My opinions on the "Rally To Restore Sanity And/ Or Fear" and the dangers of FALSE EQUIVALENCY

[wutangfan85]

   As I watched the "Rally To Restore Sanity And/or
Fear" I was struck by how many young people were at the
rally, I mean, this seemed like the closest thing us in the
Millenial Generation have as our Woodstock. I wish I would
have gotten a chance to go but of course it's goin down to the
wire in classes so I have to focus on my grades right now. I
was also struck by how in the rally, there were parts in the
rally from the video montages that made me a little bit uneasy
about this issue of "False Equivalency" in the
media. 
   In both video montages they showed clips of how the media
ratchets up fear and how they play a role in polarizing the
country. In those videos Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann were
part of the montage and it showed parts where they may have
been making over-the-top comments, and yes Alan Grayson was
there too to show that "Well, they're are extremists on
both sides so they're both guilty". You know what I'm
talking about. This is a common disease that is almost like a
cancer in our media. What's more disheartening is that you see
Jon Stewart use tat same tactic applied in the media in order
to seem objective. Here is the problem with that... BOTH SIDES
ARE NOT THE SAME!!! On the very far right you have a bunch of
people (The Republicans in the House and Senate) who would
rather let the country fail in order to look good for votes,
an entire media outlet (Fox News) masquerading itself as a
news organization but is really a conservative media outlet
that promotes lies, falsehoods and deliberatley creates
division in this country by looking at anything that is
Left/Democratic leaning as evil (See ACORN, Tides Foundation
and Van Jones). and on The Left you have usually people from
the Center-Left or what is people as The Center in this
country. I mean sure, you can argue the style is over the top
on both sides but to equate both left and right with guilt
doesn't help civil discourse in this country, it actually
hurts. In Jon Stewart's announcement, he criticized both the
left and the right for being too over the top with the
rhetoric. In the video he showed how people on the right were
over top by calling Obama a Socialist/Communist or a secret
Muslim, but on the left he showed that People on the left were
over the top by showing a Code Pink rally where they called
George Bush a war criminal (which he is) and Alan Grayson's
"Don't Get Sick, Die Quickly" speech on the House
Floor.
   The prblem with doing that is that for one, their is
evidence the to show that the Bush Administration did commit
war crimes and if you look and Alan Grayson's speech in
context he was actually MAKING FUN of the hysteria on the
right during health care. Another thing that I saw in the
montage that I didn't expect to see was Frank Schaeffer. Frank
Schaeffer is interesting because him and his father were
founders of the modern day religious right, now he's actually
trying rewrite the wrongs about the religious right that he
and his father helped create. GleNn Greenwald wrote a great
piece about this issue on Salon.com when he made the
announcement for the rally. My issue isn't necessarily with
Stewart, but more with the issue of "False
Equivalency", which is actually a tactic that they have
used for years when challenged about extremism coming from the
far right, and news reporters usually fall for this trick in
order to not seem biased. Stewart doing the same thing is
actually potentially dangerous because it conflates passion
with extremism, which are not the same. 
   When people on The Left had criticized George Bush for
going into war in Iraq, and commiting war crimes, that was
actually a legitimate because there was evidence that the
administration did. The media should not equate with
"Obama is a racist who hates white people", or the
non-existent "Death Panels" in the Health Care bill,
or if you were against the war you were unpatriotic in 2003.
When Stewart actually tries to equate both sides with equal
blame for these type of issues, it actaully validates the
people on the right who want to avoid any responsibility for
the way public discourse is in this country. This is something
that we Liberals, Democrats, or yes, Moderates have to call
out when we see it being played by anybody in the media,
because we have to separate passion, with extremism

What do you guys think?

[libbyhart]

1. False equivalency

I think you have eloquently stated what I feel to be true.

[druidity33]

2. you see far, Luke...

the force must be with you.

K&R.

Welcome to DU!

[mirrera]

3. I agree 100% and you put it perfectly...

I was shocked to see Frank Schaefer who is trying to warn us about the "Crazy for God", and Grayson, and Medea...
There are many enthusiastic liberal LOW INFO voters. It does not help the anti-war / anti-corporation as people / anti-fundamentalist groups —that do such good work— share our knowledge if we are marginalized.

I emailed a letter from Medea Benjamin to my friends today because I watched her on the Daily Show and was ashamed for the first time of Samantha Bee...

It is like putting Tom Delay on the right and Howard Zinn on the left.. there just is no equivalancy.

Medea's letter is here:

Dear Jon Stewart, Sane People Protest Crazy Wars
By Medea Benjamin, AlterNet
Posted on October 27, 2010, Printed on October 31, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148642/

When Jon Stewart was on Larry King's show talking about his Rally to Restore Sanity, he likened himself to Alice in Wonderland and the rally as the Mad Hatter Tea Party. But is Jon Stewart really Alice, trying to find sanity in an upside-down world? Or is he the March Hare, the ultimate "slacktivist" who thinks it's always teatime -- time to sit back and jibberjabber?

more: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148642

[mzmolly]

4. VERY well said.

:hi:

[stray cat]

5. There are certainly lines that can be drawn on both sides but I think there are fewer on the left

beyond the lines.

