Coincident with launching our new “Letters” page, we’re announcing here key parts of our policy for publication. As with our “Comments” sections, we’re committed to publishing a wide range of viewpoints as long as the focus is on people and issues in the San Joaquin Valley.
Like other media platforms, we’ve made a conscious decision to reject the kinds of lies, disinformation, misinformation, falsehoods and conspiracy theories that have characterized recent assaults on democratic institutions, most especially assaults on truth, science, learning, and law.
For example, those who insist Antifa was responsible for the invasion of our Capitol on January 6 won’t be humored here for many reasons, but most especially because (1) their claim is unsupported by sufficient evidence and (2) even if a few members of Antifa were involved in the insurrection, such behavior remains a crime against democracy which should be tried and punished, and (3) the preponderance of evidence shows the invasion was instigated and carried off primarily by members of the alt-right, including by President Trump and some of his supporters.
Some will argue that the free speech principle demands tolerance of all viewpoints. We agree with John Stuart Mill that liberty includes the right to think, say, or do anything one wishes as long as it causes no harm to others.
However, history is unambiguous about the harm resulting from hate speech, the Big Lie, and other forms of fascistic propaganda; therefore, we reject hate speech, the Big Lie, and other forms of fascistic propaganda. We also reject unsupported claims when they’re meant to undermine truth, democratic values, or claims standing on firmer ground.
Fiat lux — “Let there be light” — the motto of the University of California — suggests that we are always engaged in a process of moving from the darkness of ignorance and misapprehension toward the light of knowledge and wisdom. A corollary to that suggestion is that we’re never fully knowledgeable or wise. No one knows all the truth all the time.
In searching for truth, however, we can and must share certain fundamental facts. News and analysis with a local focus enables us to verify and share facts more readily than does news and analysis with a broader focus because we’re all closer to local people and events. That’s only one reason we’ve chosen to present news and analysis with a local focus.
For example, most of us would agree that we have large populations of homeless people in the San Joaquin Valley and that those populations are growing. That agreement constitutes a shared fact.
We might disagree about who or what is responsible for the homelessness and about what to do about it, but few would disagree it exists. Disagreements about the causes of homelessness and what we should do about it are called “politics.”
Bias
The notion that news and analysis should be politically neutral didn’t always dominate media. News in the early decades of our new republic was partisan, rude, inflammatory, and often rife with falsehoods.
In fact, for much of the history of news media, partisan and inflammatory rhetoric was standard. Near the mid twentieth century, rules imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), especially the Fairness Doctrine, brought about a requirement to strive for objectivity and balance in news reporting. The popular understanding of that requirement was expressed as, “telling both sides.”
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Since then, media have been subject to less and less government oversight. One consequence has been the rise of highly partisan media and a concomitant decline in standards for veracity.
In the meantime, access to higher education became more and more expensive. The result has been a decline in educational achievement and a less informed public less capable of critical thinking.
The rise of partisan media also brought about an oversimplification of our political parties into a “liberal” versus “conservative” matrix. Over time, that partisan divide brought about a breakdown in public service; our political parties are now pitted foes too seldom capable of finding common ground and mutual goals. Voters have difficulty distinguishing between the parties and often conclude both are at fault and neither represents their interests.
We believe a local focus might help us move beyond partisan labels toward pragmatic solutions. If we can agree that homelessness is an escalating problem that needs to be addressed, why waste time trying to assign blame or dodge responsibility? Why not use data and cost/benefit analyses to address the problem and arrive at solutions?
We further believe that in a nation as wealthy as ours, there are no good reasons for children to be hungry, the elderly, mentally ill, and disabled to be homeless, and wealth to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We further believe that honest labor should be rewarded with living wages. We believe in the pursuit of truth and knowledge through empirical methods.
We also believe our nation has always benefitted when we’ve rejected partisanship and politics in favor of pragmatism and public service. We believe in rule by majority.
These are some of our biases and we are proud to defend them.
Let there be light.
“Let there be light.”
Until I wish to sleep.
Then draw the shades.
This editorial works against itself.
“ News in the early decades of our new republic was partisan, rude, inflammatory, and often rife with falsehoods.” That is when the American miracle occurred. It wasn’t all pretty.
And further, “ In fact, for much of the history of news media, partisan and inflammatory rhetoric was standard..”. And several credible news sources established their prestige with diverse editorial pages.
