From: orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Subject: Re: Smearing I.F. Stone  (AIM, Truth not in the middle)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:53:00 GMT


John McCarthy (replying to my comments about AIM):
>The phrase "bully boys" suggests something that ought to be stopped
>by some kind of external pressure.  Is [that] what Ron Balden has in mind,
>and if so, what kind of pressure does he recommend?

Perhaps an ill-chosen phrase, and quite incorrect insofar as it implies that 
"Accuracy in Media" is "forcing" the U.S. mass media into taking 
positions it would not otherwise.  A.I.M serves a highly useful 
ideological function; by constantly accusing the U.S. mass media of
having a "liberal bias" it allows the powers that be in
the mass media to say (roughly): "See!  We're attacked equally by both 
the right (AIM) and the left (FAIR); therefore we must be doing ok" in 
a tacit invocation of the heuristic that "Truth lies somewhere in
the middle."

Similarly, there is an organization called FLAME ("Facts and Logic
about the Middle East"; an appropriate acronym given the meaning of
"flame" on computer networks, but probably not what the organization
intended) which runs half-page ads every issue (monthly) in Harper's Magazine
(for at least the last few years) accusing the U.S. media of
being ruthlessly biased against the state of Israel.  
This claim, though counter-factual, is a rational ploy because
it helps keep the U.S. media in line.  FLAME could hardly run
ads saying, "Thanks to the U.S. media for being such lapdogs;
please keep it up" and hope for much success.

Would John McCarthy agree that there is a dangerous fallacy in
unthinkingly applying the heuristic "truth lies somewhere in the
middle" in judging various reports of public affairs?
This particular heuristic may be useful in aspects of private life in
judging different accounts of the same event or issue by people who
are **essentially equal in their power and influence, and are not at
direct cross-purposes** (e.g. one is listening to the account of some
incident by one member of a married couple --- experienced by both ---
and the other breaks in with the comment "you aren't telling the story
quite right"). But "Truth lies in the middle" is quite unreliable when
judging various accounts, one of which directly serves the interests of
concentrated power, and more importantly, to accept this heuristic
unthinkingly immediately gives the advantage to unprincipled
extremists. 

[Douglas Hofstader tells in this regard the "joke" of two siblings arguing
over who is to get how much of the leftover pie for dessert. X says,
"We should split it equally".  Y says, "I want it all."  The mother
comes along and says, "Let's compromise.  X gets one-third and Y gets
two-thirds."  -- i.e. compromise by weighting the demands made by 
each.]

Ben Bagdikian ("The Media Monopoly", Beacon Press, 3rd edition, 1990,
pg.172) quotes comments of ABC newsman Howard K. Smith on a 1965 CBS
documentary on the link between cigarette smoking and disease which
illustrates the fallacy of "balance": 

"To me that documentary was a casebook example of balance that drained 
a hot issue of its meaning.  On that program there were doctors who 
had every reason to objective, who maintained that cigarettes have a 
causal relation to cancer.  On the other side, there were 
representatives of the tobacco industry, who have no reason to be 
objective, who stated persuasively the opposite.  The public was left 
with a blurred impression that the truth lay between whereas, as far 
as I am concerned, we have everything but a signed confession from a 
cigarette that smoking has a causal relation to cancer." 
[Bagdikian quoting Howard K. Smith]

Biblical literalists hold that the earth was created about 6,000 years
ago; the consensus of the scientific community is that the earth is
about 4.5 billion years old.  Do any of those who are always talking about
"different viewpoints" in public affairs think that "truth lies in the
middle" here, (obviously, a geometric mean is required in a case like
this) and that the age of the earth is actually somewhere around 5 million
years? 

Ron Balden
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,misc.legal,alt.drugs