Although rationale thought and sane evaluations and approaches should really be an ideal of progressives

[bettyellen]

6. i think he deals with the RW "truthiness" issues often enough elswear and that it wasn't what the

rally was about. I think the amped up rhetoric turns off people and for good reason - no real rational debate is possible.
I think it was anti T bagger raging, and very pro rational informed discourse. And I think because it really didn't literally take sides with the Dems, it actually reached a lot of Independents and a lot of moderate Republicans are going to find it harder to demonize lefties.

Did you hear the C=Span callers after wards? Quite a few non-Dems completely agreed that discourse has been much too heated, and they actually enjoyed the rally. Few could think of anything bad to say about it. So, I think Stewart accomplished what he set out to do, and it was pretty effective. Making it anti- Republican would have shut a lot of minds to his main message, and I do mean the ones who most needed to hear it.

[TicketyBoo]

18. I agree.

If this had been purely partisan, people would have turned it off.

As it was, it was great. Nearly perfect, in fact.

[kimi]

7. I take it that you weren't there at the rally.

I was. I saw quite a few older folks. In fact, was very struck by the number of older folks I saw, in relation to the younger kids.

Beyond what else you say, if you weren't there, you really can't claim to know what the reality was at the rally. Just sayin.

[eilen]

10. I was there as well

There were many older folks-- In fact I would say 75% of the bus I was on was older folks (over 40). However, depending on who organized your bus would likely determine your cohort-- our area, Central NY sent the most people down outside of NYC. If you rode on a university organized bus, it skewed younger. Our bus was organized by the rally organizers but there was another from the Peace Council (which would skew older) plus some other colleges. I think there were 6 in all sent from here. At the rally, I was in the first section--where the stage was located only about 3/4 of the way down. At the very front by where the stage was, it was sectioned off for VIPs. Plus there were areas that were just fenced off-- where they limited the flow of people within that first section. There were lots of young however I saw families, older folks, middle aged people. People from all over the country. I met some nice people from Illinois, there was some from Alaska and Austrailia. I met another couple from Atlanta, Georgia--they had to be between 55-65 years old who took the train up to NY and Amtrak into DC. They were lovely, told me they were Democrats.

People had their freak on. It was fun. Whatever the motivations for the attendees, I have to say the theme or intention of the rally was not political inasmuch as asserting our rights or motivating people to vote (that was a big disappointment). The energy of it was entertainment. The signs designed to amuse and be ironic and clever.

I did not care for the equivalency however while there, even though I was in the first section, it was very difficult to see the screens as they were angled in such a way that from my vantage, trees obstructed them and I am only 5'4" so was unable to visualize the stage as most people are taller. There were lots of blankets on the ground and chairs so it was hard to try and get up closer. I caught maybe 65% of what was said.

It seemed to me that what most people showed up to prove that we are all somewhat flummoxed and perplexed that individuals like Christine ODonnell, Marco Rubio, Carl Paladino, Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, Sara Palin, and Jane Brewer are being seriously considered as contenders for higher office. In what crazytown world would this happen? And that it is happening now, the stupid being admired and rewarded--abolish the Dept. of Education-- Really? Seriously? Jackbooted Goons restraining reporters and stomping on small "uppity" women; advocating detaining people "suspected" of not being a citizen, refusing to be vetted by the press "until after I'm elected?" It truly is behind the looking glass here. I think that is why people showed up-- to tell the country, the world that we are all not idiots.

[wutangfan85]

11. In the first paragraph I said I wish I could've been at the rally but have homework to do

so no, I wasn't there. What I was saying it was an aboundance of young people in attendance at the Rally, I did see people of all races, and age demographics thee on TV, but seen a good amount of young people, that's what I as trying to say.

[baldguy]

8. What do I think? I think I'm sorry I can only rec this post once.

This was Jon Stewart's big failure, even as a joke: By denying the obvious differences between the Left and the Right, sanity cannot and will not be restored. Ever.

The failure is even more apparent when you see him saying to Obama less than 24 hours before that he had been "too timid" pushing for HCR. The false equivalency used by Stewart and the rest of the MSM is the very embodiment of timidity.

If Stewart believes that we need more "sanity" in our political discussions, then it follows that we need to remove the insane influences. Those which come exclusively from the Right and which are exposed by - among others - Keith, Ed, Rachel and Rep Grayson. These people should be applauded for what they do, not demeaned by comparing them to the insane people whose stated goal to destroy America as long as Democrats run it.

Jon needs to get a grip. He could do worse than follow Keith's lead into sanity.

[undergroundpanther]

9. Yes

I agree with you too and a REC...
I see a lot of false equivalency among Dem's on many issues.When people make false equivalencies they sometimes seem to not be aware they are doing it..It's good to discern differences.It shouldn't have been called sanity AND/or fear,because that implies difference along with false equivalency and there is no equivalent between the two..

Sanity or fear would have been more accurate and clear.

