Skip to comments.Newsweek Writer Plays Psychologist--On GOP Only
Posted on 06/24/2007 8:19:43 AM PDT by lowbridge
Posted by Lynn Davidson on June 23, 2007 - 18:45.
Newsweek's June 19 edition had an interesting web-exclusive Mind Matters column by Wray Herbert called Toothless is Beautiful, which was about social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's new book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me). The book and the column concerned the psychological process known as cognitive dissonance. Sound like an unlikely candidate for bias? Keep reading.
Cognitive dissonance is the extreme emotional discomfort we feel when two important beliefs, attitudes or perceptions collide. Humans cannot tolerate dissonance for long, so they ease the tension by making a change in belief or attitudeand justifying the change.
Somehow Newsweek and Herbert, a fellow at the [Jimmy] Carter Center for mental health journalism still managed to somehow throw in a little liberal bias, with a vague reference that does not make clear whether Newsweek or the study's authors named only Republicans (surprise!) as examples of public figures with cognitive dissonance. After naming a series of recognizable GOPers, Newsweek also got in dig at Bush and those who still support the misbegotten war(emphasis mine):
What if you make a choice that is really bad and you can't hide from it? What is the mind's strategy for dealing with a colossal mistake? Well, as Tavris and Aronson note, public figures from Henry Kissinger to Ronald Reagan to Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales have opted for a simple phrase that deflects all responsibility: mistakes were made.
So, there were no Democrats who Herbert could have listed? None? At all? Not even Bill Clinton and his refusal to get involved in the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides and a lack of reaction to terrorism in the '90s? Hillary Clinton still pushing the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy myth (if only she knew about the hourly email updates directly from Karl Rove and Sam Walton's ghost). Sandy Berger? John Kerry?
What about Jimmy Carter and his history of rationalizing the actions of terrorist groups, dictators, suspected terrorists and thugs or blaming factual discrepancies, plagiarism and misrepresentations of the truth in his recent book about Israel on failing memory? Those aren't examples of cognitive dissonance among Democrats?
That last paragraph continued with a criticism of what are described as self-deluded public figures who not only can't admit they are wrong but believe it all the more:
But just as commonly, people who don't want to own up to a mistake become even more entrenched in their belief once it is proven wrong. They throw good money after bad in the market, grab for straws in a dying relationship or send yet more troops to fight a misbegotten war.
Again, the description fit Carter, yet he was not mentioned. No mention of a man who still backs Hamas even after the recent violence? Don't his positions on terrorist groups, dictators, suspected terrorists and thugs fall into this category?
Surely Newsweek's absence of Democrats and targeting of Republicans wouldn't have anything to do with the author's position at the Carter Center?
The article made it seem as if only Republicans are supposedly engaging in cognitive dissonance. A medical news beat wasn't the same as foreign policy, but it was still journalism. When journalistic bias was so blatant in an article that was not really about politics or even Republicans, it calls into question the impartiality of the rest of the magazine.
Contact Lynn with tips or complaints at: tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com
Gee, that was fun! :-)
Liberals are like small children. This one seems to be grasping at “I called you a poopy head FIRST” as a winning arguement.
His own boss has become an anti-semite, so why not, eh?!
>.I did not have sex with bin laden
Cognitive dissonance is actually the process in a human mind in which happens when a person gets conflicting information and chooses to ignore the info they do not agree with and keep the info they do believe.
If you are a liberal/progressive, you usually believe people are inherently bad. If you are a conservative you usually believe in the natural goodness of people.
As liberals/progressives, you fight the conservative information with emotions. As conservatives put forth more and more rational thought which goes against your emoyional beliefs, you start to respond with more and more emotional outbursts with less and less rational ability.
The goal becomes one of demonizing the holder of conservative/rational beliefs even if fabrication is required. Liberals at this point are incapable discerning that they may be wrong and believethat others are bad and are out to get the liberal.
This results in inordinate and irrational fears and attacks on conservatives who have influence. Hence we have liberals denying the MSM, Hollywood, etc are liberal.
Vast right wing conspiracies are out to get us, right wing radio talk shows need regulating (censorship) cuz they too are out to get us. Big corporations are our enemies, conservatives have all of the power, we (liberals) are victims.
My opinion has been offerd.
I think you got it backwards, cs. Liberals believe humans are inherently good, from lazy welfare queens that "just need a helping hand" to terrorists that "need to be engaged in dialogue so their grievances can be addressed". Their solutions tend to be Pollyanna, which drives conservatives nuts because they want rational, real-world solutions.
A liberal believes that only they are inherently good, other humans are inherently bad. They deeply believe that Earth would be better off if other humans didn't exist, or failing that, they would like others to stay quietly in a small room watching an idiot box and emitting the minimum amount of CO2.
Believing whether people are good or bad is not the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think everybody should help each other, conservatives think people should be encouraged to help themselves. Mommy versus daddy.
Actually, liberals believe that their government programs should help people. Voluntarily helping each other, aka charity, is espoused (and practiced) far more by conservatives than it is by liberals.
I'd just as soon see Sp0+1i+e stories as theirs.
People should never forget when these pukes showed their faces in the 2006 election ~ them and their macaca attack camera guys.
I believe that liberals blame the conservatives for taking advantage of the “weakness” of the welfare mothers, etc. The natural evil in people.
Liberal and RINO politicians have figured out that if they create enuf victims who become “entitled”, they thus can assure themselves of a loyal base for their communist/socialist/all powerful desires.
Excellent debate all of you. thanks