It is remarkable how often the truth-is-in-the-middle proposition is wrong. Who said that is where the truth is? “Well, there’s conservative Fox news and there’s liberal CNN, and so the truth must be located somewhere between the two.” Nope. Both Fox and CNN are terrible news outlets. The halfway point between awful and awful is awful. Yes, I am more likely to take a look at what CNN is reporting—Fox is beyond the pale—but we still have to consider CNN on its own terms.
Is it informing its audience? They adopt the standard polarized rhetoric while paying little mind to the public opinion data. They, like the New York Times, have a contempt for the true liberal center. Where CNN truly shines is elections. They show great ardor with their interactive maps, showing what is going on in a given congressional district. It’s all very precise.
But, does CNN explain things? Do they invite noted scholars to offer insight and clarity? When covering North Korea, does one see Bruce Cumings interviewed? Have you ever seen Noam Chomsky on CNN? Anatol Lieven? Rashid Khalidi? Hanan Ashrawi? CNN’s coverage of the Middle East has been abysmal for decades; their coverage of Palestine-Israel is appalling. One could watch CNN ten hours a day, seven days a week, and never become informed on these subjects. How about Democracy Now? You can watch that and actually learn something. And they have had all the names I just listed on their show.
Speaking of Palestine-Israel, is the truth located somewhere between those two narratives? Israel occupies Palestine, illegally. The brutality and humiliation Israel metes out to the Palestinians and the Palestinian territories one will not see on CNN. I have said for years, that if Americans saw what Israel is doing to the Palestinians on a daily basis, US-Israel relations would radically be altered. The population would not stand for it.
If I read about a woman who was assaulted, I do not adopt the assumption that the truth lies somewhere between those two parties. “Well, let’s take the rapist’s view into account.” Does anyone do that? So, why do we do that when countries are involved? No one would suggest we get the rapist’s perspective. No one would argue that we should hear him out. “Well, he maintains she had it coming, that she was asking for it.” Would anyone take this seriously? Yet, we accept the truth-is-in-the-middle claim soberly.
Is the truth nestled between the Democrats and Republicans? Both parties are negligent and do not represent the population’s wants and needs. Like Fox and CNN, between awful and awful is awful. Yes, the Democrats are still at least a political party and the GOP is, well, I’m not so sure anymore. That said, both parties are to the right of the population and therefore wrong. This, it should be pointed out, is black and white. Both are wrong. Both hold the population in contempt. There are no shades of gray here. Same with Fox and CNN, Palestine-Israel, and the assaulted woman: there are no shades of gray.
People who deal in shades of gray are protecting power. Likewise with people who locate the truth in the middle. It’s a weak attempt to sound smart and deep while subtly changing the subject: they do not want their actual positions exposed to the light—if indeed they have any views to begin with; they just might know nothing. In other words, they are liars. Nothing shades of gray about that.