[wutangfan85]

12. There is another blog on this issue by this person named

RepublicanDirtyTricks. Check it out here: http://republicandirtytricks.com/john-stewarts-penchant-for-false-leftright-equivalency-conflates-passion-with-propaganda/

[bananas]

13. Joe Romm and PZ Myers wrote similarly about it

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/30/rally-to-restore-sanity-fear-by-stewart-colbert/

[wutangfan85]

15. Pretty good aritcle,

I like the term "Civility Fetishism". I'm gonna have to start using that more.

[deacon]

14. When you have blatant bigotry on tape it is accurate to call them a bigot. And I think they should

be exposed as bigots. It all about the accuracy imo. Irresponsible unqualified journalists/pundits are to blame for overuse as I see it therefore clouding the truth.

[tavalon]

16. You are right and that show rocked

for what it was. Yeah, I think they both know that the right has violated the sanity far more than the left but they also know that their points, mostly legitimate, would be ignored were they to be seen as too biased. They threw a few bones to the right but the vast majority of that rally was an incrimination of the 24 hour "news" infotainment industry and the way it exacerbates what are difficult times (not end times, as Jon so eloquently put it).

I just finished watching 3 hours of an occasionally clumsy but mostly sublimely well played, shout out for reasonableness. Even though Jon Stewart hides it well, he is a far left liberal and , after seeing what Stephen Colbert did a few years ago just 10 feet away from the war criminal ex-pResident and his many media accomplices, well, I suspect I know fairly well where he stands. But to keep this relevant, they threw in a few false equivalencies. I'm really okay with that. This was, more than anything, an indictment of the media and in that, they did the best job I've ever been blessed enough to see. Will it change the media? Doubt it. Will it encourage their audience to shut them off more? Great Goddess, I hope so. I'm over a decade TV free and I will not go back for anything.

People on the street are just people. I work quite well side by side with people who don't share my political views, my religious views or even my polyamorous way of living my personal life (especially that one!). That along with the media is fucking up are the two take home messages. That's it.

Well, I took a third one - the people who went to this rally were really creative and fun with their signs and they spell really, really well!

[pampango]

17. I think it is clever to use a facade of "both sides do it" all the while using examples

that clearly show that the right wing uses fear as a political tactic while the left has the facts on its side.

If this had been a rally overtly designed to blast the right that would have been great, but a "bipartisan" rally blasting "fear" (rather than "facts") was very useful to the left since it attacked the essence of right wing politics. Whether the rally was overtly "liberal" or a "bipartisan attack on fear" no one is going to convert the teabagger, right wing base of the repub party into a thinking, caring, rational group of voters.

This "both sides do it" rally, though, may get people in the middle thinking that, after considering the examples of what "both sides do", fear-based is campaigning is one party's sole tactic, while the other uses facts to show what mistakes have been made.

[xchrom]

19. Recommend

[grahamhgreen]

20. How do you spell "sugar?" Suppose Alice spells it p-q-z-z-f and Genevieve spells it s-h-u-g-e-r...

"How do you spell "sugar?" Suppose Alice spells it p-q-z-z-f and Genevieve spells it s-h-u-g-e-r. Both are wrong, but is there any doubt that Alice is wronger than Genevieve? For that matter, I think it is possible to argue that Genevieve's spelling is superior to the "right" one.
Or suppose you spell "sugar": s-u-c-r-o-s-e, or C12H22O11. Strictly speaking, you are wrong each time, but you're displaying a certain knowledge of the subject beyond conventional spelling."

- Asimov

Yes, some things are more correct than others.

[no limit]

21. He never said both sides were the same. But you can't honestly believe KO and Shultz have no faults?

And don't at the same time make stupid statements?

I like Alan Grayson, I ususally agree with him on policy and given the alternative I would gladly vote for him. But you can't pretend that he also isn't a politician. He knows how to get elected, and he knows how to not only play on your anger but also ratchet it up. And as a result the media needs to find someone on the right that is even more angry. This kind of thing is not good for our country. Yes, many people are angry, and they should be. But that doesn't mean we can't have a rational discussion about why we are angry. Shouting never solved anything.

[wutangfan85]

24. I wasn't saying that Stewart said that

both sides are the same. But what I said was that Jon Stewart fell into that trap using False Equivalency when covering politics. I loved the rally, but that part was the only thing that I objected to, that's all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Gonna swim upstream here.

The hyperbole from Olbermann and Grayson is in some sense equivalent to that coming from the right.

The difference is that Olbermann and Grayson are right, AND there's only one way to get heard in this political system; yelling.

Want to change that? Stop handing microphones to screamers. I guarantee that this will help progressives more than hurt.

The problem isn't Olbermann or Beck, it's the 6 guys who own 95% of all media.

[felix_numinous]

23. Perhaps it was a appeal to the media to take it down a notch

for sanity's sake, however I agree it is an example of false equivalency to equate those infuriated over violence and bigotry with those who are yelling out hate speech.

Perhaps by including personalities on both sides was a last ditch effort to appeal to the last vestiges of sanity remaining on the right, in order to awaken them from their programmed behavior. This was a call for everyone's sanity, and a welcome mat was put out for those who are just now waking up.