Dig for truth

Christians in America are waking up to a couple of modern facts: our views and our churches don't enjoy near-universal approval anymore, and we need to re-think our response to our culture in light of that.

Modern life is confusing. American culture has been disrupted by people who don't share our values. 

This journalist (below) is a Christian. He challenges both himself and the rest of us to be careful to tell the truth rather than just play for hits and likes on social media, to do things God's way rather than the selfish way. He challenges all of us to respond with restraint and kindness even when confronted with opposition and hate.

We 're all going to have to "dig for truth" in this environment. Think things through.

Burn cars≠fun

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

If you followed a link on yesterday's post, you heard an ABC reporter telling people what he thinks is happening at the riots in Los Angeles: "just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burning".

"Fun"?? This is from a used-to-be-trusted legacy media news outlet. To the degree that anyone agrees with this deluded view of a violent situation, we have a genuine crisis going on in this country.

Quits Harvard

Harvard University has lost its credibility among American taxpayers. As the federal government removes billions of dollars of public funding, they counter with the claim that they can do whatever they want to do under the umbrella of free speech and academic freedom. 

Yes, they have free speech but we don't have to pay them billions for misleading students and breaking civil rights law. 

 

A psychiatrist who taught in their medical school felt compelled to break away a year ago. He explained his understandable reasons:

"I stopped teaching at Harvard last year [2024] primarily because of its anti-truth-seeking culture, radical left-wing bias, racial and gender discrimination, and prevailing anti-intellectualism . .  Harvard has strayed from its foundational mission of unbiased truth-seeking . . ."

He doesn't hold back: "Harvard remains in denial of its own radicalism. It sneers and looks down on most of America and on American values like color-blind equality, meritocracy, free speech, hard work, and individual responsibility." 

from "Harvard Insider Blows Whistle: This Place is Totally Corrupted"

NPR & PBS

News reporting and broadcasting should be "fair and balanced" in America, and that's what we look for. But of course there are journalists who think their own opinions are right and refuse to give coverage to other views. 

It's allowed in America, where we have protected free speech. But the other half of Americans, who see things differently, certainly should not be forced to pay for the broadcasting of opinions they believe to be wrong. That wouldn't be fair.

Those other Americans have been in this position for decades. Complaints that government-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS) is biased go back to the 1960's. But moves to cut public funding were always de-railed by appealing to kids' programing like Big Bird and Mr. Rogers.

Times change. Under the current president, government funding -- provided by taxpayers -- may really end. CPB is shocked. They are suing.

(cont'd tomorrow)

New media 4

Follow up to post, post, post

Legacy ("old") media has lost the trust of many Americans, demonstrated by declining subscribers and declining influence. Some are trying to face that fact, to "right the ship," and to regain trust. Surging in the gap is "new media," including podcasts and X and independent videos/reports. 

For example, there were hundreds of authentic videos (like yesterday's) published on X of real conditions last fall after Hurricane Helene created chaos in western North Carolina.  They challenged some misleading legacy media reports in newspapers and on TV.

We learned not to trust "old" media's version of reality. Now there's an alternative that seems more trustworthy. As Konstantin Kisin says, "what could go wrong?"

Hopefully, new media will prove more reliable. But it will still be produced by flawed human beings, like the "old."

Wiki on DOGE

If you wanted to find out what DOGE is, would you go to Wikipedia? Many would, because they think it is neutral and honest in reporting factual information in a non-partisan way. I wish that were the case. 

It has nothing good to say about this heroic effort to trim the federal budget. On the contrary, the reader only learns that DOGE is controversial, it inspires lawsuits, its claims to the discovery of fraud are false, its leader is ambiguous, it cuts good programs, it's a partisan political tool, etc., etc.

In short, Wikipedia's article is a hit job on DOGE and on Elon Musk. It reads like a partisan political tool itself. 

Wikipedia is the product of Katherine Maher's priorities. "Consensus" and "getting things done" come before truth on her priority list. Vital information is missing from the article. There's no effort to acknowledge the legitimate views of the people who support it.

What's important?

National Public Radio (NPR) proudly announced its new CEO last January. Katherine Maher is an experienced executive who has "tackled the issues around reliable and accessible information for all."

"Reliable" ? Well, not exactly . . not if you really need to know the reality about a situation. True information is not her goal in leading this news-gathering organization. She says:

"I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting things done."

So her goal for NPR is to get everybody to agree, presumably with their point of view. She probably has nothing against true information . . but only if it helps them get more important things done.

Americans don't trust news media, as Jeff Bezos said. This helps explain why.

(cont'd tomorrow)

"Just politics!"

Some people claimed during the campaign that the president-elect is "literally Hitler." The current president said that the man is a fascist and a threat to democracy. But last week he gave him happy congratulations and a "Welcome back" to the White House.

A radio host feels confused. "What happened to fascist?" Did he believe those accusations?

