The Cognitive Dissident

Something odd has been happening to the once wonderful On The Media podcast for quite awhile. But finally, is has utterly capitulated its journalistic integrity, falling prey to its own ideological and editorial blind spots, omitting facts, reducing complex topics to black/white oversimplifications, and indulging in, frankly, toxic and irresponsible hyperbole.  OTM has, alas, become a parody of itself. It has lost its way as a nuanced and fair-minded source of thoughtful journalism and become an organ of propaganda.  Today, we examine one of its most recent episodes to see where 'the new journalism' technique of omitting important data that might contradict the preferred narrative reaches its apotheosis: a total smear job on the Depp vs. Heard trial.  Alas, poor OTM: we knew (and loved) you well.

Why are different countries judged so differently for similar behavior? Why are some blamed fairly, some disproportionately harshly, and others are seemingly let off the hook entirely? Could it be that, in this respect and many more, your media are not actually that much more unbiased than Russia's? Could it be that they're omitting exculpatory and inculpatory evidence to suit the ends of their corporate owners?   This week we contrast the media's coverage of Ukraine with their coverage of the war in Yemen, a war that is killing thousands of civilians with USA-supplied planes, bombs, missiles, and artillery.  We also examine the double-standard of how the world reacts to Israel's killing of even a single Arab versus the reaction to Arab-on-Arab violence, some would say, genocide, in places like Syria. And lastly, we also examine some other ways our media have lied and distorted, from World War II, right up to the present.

The savage murder of artist Michael Stewart by New York City Transit Police causes an outraged band of white boys to release a song. In it they use the N-Word, in order to show the shocking apathy of most white people towards the brutalization of black people. It was the right choice then, and it's still the right choice. This choice, of course, flies in the face of current 'woke' orthodoxy that states that this word should never, ever, under any circumstances, be uttered by a non-black person.  In this episode we take on that orthodoxy, calling it out as absurdly simplistic and wrong-headed, using the power of this song, and the history of this word as it was used on TV and in the movies in the 70's, 80's and 90's

As is so often the case, the right-wing are cleverly leveraging one of the left's most currently-cherished mean of expression - performative fragility - in order to promote, as the left has, the banning of books and butchering of curricula across the country. The right used to make fun of the left's protestations of fragility, but now they're joining in, proclaiming that white folks, especially Christian white folks, will feel unacceptable shame if forced to look at America's brutal history towards non-whites and non-Christians. All of these complaints, on the right and the left, are based un a fundamental misunderstanding of what education, and in an even broader sense, knowledge, are for...

The tragic death of a schoolmate leads to a revisionist Me Too story that ironically renders the supposed victim, and the supposed perpetrator, into cardboard characters. By failing to ask the hard questions and instead insisting on a simplistic good/bad narrative, the humanity and the shared responsibility of both protagonists gets squeezed out of the story. As we delve deeper into the truth of what happened, questions of what is power, what is seduction, and what is "grooming" arise.  And we ask why girls are still encouraged, even by so-called feminists, to objectify and monetize their bodies. Why has one strand of feminism turned objectification into "empowerment" in the topsy-turvy bizarre world of identity politics?

Lenny Bruce's brilliantly subversive comedy routine about beauty overriding racism got me thinking about masculine/feminine aesthetics perhaps overriding the asserted positions of even the most fervent cisgender female supporters of unfettered, no-compromise trans bathroom and locker room privileges. 

I was invited to participate in a liberal talkspace on the web, and cancelled almost immediately. This led me deeper into an examination of the fascistic elements of illiberalism and performative fragility, on the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

One year later, the Big Lie is going strong. How can a lie with so many internal contradictions persist? Human nature is to blame, and, alas, human nature seems to preclude any remedy.

The furor over trans women athletes outperforming their biologically female counterparts raises even larger questions, like: Why is gender presented to us as a mutable attribute, something based solely on our own state of mind about ourselves, while race is viewed as utterly unchangeable? Is this view based on biology, or is it merely a cultural opinion, something we've come to accept, perhaps in rejection of biological realities of the nature of gender and race? Is it valid to decry a white woman 'passing' as black as wearing blackface while at the same time, accepting a man 'passing' as a woman, as a woman, and if so, why?  

The mass media will tell you that allowing trans women to compete against biological women is a human rights victory.  In reality, science shows us that it is a gross injustice.