Always Research “the other side’s” Claims

The media is biased; everyone knows this, yet somehow people still think they know who lies to them and who doesn’t. The left will use Fox news as the crazy right wing media, and the right will use… well pretty much every other TV media outlet. But how did we get to the point where articles are written that simply brush off things like Benghazi and Solyndra as not news worthy? I just read an article–albeit by a former Clinton employee–that casually mentions how “the right wing” keeps bringing up Benghazi and Solyndra while the mainstream media apparently sees nothing to carry the story about. This insinuates that the mainstream media would carry the story if it were true, and thus suggests that there is no reason to cover these events. Meanwhile a missing aircraft gets 24/7 coverage.

And it does play both ways; I was too young to vote during most of the Bush years, but still I mostly assumed all the protests from the left were unwarranted. Yet today I realize that many good objections were raised about the Patriot Act, the reasons for going to war in the middle east, and the concentration of power in the executive branch. These days I realize that these were not “left wing” stories, but in the divide perpetuated by the media and politicians, it was easy to brush off opposing views as lies from the “other side”. So now with a liberal president, I think many on the left brush off things like Benghazi as the right just making noise, while in fact there was a campaign of lies and cover-ups put forth by the State Department and Executive branch.

As for Solyndra, the loan was not simply a mess up: it was given to an Obama bundler in a manner which was irresponsible and unprecedented. But unless those facts come out, most on the left just assume the story is full of right wing lies. And this has been the strategy of the media and political elites to gain power by dividing the masses. Now it is always “my news source” that is right, and the “other one” cherry picks the data, or ignores actual corruption. It is important to always look into things, try to get different sources, and see if you can triangulate the truth. One quote could be taken out of context, and many media outlets purposely skew things to depict “their side” as right. They also just repeat the name of a bill in congress, and act like it will do exactly what it is purported to do. Analysis is out, whatever the politician says is fact, when we know quite the opposite is almost always the case.

So rather then play into the “us against them” philosophy exploited by politicians, it is better to discuss the differences in opinions, when possible. Sometimes there are people who will not listen, but there are plenty of others who just haven’t heard the facts. If you start discussing these little covered stories and the facts, many people might be surprised to hear them, and then do their own research. But always coming off as calm and collected when discussing regularly divisive issues is certainly a way to get your point considered, more-so than going off the deep end and getting angry.