When in a discussion about Romney's "47%" comments and providing evidence that the Republican candidate was inaccurate with his numbers and whom they represented, I was told to "stop thinking like a Democrat" and told that the only people who care about that "47%" are Democrats. I then provided proof this wasn't entirely accurate, as many conservative pundits have criticized Romney for his remarks, including: David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, Mark McKinnon, Bill Kristol, etc. Several Republican politicians have distanced themselves from Romney since those remarks were made public.
I guess my question is, how does one define "thinking like a Democrat" or on the opposite side, "thinking like a Republican?"
My intent with my research and fact-checking was not to come across as partisan. It was not my intent to "think like a Democrat." It was simply my intent to get to the truth of the matter, to provide consistent evidence with regard to the accuracy of Romney's words. When fact-checkers illustrated he was inaccurate with those same words, were they "thinking like Democrats?" When fact-checkers have showcased an ad or a quote of President Obama's as inaccurate, were they "thinking like Republicans?"
I don't understand why there has to be a partisan bent to everything. I can't count how many times, after fact-checking a statement, I hear the following - "Fact-checking sites are liberally biased!" Why can't we allow facts to be facts?
I think I, more or less, know the answer to that. When a fact runs counter to a strongly-held belief of a person's, he or she will often times find a reason to dismiss said fact so they can hold on to that belief. "That source is biased" is an easy out for them. Perhaps largely due to the construct that is the "news" media nowadays, especially on cable news channels and radio, opinion can often times be misconstrued as fact and vice versa. While an opinion can be backed by facts, that does not make the two interchangeable. It frustrates me to think that just because I research and fact-check ads, quotes, chain e-mails and the like very regularly, that equates to me "thinking like a Democrat." I just see my thinking as being reality-based and curious. If that equates me to "thinking like a Democrat," then so be it, I guess.
I guess my question is, how does one define "thinking like a Democrat" or on the opposite side, "thinking like a Republican?"
My intent with my research and fact-checking was not to come across as partisan. It was not my intent to "think like a Democrat." It was simply my intent to get to the truth of the matter, to provide consistent evidence with regard to the accuracy of Romney's words. When fact-checkers illustrated he was inaccurate with those same words, were they "thinking like Democrats?" When fact-checkers have showcased an ad or a quote of President Obama's as inaccurate, were they "thinking like Republicans?"
I don't understand why there has to be a partisan bent to everything. I can't count how many times, after fact-checking a statement, I hear the following - "Fact-checking sites are liberally biased!" Why can't we allow facts to be facts?
I think I, more or less, know the answer to that. When a fact runs counter to a strongly-held belief of a person's, he or she will often times find a reason to dismiss said fact so they can hold on to that belief. "That source is biased" is an easy out for them. Perhaps largely due to the construct that is the "news" media nowadays, especially on cable news channels and radio, opinion can often times be misconstrued as fact and vice versa. While an opinion can be backed by facts, that does not make the two interchangeable. It frustrates me to think that just because I research and fact-check ads, quotes, chain e-mails and the like very regularly, that equates to me "thinking like a Democrat." I just see my thinking as being reality-based and curious. If that equates me to "thinking like a Democrat," then so be it, I guess.
Comments
Post a Comment