Back in 2006, journalist Leslie Stahl reminded the incoming Speaker of the House that she had said terrible things about the opposing party's candidates. She asked, "How will you be able to work with him after saying those things??"

Said the Speaker, "Oh that's just politics. I'm sure he understands."

Alarming, emotional, exaggerated attacks are not to be taken seriously. Even the politician who says these things often does not actually believe them, but just says them for effect. Any connection to genuine truth could be a coincidence.

As usual, you'll have to think for yourself.

A test coming 2

Re-post from 2021, "Robbie" George's choice for integrity

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

So Princeton Professor of Law Robert P. George has made up his mind in advance of the testing he thinks will come. When/if powers in our culture demand that he affirm what he does not believe, he will not do it. Not in public, not in private, not to save career or friendship.

"There is only one thing about my life that is completely in my control, namely, my integrity. No one can take it from me. If I lose it, it can only be by way of my own freely chosen decision to yield it up. This I will not do.

"How about you? The only thing in your life that no one can take from you--even if they take from you everything else, everything you love, treasure, or cherish--is your integrity. Will you sacrifice it for other things? Or will you refuse to yield it up, no matter the cost?

"You will face the test. Pray for me, as I will pray for you, dear friends, that all of us, with God's help, will pass the test--that "like a tree planted by the water, we shall not be moved."

A test coming 1

 A re-post from 2021, well worth seeing again

Corruption in our national life is distressing. People of integrity will have to decide whether to  cave under pressure, or take a stand against the corruption.

Robert P. George posted the following on Facebook.

"A time of testing is coming--indeed, for some it has already come. We are each going to have to decide. As for myself:

"I will not pretend to believe what I do not believe, or pretend not to believe what I do believe.

"I will not speak as if I believe to be true something I in fact believe to be false.

"Not in public. Not in private. Not for the sake of career or friendships. Not to fit in or avoid being thrown out (or "canceled").

(cont'd tomorrow)

Cat reporting

At the presidential debate last week, one of the candidates said of migrants in Ohio: "They're eating cats/dogs." Yikes. It stirred up controversy.

Media fact-checkers denied it, some calling the claim a "racist smear." How are they sure about that? CBS was sure because the mayor of Springfield OH said there's no police report about it. But of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What should CBS have done to find out the truth, given its massive resources? They should have done the work of journalism: sent a reporter to the area to interview the eyewitness and the neighbors, find the visual evidence, conduct background research.

That's what investigative journalist Christopher Rufo did. His team found the party who posted the relevant video and went to the site, found a grill matching that in the video, confirmed the location by knot patterns in the fence, matched voice patterns, and much more.

Conclusion: "Our interview with the eyewitness matched the details of the original video and was unambiguous in its conclusion: “This African dude next door had the damn cat on the grill. They was barbecuing the damn cat!”

Get the rest of the story, the video, and detail corrections from "Fact Checking the Fact Checkers"

U of Austin 2

 Follow up to this post

As Konstantin said, "there are people whose brains have been broken by an excess of education who believe that our history is evil, that we do not deserve to be great . . that we must be punished for the sins of our ancestors. To them our past is abominable, our present must be spent apologizing, and our future is managed decline." 

It's a disaster to this country and to the West that our colleges and universities, yes, are "breaking brains." Peter Boghossian (yesterday's post) said that they're beyond recovery, that the system should be burned to the ground.

But a few people decided to try to return sanity to our higher education system, and Boghossian joined them in the effort. They created the University of Austin to be different, not woke, and they just opened their doors to the Class of 2028 last week.

New president Pano Kanelos explained three years ago why they want to do this: our universities today tend to pursue emotional comfort rather than pursue knowing truth, the essential goal for a university.

"We can't wait for universities to fix themselves. So we're starting a new one."

from Free Press

(cont'd tomorrow)

Trans issue 4

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

In addition to the medical and scientific evaluation in yesterday's post, there is a paper evaluating what scripture says about transgenderism, today's subject.

As pro-LGBT-and-transgender Christians put it, there is no Bible verse banning transgenderism (a non-existent term when it was written, though there is an Old Testament passage prohibiting a man or woman from presenting as the opposite sex). 

But humans are created as male or female, that's clear, and the gay lifestyle is not approved. Those verses are scattered and numerous (see the article for specifics). Most Christians who want to affirm gay lifestyle and transgenderism therefore have to argue that modern opinion trumps Bible authority. That's a different issue for a different post.

image

Their conclusion continues the love/truth theme: "We can't be silent about minors being subjected to medical transitioning, or girls being required to share locker rooms with anatomical males. The simultaneous roles of ministering compassionately to transgender individuals [while] opposing transgenderism requires that biblically faithful ministers act lovingly and speak truthfully at the same time."

from Transgenderism and the Bible

Dissenter 1

A surgeon in Texas watched his profession change during the covid pandemic. Health care professionals who used to adhere to evidence and truth in the past became intimidated by ideology. Dissent of any kind was not tolerated.