And then the not golden age of big three news networks, “Near the mid twentieth century, rules imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), especially the Fairness Doctrine, brought about a requirement to strive for objectivity and balance in news reporting. The popular understanding of that requirement was expressed as, “telling both sides.”“
Diverse ideas debated openly are important. Let criticism be the guard against quackery. Let hate speech serve as warning labels for idiots.
Yes or no, Mr. Duarte: Do you approve of lies?
Let argument open challenge be the arbiters of what is a lie.
I am in favor of forums where light comes from all angles.
Ask a real question and apply answers above.
I see that my previous reply hasn’t been posted.
Do you believe in open debate Mr. Caine? Yes or no.
Yes, Mr. Duarte, I believe in open debate. And kudos to you and your friends by baiting me into breaking my own rule about staying local. In any case, I’m going to try to do better and avoid providing yet another platform in competition with talk radio, Fox News, and Breitbart. I think we’ll find more common ground when it’s under our feet.
Very nice essay on journalistic standards, Eric. Critical thinking and how to tell truth from falsity based upon evidence should start in Pre-K.. Will the Fairness Doctrine ever return?
Excellent article! Lies will only destroy our society as was witnessed on January 6. I will give Mr. Duarte credit for reading your column.
What if I wrap my lies in fallacies packed in bad metaphors, would that be okay?
“When you cancerous liberals are drinking the blood of children in your diseased satanic ceremonies, do you ever spill a little on your shirt?”
Or are you expecting more logical displays of fact:
– Fiat lux is Latin
– Latin is the language of ceremonies
– Thus, liberals drink the blood of children
Yes or no, Mr. Caine: Was the Trump-Russia Collusion story one driven almost entirely by a bureaucratic, media, tech, academic, and entertainment class intent from even before Mr. Trump took office to discredit him and destroy his Presidency, or was it based on facts?
No, Mr. Barton, the Trump/Russia collusion story was not driven “almost entirely” by a the groups you list. First, there is ample evidence that Russian bots distributed propaganda during the 2015 campaign. Second, there is evidence that Russia systematically discredited Hillary Clinton during the campaign. But finally, are you arguing that two wrongs make a right or that the 30,000+ lies told by Donald Trump are equivalent to the Russia collusion story? Are you arguing incitement to insurrection and sedition are equivalent to the Russia collusion story?
Again, we heard 4+ years of “Trump/Russia!” from your allies in the media. A 2+ year investigation costing ~$35M using falsified FISA applications predicated on a phony, Hillary funded dossier took place. Multiple folks from the intelligence community actively participated in promulgating the investigation knowing the charges were bogus. So again, was the Trump-Russia collusion story, a story pounded on relentlessly by the MSM, true? Responses relating to a “Russian bot” campaign or “Russian” attempts to discredit Hillary are non-responses: neither involves the specific question. Nor, for that matter, does the oft quoted “30,000 lies!!” straw man, or for that matter the new favorite word of the Left – Sedition!
Try again.
Congratulations to both of you for an excellent example of light from distinct angles. Michael Flynn sat in prison for three years due to a manic persecution without foundations. Whether or not Russia plays in foreign elections, as does the US, is distinct from collusion.
Can our good publisher/editor show a case where he criticized the liars, Schiff, Weismann… for provable lies?
Be flattered Mr. Caine. We find your open forum important enough to fight for.
One thing I have to give credit to Trump supporters. They are not bashful about repeating the truths they hear on Fox News and Qanon.
I am neither liberal nor a Democrat. Yet, they denigrate anyone who disagrees with them as being of that political persuasion. When they do this, they lose all credibility for knowing what they are talking about.
Two months ago, my friend of Chinese ancestry, a U.S. citizen, was spit upon for no reason beyond his ethnic heritage. He was minding his own business walking on a public sidewalk. This did not happen before the 45th President inspired hatred by falsely accusing the country of China of creating the Covid virus in a lab. Nor did China take our jobs–our own Corporate elites gave the jobs to China and then Trump gave them a tax break.
But Trump supporters will never admit that what I just typed is true because they only know what they see on Fox News. They don’t believe that Trump could possibly engage in conspiracies because he is totally honest and has never lied, right? I only know what is true is what I see with my own eyes. I do not believe propaganda, regardless of source. I don’t want to be part of any tribe. All the tribes do is create hostility and anger without any constructive dialogue.
