lack of confidence.

Also, a word to the wise- don’t be too specific. On Halloween, a man’s easiest conversation starter is talking about your costume. If you’re some hot character from some obscure comic book or something, not knowing the reference will make us feel stupid. Men hate feeling stupid.

All in all you want to play to your strengths. Choose a costume that fits part of your personality. If you can, develop a character to pretend to be all night; or at least until you get too drunk to pretend anymore. That’s super sexy.

Again, we assume it means you can role-play not just in costume, but acting in character as well. Honestly, what could be better? But don’t over think it. Don a tight white dress with red lip stick and call yourself Marilyn Monroe; guys will eat that shit up.

To review: sexy baby? Not sexy. Sexy cop? Super sexy. You get the idea....

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? Part 4

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 4: "Manufacturing Consent"   

by Tyrone L. Heppard 

   According to conservatives, the media bias stems from the liberal attitudes of the journalists and reporters who write the news. That would mean that the power structure flows from the bottom up, and the presidents and CEOs have no responsibility for the content of the news it provides people.  

   This line of thinking is ridiculous for two reasons. Number one, the major TV news outlets are owned and operated by some of the most powerful multi-nationals in the world. To say companies like Disney and General Electric have the bulk of their power concentrated at the bottom rather than at the top is highly unlikely. Like it or not, the television news industry is a business, and any business attempting to run things in this fashion would fail almost instantly.

It's a sick sad world we live in when Mickey Mouse is a corporate overlord

   Also, just like most successful businesses, TV news outlets are run by conservatives. This is what’s expected from Fox News, but CNN, ABC, CBS and even MSNBC are all run by conservatives; people who are on the same page as William Krystal, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter and Frank Luntz. All of these folks are very opinionated, very famous and, of course, very conservative.

   Now, “The Myth the Liberal Media” is a documentary released in 1998 and it’s based off of a theory posed by MIT’s Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman from the Wharton School of Business.  Justin Lewis of the University of Massachusetts backs them up as they examine the major TV news outlets and explain how and why the owners of media outlets find it necessary to keep up the illusion of a liberal media bias.

   Chomsky would agree with conservatives when they say the media elite works to promote an agenda, but it is hardly liberal. Instead, the goal is to perpetuate the myth of a liberal media so people are distracted from what those at the top of the power structure are doing while making sure the bottom line isn’t affected – just like any other business.

   We all know that the media play an important role, not just in the lives of citizens, but in the way that they influence in the democratic process. Not only does the news tell us what we should be concerned about, it tells how we should feel about these things. TV news outlets are extremely important in this process because they’re usually the primary source people use to base/back up their opinions.

Because the media has this ability to shape our opinions and influence the way we think, one of the first questions we must ask ourselves is if the information that we are receiving is coming from a neutral source. Is it a source with a varying range of opinions and viewpoints, or does it tend to promote the interests of some, while ignoring the voices of others?

   Unfortunately, it looks as if the latter is true, and according to the experts, those who say there is a definite liberal media bias do this regularly. The Herman-Chomsky theory suggests that not only is there no evidence to prove that a liberal media bias exists; but that if there is a bias, it’s blatantly coming from those on the right or those who find themselves right of center. Chomsky explains:

"No! That's a bad dog! I'm the Decider!"

   “There’s been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion – ignore it totally – and to eliminate it by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you’re saying is false; that’s what power means.

   And the way you assert the opposite is by just saying, “The media are liberal”. Now the question we discuss is are the media too liberal or are they not too liberal. Now that we’ve narrowed the agenda to the one acceptable question, “Are the media too liberal”, let’s have a look at the way it’s argued. If you want to show that, you would look at the media product and you would try to demonstrate that it reflects a slant or distortion supporting a liberal agenda.”

   He goes on to say that once this question is the one dominating the conversation; there is no way to show a liberal media bias exists, let alone to prove a news organization is promoting one effectively. “Nobody does this; that would take a little work,” says Chomsky. “And besides if you did it, you’d immediately fall on your face because it works the other way. So what’s done is to produce a proposal which is so idiotic that you have to wonder at the cynicism of the people who are it putting forth and their contempt for the population.” Sounds a lot like Romney’s 47 percent comment, right? Don’t worry; I’ll get to that later.

 The proposal that Chomsky is referring to here is exactly what we did in Part 2; referencing the way that journalists tend to vote. Even though there is a tendency for journalists to vote democratic, it tells us nothing about who controls the media output. With that being said, whether a TV news outlet is liberal or conservative is irrelevant for two reasons.

   One, it doesn’t matter if a journalist is a democrat or a republican; they are still a part of the same institutional structure. They are parts of the whole that make up our socio-economic base known as capitalism. It doesn’t matter if the person holding the microphone voted for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama this year. If she works for CNN, her job is to boost CNN’S ratings. Period.

   Secondly, according to Herman and Chomsky, the question we really need to be asking is not how liberal (or conservative, for that matter) the media is, but does the media actually have the ability to freely express opinions from whatever source objectively?

   Chomsky and Herman would say, “No.” This is because conservatives have been propagating this idea of a liberal media bias for so long people are starting believe that what we hear from reporters is actually controlled by those reporters; not the owners and advertisers and conservative think tanks who work with them. As Lewis says in the documentary, that’s, “a bit like saying the workers on the factory floor decide what the car industry produces”.

   The experts in the documentary also talk about “filters”. By this, they mean that with so much information out there, it’s impossible to talk about all of it, so it’s up to the people putting the news together to decide what is going to be a part of the news for that day and what’s not. That’s not the problem; in fact, that’s to be expected from anyone working in the news business.

   The real problem becomes apparent when we ask that specific question: “is the media free”? We find out that in most cases it’s not, and that while conservatives swear up and down there’s a liberal tilt in the media, the real bias is coming from the people who own the media outlets and the advertising firms that do business with them. The CEOs and public relations guys are the ones making the rules; journalists are forced to play by them.

Tomorrow: Part 5: Anatomy of a Calamity