It was just the beginning. 

After telling the public that they had stopped surgically transitioning minors, Texas Children's Hospital continued the practice. Within closed doors, they would talk about their methods as well as how to keep secrets from parents.

The surgeon's conscience compelled him to go public with that information. Dr. Eithan Haim became a whistle-blower. The federal government is now taking him to trial.

Watch as much as you can of his interview with psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson:

News 4

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

That whistle-blower at NPR was punished with five days of suspension, and then he resigned his long-time position as editor and writer. Of course he did. It would be difficult to remain in the organization after calling it out publicly like that, and it cost him his job.

His accusation was that NPR is now partisan (though he shares its point-of-view), that its reporting is one-sided, that it does not tolerate dissent from its politics.

Its CEO fully participates with the "Disinformation" movement described in yesterday's post, acknowledging that it can be "tricky"null to censor dissent due to that pesky First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. 

Public money is also a problem if the news organization is partisan as the whistle-blower reported, because taxpayers support it: "NPR may receive little direct federal funding, but a good deal of its budget comprises federal funds that flow to it indirectly by federal law."null

from Christopher Rufo and here

News 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Reporter Nellie Bowles, in her dream job at the New York Times, was surprised when her editors rejected a story that she wrote in 2019 about Prager U. They said the story should have stressed that Prager U's videos are "disinformation."

It confused her because she knew that the videos were not lies, but just represented a point of view which the editors at NYT didn't like. She argued that Prager U's point of view was not inherently a lie. 

"Disinformation" became a movement in newsrooms around the country, she says, at about that time. The movement "pretends to be editorial, but it's extremely political. It's their tangible goal. . . They pretended that Antifa was fake news!" She calls Antifa "an armed group of left-wing protesters." Editors labeled her a fascist for wanting to report on Antifa taking over a neighborhood in Seattle.

Nellie sees journalism as a vehicle for true information, not political activism. So, she's no longer employed by "prestige media."

i

News 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

A senior business editor with 25 years of experience at National Public Radio says something similar has happened at NPR. Instead of even trying to represent the views of the whole country, it became partisan.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.

"Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find . . the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population. 

He makes the good point that there would be nothing wrong with reporting only their own left-leaning point of view-- if they were honest about it. But they purport to "consider all things" -- and don't. In three examples, he shows how storylines follow talking points of politicians just from the left-leaning party to the exclusion of the other one. 

from How NPR Lost America's Trust null

(cont'd tomorrow)

Deepfake 2

Follow up to this post

It's already hard to know whether reported news gives us an accurate picture of reality. Certain media are reliable, we think, but we wonder if we're right about that. 

We know media does follow government direction to censor dissent (example: release of the Twitter files) and does feed us propaganda mixed with factual information. So, what is accurate and what is not?

"When state propaganda is easily generated, millions will fully embrace their own hopeless inability to know the truth." It's easy to be cynical and give up trying to know. At least one millennial in my family did give up. 

Unfortunately, advancing video generation technology is almost certain to amplify the power of fake news to deceive us and control us. "AI human impersonation video technology" will get scary.

from Mind Matters

(cont'd tomorrow)

Fired

A couple weeks ago, I advised caution about truth telling: "If you haven't bowed to the wokeness, please speak up. But maybe not at work . . I don't want you to be fired for thinking things through." Maybe you thought "that doesn't happen." Well, I wish it didn't.

But it really does. A snowboarding coach at a Vermont high school was chatting with students, and agreed with one of them, adding that biological sex is the basis for significant physical differences and should apply to sports.

"The next day, Bloch learned the school district had fired him over the matter and barred him from ever being hired again." 

Not only did this coach tell the truth as he sees it in a respectful manner, but he then had the courage to initiate a lawsuit. The school district and the state Agency of Education admitted that he was wrongfully fired. This man had the courage to speak up even in a job and justice prevailed, thank God.

Never happened 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Google co-founder Sergey Brin said (he's still on Google's board but no longer running it): “We definitely messed up on the image generation . . . it definitely, for good reasons, upset a lot of people.”

He added: “We haven’t fully understood why it leans left in many cases and that’s not our intention. . . weird things that are out there that definitely feel far left."

Yes, it sure does feel far left. He claims that he doesn't understand why. Maybe he's just blinded by his ideology. Because it's totally clear to the rest of us--Gemini presents left-wing ideas because its creators/engineers are left-wing. 

Racial diversity is a filter built into image generation. When users ask for an image of a historical figure who was actually of the white race, this is less important than the woke preference of the Gemini designers. So, for instance, it presents non-white Nazi soldiers, which we all know never happened.

image

Personal views of those designers take priority over factual, accurate truth. Clearly, truth-telling is not the highest priority. So we wonder, what else that Gemini shows us is not going to be really true? 

That's it. That's why people are upset.