When a ‘debate’ is really just one side making stuff up and the other side objecting

Published January 11, 2011 5:00am ET



Media critic Jay Rosen regularly critiques the media for getting the viewpoints of “both sides” and then “leaving it there.” It’s a good critique, because often in a debate, one side is just making stuff up. Liberals often point to the climate debate, where many questions are up for debate (such as long-term consequences, the importance of various factors, the appropriate policy response), but some conservatives get away with claiming that everything — including whether humans have any effect on climate — is up for debate.

Today the clearest example of a B.S. debate is whether right-wing rhetoric played a role in the mass shooting in Tuscon. On one side are conservatives (such as Brooks, Buchanan, and Douthat) pointing out that Loughner was crazy, the political debate was happening in his own head, that he was a registered independent who hadn’t voted, and that his objection to Giffords had nothing to do with policy or even ideology. On the other side are evidence-free slurs from the likes of Paul Krugman.

Already a print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account

Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.

Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.

Get Unlimited Access

Already a member? Log in

Cancel anytime.