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

The GOP's Weaknesses are More Apparent than its Strengths

  Anyone who’s paying attention now understands that this election is a whole lot scarier than it ever should have been. It’s a shame — and an indictment of our constitutional system — that it comes down to an election at all. Surely, the Trump problem should have been settled by now, with no further elections required to get him out of our lives. His crimes were such that the real crime was letting him remain at large. All those checks and balances we were taught to revere should have somehow found a way to rid us of this monster. But the Supreme Court seems to have Trump’s back, though it’s not clear what that gains them. If anything, it makes one wonder what Trump is holding over them, and what might happen to their families if they don’t keep him out of prison. So it will come down to the election, and the lines couldn’t be drawn more indelibly. I prefer to think this can work out well — that these scorched-earth hacks can be overwhelmed at the ballot box

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Trump and Pecker Sittin’ in a Tree

  Before there was Fox News, before there was Rush Limbaugh, before there was the sprawling rightwing ecosystem of fake news and vicious smears we so enjoy today, there was the National Enquirer . For most of our lives, the Enquirer stared up at us from the checkout aisle of our local supermarket. Somehow, we never made the connection that its readers would one day fit the stereotype of the Trump voter — under-educated, gullible, malleable, easy targets for disinformation. The Enquirer nurtured those targets over many decades, got them to believe virtually anything, and helped lay the groundwork for the sort of know-nothing insurgency that brought Trump into all our lives. Decades ahead of its time, the Enquirer was peddling fake news long before it was fashionable. It appealed unapologetically to humanity’s baser instincts, the ones most of us try to rise above. It was always flamboyantly sleazy, and always there in plain sight, something we could dependably