Skip to main content

Both Sides Now

Back in the nineties, Holocaust denial enjoyed one of its periodic but thankfully brief revivals. It was an old idea given new life, thanks to some shrewd but cynical PR and a few credulous members of the media.

Spread virally, or what passed for virally at the time, the “story” — that the Holocaust never happened, that six million Jews were never exterminated — actually percolated up to the mainstream media as a “controversy” for a while.

TV news and talk shows, both national and local, worked hard to fan the flames, actually giving serious airtime to the charlatans perpetuating this sludge.

But the producers of these shows, sensitive sorts all, couldn’t believe how hard it was to recruit actual Holocaust victims to sit across from the charlatans. They were offering good money, after all.

Why would these old folks not want to go on camera? Why would they not want to relive those unimaginable horrors that scarred them for life, listening to some toxic putz who’s trying to convince the world that the most traumatic event in an entire century was all just a big misunderstanding?

But hey, the show must go on, so the pitch those producers would inevitably fall back on was: “Don’t you think people deserve to hear both sides?”

Both sides. One side the most widely chronicled mass murder in human history, with millions of eyewitnesses, a rich body of analysis and literature, and an overwhelming influence on human thought ever since. And the other side — not.

And there, in the middle, were the talk show hosts. The ones with the great hair and the winning smiles. The ones trying to get a rise out of one side or the other. The ones disingenuously pretending that disinformation has merit.

That’s where the “both sides do it” narrative turns poisonous. That’s where the media — including “legitimate” journalists who should know better — cross over from objective to complicit.

Because now those two “sides” — one a total fiction — will walk off together into the future, with the fiction slowly but steadily gaining traction each time another charlatan with a racist agenda gets a little financing to market more disinformation.

And who’s to say that in fifty years, when all the Holocaust survivors and most of their grandchildren have died out, that the fictional version won’t be the one accepted by history? Who’s to say that the lie won’t take over?

But wait, you say. What’s wrong with the media looking at two angles on the same story? After all, objectivity is a cornerstone of journalism, right? Journalists are trained to ferret out and examine both sides, right?

Absolutely. But only if there really are two sides. When something purporting to be a “side” is fraudulent, when it gaslights, when it makes bad faith arguments in the service of a bad faith agenda, why would we dignify it by calling it a side?

Unfortunately, that’s what the media continues to do. Working from a business model that relies on controversy to attract eyeballs, it seems they will dignify anything as a side. The more polarizing, the better.

And in doing so — in presenting outright lies as one side of a supposed story — they legitimize those lies.

Which brings us to the Republican assault on voting rights.

Under any rational thought process, there can be no other side to the right to vote. As Sen. Raphael Warnock recently said, “Voting is the infrastructure of democracy.” When the legitimacy of the entire system rests on that infrastructure, what’s the other side of that?

Is there a groundswell of demand that we stop people from voting? Is there anyone saying please oh please, take away my vote? Is there a lively discussion about eliminating democracy as a guiding principle of the nation? Not that I’ve heard.

But because Trump — a psychotic yet charismatic con man — single-handedly launched the most outrageous lie in living memory, we are now forced to defend the right to vote from that very lie.

It’s bad enough that so large a percentage of the electorate subscribes to Trump’s “stolen election” narrative. But when the media frames it as one side of a debate that isn’t actually happening, that’s despicable.

There isn’t a shred of legitimacy to denying any citizen the right to vote. There is no “election integrity” problem that needs solving. But as with Holocaust denial, it can be made into a problem just through well-financed repetition. So because Trump’s lie has gotten so much traction, red state legislatures are now in a frenzy to rush hideous voter suppression measures into law.

This comes at a time when the GOP is so intellectually and morally bankrupt, it has no choice but to create and perpetuate lies. No truth need apply. As they slip into irrelevance, they’re reduced to creating outrage from anything, or from nothing. And the media, ever alert to possible controversy, no matter how fictional, plays right along.

