By Selwyn Duke
It really is a shame when a media watchdog has a twisted nose that mistakes putrescence for floral aroma – and vice versa. In a piece published Monday, self-proclaimed media watcher MediaMatters (MM) criticizes Fox News for running the supposedly "misleading headline": "Cambridge, MA set to Pay Gay Employees More Than Straight." MediaMatters takes issue with Fox because the headline doesn't explain that the reason for the measure is to compensate homosexuals for a tax that married couples don't have to pay.
Of course, a headline is a hook, designed to draw readers in, not an explanation. But Fox offered no such explanation – at least that's what MM leads its readers to believe. The attack dog writes that Fox "excerpted an article from The Daily Mail, which has a similarly misleading headline. However, the Daily Mail article clearly explains that the city is offering gay employees a stipend to offset a federal tax that does not apply to straight employees." The Daily Mail "clearly explains" this, so, obviously, Fox doesn't.
Except that it does.
Fox's very first sentence is, "A Massachusetts city will start paying its gay employees a stipend so it can offset an unequal federal tax." In fact, Fox devotes five of the six sentences in its piece to this explanation.
Notice that MM is smart enough to not actually lie, instead relying on implication. It juxtaposes two media outlets, Fox and The Daily Mail, without mentioning that they offered the same exact presentation (headline serving as introduction followed by elaboration). Then, by mentioning that the Mail has "a similarly misleading headline" while crediting the paper for "clearly" explaining the policy, it leads the reader to think that Fox does not. It's the Big Lie technique.
And it works. Many readers will be so appalled at Fox's supposed deception that they'll never bother to click through to the news outlet's article and learn that it is their trusted (mainstream) media lap dog, with its title "Fox Nation Takes Another [sic] Shot At Stirring Up Anti-Gay Outrage," that is peddling propaganda.
In contrast, Fox's headline is wholly accurate. In journalism, there is that old guide stating that you should explain the who, what, where, when, why and how of a story. Well, Cambridge will be paying its homosexual employees more, and the higher pay scale is the "what." And whether or not the "why" justifies the "what" is secondary.
Yet leftists often confuse – and want to confuse others about – the "what" when it makes them uncomfortable or is contrary to their agenda. For example, I once was talking to a very liberal woman (a mistake, I know) and the topic of discussion brought us to a point at which it was necessary for me to cite the higher crime rate in minority neighborhoods. As soon as I did this, the woman shifted her lips into high gear and peppered me with reasons for it; it was "social causes" this and "environment" that. And there might even have been some truth to her explanation, but it was nevertheless off-topic. The woman was obviously so uncomfortable with the truth in question that she instinctively wanted to run over the "what" with the "why." But the "why" should never obscure the "what." And if you won't meet the "what" face-to-face, there's no reason to believe you can reliably diagnose it.
As for leftist "watchdogs" such as MM, there's a good reason why they lie:
Because the right generally doesn't.
While there are exceptions, the right is more likely to seek Truth and be accurate in its reportage and commentary. Thus, the left can't demonize the right without using deception.
And the left does this without batting an eye. As I often point out, leftists are relativists, meaning that they don't believe in Absolute Truth. Because of this, the Truth means nothing to them, and they lie like they breathe. And the more relativism has imbued them on a visceral level, the more they'll be able to lie without compunction, without reservation, without guilt.
This mindset is hard for many people to grasp. After all, the average person isn't a moral philosopher; he may not even be able to define moral relativism. But the Truth likely occupies a special place in his mind. Oh, he may sometimes lie, but he nevertheless senses that Truth possesses special value.
To a hard-core relativistic leftist, there is no Truth, only "truths." And a person's "truth" is just his own perspective. It thus possesses no special status. This failure to recognize transcendent Truth – that great author of morality – causes the leftist to become his own source of right and wrong. His desires then take on the character of Truth in his own mind, and, consequently, whatever contradicts them takes on the character of a lie. This is what enables a leftist to condemn those who speak the Truth as liars. They have contradicted the only god the leftist knows – himself.