The intent of this web site is clearly intended to better our community. The snarky, uncivil comments disgrace the writers and add nothing of value to the discussion. They certainly do not change minds.
This is simply too rich:
– “..Trump supporters. They are not bashful about repeating the truths they hear on Fox News and Qanon.”
– “.. they denigrate anyone who disagrees with them as being of that political persuasion.”
– “This did not happen before the 45th President inspired hatred by falsely accusing the country of China of creating the Covid virus in a lab.”
– “..Trump supporters..only know what they see on Fox News.”
Gosh, Mr. Frohman, what a balanced, reasoned, and persuasive series of charges. No generalizations there! And not “snarky”, or “uncivil” at all! You’ve added tremendously to the discussion with your list of pejorative characterizations, and unfounded insinuations. My mind is changed! Well done!
Chortle away, Mr. Barton, but if you ever have a reflective moment, consider that a nation which must determine what a lie is through a process of argument is a nation that has lost its moral compass. And when its people routinely resort to whataboutism, red herring, tu quoque, deflection and false equivalencies, it has lost its intellectual ballast. The consequence is a ship of state drifting into a Hobbesian, “war of all against all.”
Per your previous response, “whataboutism, red herring(s), and deflection..” are certainly something with which you’re familiar, Mr. Caine.
And here I’ve always thought that an essential part of the American experiment was the notion that ideas would compete in the public square. And until the confluence of big tech, big government, and big business in just the last several years, that has been the case. A “Liberal” of 20 years ago would be appalled at the current state of speech shaming. But now? “Racist!, Nazi!, Bigot!, Misogynist!” Yeah, let’s let the State, or the tech titans, provide us with the “facts”, and then we’ll all be happy. Maybe we can just call it the Ministry of Truth.
Yes, Mr. Barton, I’m familiar with virtually all the argumentative fallacies. You are right about that.
Eric Caine,
Please look at the facts! Why does everyone resort to MSN says or FOX news says….Listen to the congressional hearings, listen to what Speaker Pelosi is saying about you, me, us. Are you going to say the cancel culture isn’t alive and well? Why is it OK for the left to state blatant lies and yet the minute someone fact checks them they are taken down, removed from social media. What happened to free speech? Who made the left the decider of truth and lies?
Life Long Modesto Resident: Everyone does not “resort to MSN says of FOX news says.” No one “made the left the decider of truth and lies.” And so forth.
Finally, Eric, you answered my personal request, after having cancelled my last two replies, to let your readers in on your policy. I now know just how narrow the scope of replies must be in order to pass snuff. Very helpful…
I get that you decide, for the Valley Citizens, what we say to one another. I get that you are in charge.
I do not get that you can impose what you think upon the Valley Citizens, and expect the Valley Citizens to sit idly by as you and Bruce Frohman assume that any thoughts other than what conforms with your own, must automatically be a thought that you need to jump all over.
I made myself clear that not all of your readership are either, Republican or Democrat, including myself who chooses to remain Independent, precisely because no single political party has yet to have all the answers. I choose as I am convinced, with a good conscience, to vote.
What gives you and Bruce the right to be so caustic toward other Valley Citizen’s freedoms to speak their minds? You both seem to assume you know enough about readers to put us down, and/or, cut us out of the dialogue.
Please consider your readership and stop the heavy handed hate speech.
Even, Biden, is pushing unity…
Mr. Valero: I made it clear that our policy is to reject misinformation and disinformation. It has nothing to do with personalities. As in any case, anywhere, what counts as disinformation and misinformation is a judgment call. However, if one thinks in terms of claims and support, we might begin to arrive at a consensus of what counts and what doesn’t.
So what counts as disinformation/misinformation is a judgment call? What makes your judgment better than mine or anyone else’s? Why do you not allow people with different opinions to get to say their side?
Life long Modesto Resident: As I’ve mentioned above, when a nation must rely on argument to determine what a lie is, it has lost its moral compass. In difficult cases, we resort to our courts of law to pass judgment., It is my optimistic belief that if we focus on local issues, we’re less likely to disagree on what constitutes a fact. As for allowing people “with different opinions to get to say their side,” I’m all for it. However, like many other media platforms, I’ve decided it is immoral to provide a platform for lies, misinformation, and disinformation. My judgment is better than yours because I am better informed and better trained.