In other surprising news, water is wet

Newsweek is, of course, one of the more left leaning rags but they like to pretend they aren't. I already wrote about Cameron and his nonsense...but hey, it is fun to blast easy targets like "news"week and to pick a bit more at some of the subtle shadings of media bias.

Take, for example, the labeling of the Media Research Center as "conservative". Now look around a bit. Do you see groups labeled "liberal watchdog" groups? Yes....on rare occasions. But since for many people the word "conservative" has connotations like "racist" and "Puritanical", neither of which are correct most of the time, the use of the word colors the sentence. Suddenly instead of a group reporting on what they see in the media many readers have a mental picture of Big Brother brooding over violations of personal codes and complaining about them. Thus while nominally appearing even-handed a subtle web of deceit makes its way into the conversation.

Then you have Phillip's very questionable reporting of facts. He says the architectural community is split...well, yes, that is true...of course, the split is essentially every reputable archaelogist on one side and the guy making bank of this "documentary" on the other. But nowhere in Phillip's article will you find anything of that nature. Thus the uninformed reader might extrapolate there is a legitimate debate in the reputable archaelogical community. Yet just a few minutes research pretty much lets you know that is falsehood. So technically he is correct...the archaelogical community IS split. That is...in the same sense that Americans are split over the truth of the moon landing.

And he continues his assault on certain groups with the phrase "conservative fundamentalists". Again we have a word rife with undertones and assumptions, stereotypes and generalizations but this time he links it with an even more suspect word choice of "fundamentalist". Now, through his word choice he has linked the aforementioned Media Research Center with fundamentalism.

If you ask the "average American" what is meant by fundamentalist you will hear words like "militant" and "extremist". Thus he has subtly (for those not looking for it, blatantly for others of us) linked those criticizing Cameron (including me) with angry, spiteful, hateful extremists. And having sat through a class on this very subject (Religious Fundamentalism) I can assure you that you are INTENDED to associate conservatism with fundamentalism with the Muslim suicide bomber extremists, for example. It is not an accident that these become the buzzwords you see repeatedly, nor with what they are associated.

Of course, to combat these wild eyed fanatics he uses someone teaching what the Gnostics taught...something disproved by 120 A.D. Yes, that strikes a blow for even-handedness...bringing in as your counterweight someone who indeed does tip the scales of extremist beliefs.

Phillips goes on to demonstrate his incompetence and complete disregard for his subject by claiming Jesus was a ghost after the resurrection...a fascinating bit of fantasy that bears no part in the tale. Kind of sad, really. And an implicit bit of literate chicanery that underwrites his subscribance to Crossan's fallacies.

But to show he is even-handed, Phillips closes out by saying people such as Schenk are close minded.

Well done, Newsweek. And people wonder why I fastidiously refuse to support trash rags like theirs with even a single issue purchase, much less a subscription. They claim to be even handed while delivering up "subtle" underhanded backhand slaps like this. Even worse, many people do not consciously pick up on what is going on. When they become even-handed they might be worth a read. Until then, they are worth just this...more mockery. Fortunately, that is something I can do pretty well.