A Responsibility to Honor the Truth

Of course, die-hard neo-cons will dispute all of this as lies, proving it is THEY who are un-American, not those they berate daily.

Read on:

Progressive Daily Beacon
Opinion Piece
A Responsibility to Honor the Truth
A. Alexander, October 8th, 2007

There are no shortage of ill-intended and manipulative people, most associated with today's extremist Republican Party, that like to remind us all that 'freedom ain't free'. An odd perspective considering the fact that 'inalienable rights' are about as free as free can be.... As usual today's radicalized Republican Party and the Conservative movement have reality exactly backwards. Freedom is as free as the air we breathe.... If something is 'inalienable' it is unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, not able to be forfeited, unassailable, incontrovertible, indisputable, and undeniable. It is free!

But that is the problem with today's fanatical Republican Party and militant Conservative movement: It is completely unmoored from reality and operates in a universe of lies and deceit of their own making, which they insist to be the truth.

The Republican Party's confusion couldn't be greater. They honestly don't understand that freedom is indeed, free. However, with freedom, as with great power, comes great responsibility. And that is what today's fringe Conservative movement and extremist Republican Party fail to understand.

One cannot walk into a crowded theater and, under the guise of free speech, scream fire when there is no fire. Such an act could lead to people being trampled and killed as they try to escape. The point is that along with 'inalienable' rights comes an inherent responsibility to practice it in a way that is not harmful to others or to the form of governance that enables and allows such human freedoms to flourish.

How wise is it to allow corporations, political parties, and individuals the legal means through which to broadcast dangerous ideological opinions that are dressed up as factual news? Do corporations, political parties, and individuals have the right to willfully and intentionally mislead and con supposedly free people into behaving, acting, agreeing, or voting in such a way that the doing undermines their freedom and destroys their democracy? Isn't that very much like yelling fire in a crowded theater? Isn't the person yelling fire exercising their right to free speech in a manner that is potentially harmful to others? Isn't manipulating mass media information in such a way that it harms the people and weakens democracy also, an abusive implementation of rights and freedoms?

When FOX News intentionally misleads the public through terrorism-related fear mongering; refuses to report actual news that reflects poorly upon their Republican Party masters; when the network lies and claims everything in Iraq is going just great when it has come completely undone; when their morning show lies and claims a Democrat attended a 'terrorist' training school; and when their captions intentionally misleads the people in one of a hundred different circumstances, isn't that using freedom of the press and free speech in a manner that harms the American people and undermines the democratic process?

Today's Republican Party and extremist Conservative movement's foundation is the notion that simply because they believe something, it is true and deserving of equal media representation. Never mind Republicans rarely, if ever, possess evidence or facts to support their version of what they consider the "truth." Republicans believe whatever it is that they believe and have bullied the media into accepting their "impassioned belief" as being of equal value to evidence and facts. This, of course, is insanity. And the danger that this illogical reasoning poses to the nation's wellbeing, has been made more than obvious by the Iraq War.

The Bush administration and quasi-think tank supporters insisted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaeda. They couldn't prove either case and had no evidence to support their ridiculous claims. The international community and MOST of the legitimate (non-administration created and sponsored) U.S. intelligence community had facts-based evidence directly refuting the administration and its supporter's claims. However, the administration insisted that their claims -- absent fact or evidence -- merited greater weight because it was THEIR strongly held opinion and they were able to better package their perspective for mass media consumption. Insanely, most of America's media agreed and ignored the evidence-based facts that directly contradicted the administration's Iraq-related opinions.

The point is that everyone has a right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to present their delusions as being either fact or reality. What's more, institutions and media outlets have a responsibility not to present dangerous and misleading ideology-based opinions as fact or reality. And, contrary to what some might believe, including people on the Left who've bought into the Republican con that public figures and so-called news agencies have every right to present their opinion as fact, refusing to allow or participate in the perpetuation of opinions-as-fact insanity is not infringing upon anybody's free speech.

Nobody is saying that James Dobson cannot say, though it is completely dissociated from reality, that the Founding Fathers formed the foundation of America's government on biblical teachings. Dobson and his followers have every right to say and believe whatever delusions they wish to, however; the media has an obligation to America's freedoms and democracy to both correct the falsehoods and too, not to allow peoples' delusions to be presented in a forum or manner that could be perceived as legitimizing the illegitimate.

If it hurts James Dobson's feelings that his delusions aren't being presented in a manner that would make them appear legitimate, that is too bad. The media's job isn't to placate either the Right or Left's feelings or agenda - it is to be an honest mediator and disseminator of factual information.

Even the President of the United States has the right to his opinions, but the media has an obligation to freedom and democracy to ensure that not even the President of the United States' opinions are presented as fact. And when there is a gray area and, perhaps, the truth appears somewhat murky - responsibility to freedom and democracy demands that conclusions be based upon the preponderance of available evidence...regardless of how strongly one might believe their own self delusions.

Finally, when someone's opinion is stated as fact and is done so without evidence supporting the claims, responsible people have a duty to freedom and democracy to make certain the opinion is not repeated without being properly challenged. Again, a lesson that Iraq should have made clear.

Today's extremist Republican Party and fringe Conservative movement members need to understand that they have a right to their opinions, but responsible media has a duty to freedom and democracy to challenge such misguided delusions and to ensure such opinions are not disseminated as fact. Indeed, in a public forum, along with free speech comes a great responsibility on the speaker's behalf to ensure that what is said is honest and truthful...otherwise nobody is obligated to provide them a platform from which to lie.