Trudeau's Truth

 

In this clip, Justin Trudeau shows a notable lack of intelligence. To put the most charitable interpretation on it.

He begins by boasting that he goes by the dictionary definition of words. Then he gets the meaning of the words “misinformation” and “disinformation” confused. He thinks “misinformation” is deliberate, and “disinformation” unintentional.

Here are the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Disinformation: “The dissemination of deliberately false information, esp. when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media.”

Misinformation: “Wrong or misleading information.”

He then proceeds to a logical fallacy. He poses the question, “Who decides what is misinformation or disinformation?” And he responds, “There has to be an acceptance that there are experts out there who create a basis of fact.”

This is the “argumentum ab auctoritate,” or argument from authority. It is really an evasion of the question.

To begin with, what if authorities disagree—as, of course, they always do? By what authority do you choose one authority over another?

Are you going to take the “consensus of experts”? Now you have committed the ad populum fallacy as well, that truth can be arrived at by popular vote. If everyone on Earth voted that the moon was made of green cheese, this could not make the moon green cheese. If nearly everyone thought that the sun goes around the earth—as almost everyone once did—this does not make it true that the sun goes around the earth.

Is a majority more likely to be right than a minority? No. After all, the smartest people are necessarily going to be an absolute minority of the general population.

Second, how do you know that person A is an authority on the matter? What authority vouches for him being an authority? And who vouches for that authority? You are into an infinite regression; an infinite regression of unknown quantities remains an unknown quantity.

Third, authorities, even if genuine, can lie. They will have their own vested interests. To call yourself an authority is to say “just trust me.” One ought to automatically suspect a con.

Fourth, to uncritically accept the word of existing authority brings all science, all human thought and human progress to a halt. If authority is always right, then Galileo was spreading misinformation, as was Newton, or Einstein, or Columbus, or the Wright Brothers, or for that matter Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, or Jesus Christ.

In practice, who would inevitably decide what is and is not disinformation? Trudeau’s bottom line must be government—actually the usual source of disinformation. It must, in short, be him. Government is authority, and therefore gets to decide and declare the experts. Which means by definition the end of democracy and an increasingly authoritarian regime. 

It is terrifying that this man is in any position of power.

The Need to Counter Trump's Lies

 

The Guardian, more often fondly known as the Grauniad for the quality of their copyediting and proofing, has proposed using a “truth sandwich” whenever reporting on Trump. That is, they report the truth, then report what Trump said, then repeat the truth, which presumably contradicts him.

Friend Xerxes, uncharacteristically for a leftist, objects. The problem is, he is a trained and experienced journalist. 

And the Grauniad proposal is a brazen violation of journalistic ethics.

All politicians lie; it comes with the job. The job of a journalist, on the other hand, is to doubt everyone. It is deeply corrupt that a journalist would treat Trump differently than other politicians. We rely on reporters to report, not comment. Opinon is for the editorial page.

The proper approach, of course, if some controversial assertion is made, is to seek and quote a spokesperson from the other side. It is not permissible for the referee to stride to the centre of the ring in the middle of a round and throw a sucker punch.

Sophie Zeldin-O'Neill, the editor recommending the practice, asks otherwise “how to responsibly cover him [Trump] without unwittingly providing the coverage he so expertly manipulates.”

Strip that partial sentence down to plain language: “how to cover Trump without giving him coverage.” In other words, how, as a journalist, to do your job without doing your job.

She laments that Trump tries to use media to his advantage. Just like every other successful politician or campaign manager who ever lived. And every successful company or organization of any kind. If he does it better than others, that warrants admiration, not subversion. 

Xerxes ponders one possible cause for this wholesale abandonment of journalistic ethics. That it is necessary because we now live in “a time when a lie could go viral. When a single inaccurate assertion could go without contradiction to 7.62 billion smart phones.”

We do not live in such a time. Our time is the opposite: a world in which no statement any longer can go forth without risking contradiction by 7.62 private individuals with smart phones, each of which gives them a printing press, a broadcasting studio, and a 7.62 billion-person reach. Lies can no longer go halfway the world, as Mark Twain once lamented, before the truth could get its boots on. Now the truth will show up within seconds; it will be the next triumphant tweet.

The Nazi success with their “big lie” technique depended on being able to control the media. That is no longer possible; although big tech companies and governments are fighting a rearguard action.

So why the unprecedented need to police Trump’s speech? It cannot be because he lies. It can only be because he speaks the truth.

But the attempt to silence him is surely doomed to fail. Truth can no longer be suppressed by silencing any one man. Governments and big tech are trying so hard they are getting blatant, as in this Guardian piece, about it. There are too many smart phones out there. People now hear and see immediately, for example, the riots in Guangdong or Shiraz.