So look for stories that frame these racist anti-voting laws as a legitimate debate between two equal and well-reasoned points of view. And remember that they’re not.

Look for stories framing the anti-vaccination crowd as reasonable people, with sincerely held beliefs. Especially the belief that Covid is simultaneously a hoax and a flu.

Look for more ginning up of the “crisis” at the southern border, where the Biden administration is trying, against daunting odds, to find a humane solution to the kiddie concentration camps left by Stephen Miller’s minor league gestapo.

And look for both-siderism to continue to thrive. Clearly, it’s alive and well and more virulent than ever. 

It’s also self-fulfilling. Because just as with Holocaust denial, the other side — the lie side — will inexorably burrow into our political discourse, and settle in for a long and deeply corrosive shelf life.

And if we don’t watch it carefully, it will at some point become the truth. 


P.S. I have declined here to provide actual examples of both-siderism, though they can be found across a broad spectrum of media, both mainstream and fringe. I’ve pointed out such examples in past rants, especially here, here, and here. That said, I refer you once again to any of the weekly Professional Left podcasts, where the practice is sliced and diced regularly, and in entertaining fashion.

Comments

  1. Certainly networks such as One American News are not culpable of correcting for "one-siderism." That seems to an issue of the center-left.
    You might love OAN: https://www.oann.com/category/newsroom/
    I watch it now and again just to burst out of my comfortable bubble, and to roil my blood.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Because Things Just Aren’t Scary Enough

There’s been considerable buzz in the last week around an op-ed column in the Washington Post that purports to scare the shit out of you, but is a must-read nonetheless. It was written by Robert Kagan, an establishment policy expert, long associated with Republican administrations. Now divorced from the GOP, he has become an outspoken never-Trumper. The piece is both a dead-on analysis of our current moment in history and a dire warning for the very near future. While I don’t subscribe to all its assumptions, I find its basic premise disturbingly plausible, maybe even likely. The essay envisions a dystopian nightmare enveloping the 2024 presidential election, the culmination of a constitutional crisis that is clearly already in motion. As things stand now, Kagan says, the groundwork is almost in place for Trump to steal that election. Kagan insists that Trump will indeed be the candidate, that he will challenge the results if they don’t fall his way, and that this time he has

I’d Rather Not Be So Partisan

Since moving to my modest suburb outside Detroit, my interest in local politics has been marginal. I personally don’t have much skin in the game — no school-age children, no business interests to advocate for, no history in the community. I’m generally content to pay my taxes and enjoy the benefits of living in a relatively well-run town. Even so, as a citizen I feel responsible for knowing something about the people who run things. So while I don’t follow the workings of the city council, I do pay attention when its members are running for office, which happens in off-year elections every two years.  So this is the year, and, as expected, the front yards are abloom with lawn signs. I get to vote for three of the six candidates. The unspoken rule is that the election process is kept strictly non-partisan, so these candidates do not publicly divulge their party affiliations. Which almost makes sense. After all, the upkeep of our roads, sewers, power lines and other infrastructur

Inflation and the Supply Chain are Joined at the Hip

Back in the early eighties, inflation was on everyone’s mind. Prices on everything had been going up since the Vietnam War, and the country was caught in a vicious spiral of people and businesses getting rocked by higher prices, expecting them to go even higher, and raising prices in anticipation of them going still higher. Rinse and repeat. The expectation of higher prices drove prices higher. It was an eye-opening experience. The candy bar that cost a dime when I was a kid was suddenly 75 cents. My first mortgage carried a 12-percent interest rate adjustable every year, which meant it could’ve escalated to 18 percent in six years, a terrifying prospect. Luckily, interest rates peaked before that could happen, and the so-called Great Inflation of the seventies and eighties finally subsided. But ever since that time, big business has been obsessively paranoid about anything that smacks of inflation. Inflation cuts into their precious purchasing power. It degrades the value of t