Judgment in the News
Issue 99
We stipulate in these pages that we are moving into a new consciousness, the linchpin of which is compassion. We also know that judgment — a star of the old consciousness, rampant throughout our society and humanity writ large — is its antithesis. So when it comes to cultivating conscious politics wherein we intend to be far more compassionate and far less judgmental, it behooves us, at a minimum, to be able to recognize judgment when we see and hear it. As a rule, thoughts/feelings/attitudes/opinions that are invited are benign. Uninvited, they’re judgments.
In the realm of political news, information, punditry, and commentary, judgment is omnipresent. In some cases, it’s perfectly acceptable and easy to deal with while, in others, it’s more disguised and, even, insidious. So today, conscious politics practitioner, we’ll take a gander at a smattering of judgment in the news to practice noticing it when we hear it and placing it in context when we do.
To start, three examples of quotes from within the same Washington Post news article:
“‘BlackRock is using its massive size to drive up the price of gas & weaken national security—all so BlackRock’s rich executives can feel better about themselves,’ Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrote on Twitter.”
“‘Kentucky joins…to push back against the woke capitalists who are trying to destroy our energy industries,’ West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore said…”
“Peter Bisbee, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association, said…'these woke institutions who are jeopardizing the retirement accounts of millions of Americans for the sake of pleasing woke environmental zealots…’”
Cotton talks as if he knows what Black Rock is doing (“driving up prices”/”weakening national security”) and why (“executives can feel better”). He doesn’t know. These are opinions/judgments. The West Virginia state treasurer calls capitalists “woke,” a judgy pejorative, and says they are “trying to destroy our energy industries.” He doesn’t know that, he believes that. It’s his opinion. And the Republican attorneys general representative also uses “woke” pejoratively and declares it’s to “please environmental zealots.” He doesn’t know that, he believes that. It’s his opinion. News outlets quoting politicos who judge is part of life so we just have to discern: fact or judgment? Keep it or throw it away?
Then there’s the kind of judgment that’s not only rather obvious but also somewhat expected. This piece in Jacobin about former Trump national security advisor, John Bolton, starts with: “Appearing on Jake Tapper’s prime-time CNN show…the bland seventy-three-year-old, whose only distinguishing feature is his bushy white mustache and unbending commitment to US militarism… ” “Bland;” “bushy;” “unbending commitment” are pure judgment. Yet they’re in a publication that touts itself as “a thoughtful left perspective that is refreshing and all too rare” with a “bitingly satirical but serious-minded style.” In other words, it’s writing for a narrow, defined audience and its readers know and appreciate that.
Then there is the more mainstream stuff on the teevee from across the spectrum, flooding us with breaking news, regular news, information, and commentary, often all mushed together, 24/7. In this FOX Business clip, the host (Larry Kudlow) and the guest (Sen. Ted Cruz) are conversing about news:
Kudlow: “Joe Biden is in Israel today because he has to be…”
Cruz: “If you are a friend of America, the Biden White House treats you with hostility.”
Kudlow: “They’d rather do business with Iran, you’re right.”
Pure opinion in a newsy environment. We take note.
Same over on MSNBC in these examples from regular hosts Joy Reid and Ali Velshi:
Reid: “Those individuals include…middling DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, and supposed constitutional lawyer, John Eastman.”
Velshi: “Steve Bannon, former Trump White House advisor and double-layered button-down shirt aficionado…”
“Middling,” “supposed,” and “shirt aficionado” are obviously pure opinion but it gets rolled into the news mix. Arguably, these examples could be viewed more in the camp of being for a narrow, specific audience like Jacobin. But they are marketed as mainstream and are largely viewed as mainstream by mainstream audiences. So the more they mix it all together, the more we have to discern what’s what.
It’s also a million times easier when people simply say that they’re offering conjecture as Mika Brezezinski does in this MSNBC clip:
“…it just seems wild that anyone in the US Secret Servie would have a policy…seems weird…”
“Seems” is the operative word wherein “wild” and “weird” are not presented as facts. So simple.
Then there are these quotes from this news article in Politico, a mainstream publication for political news and information with an audience that’s ostensibly fluent in the political news of the day:
“In an otherwise dismal political climate for Democrats, the Colorado senator posted…the best fundraising quarter ever for the low-key second-term senator, his campaign told Politico.”
“Still, Democrats’ fundraising is critically important as the party faces brutal national headwinds but still has a decent shot at keeping the Senate. Even as polls show a sagging Democratic brand, there’s little question that the party will have the money to try and buck the midterm odds weighing against them and hold the majority.”
“Dismal climate;” “low-key;” “brutal headwinds;” “sagging brand;” “odds against them” all read, to me, as opinion, but the article is not labeled as such. Scream emoji. Five alarms.
And this reporting, also from Politico:
“Their goal is passing legislation on the Electoral Count Act by the end of the year, well in advance of the 2024 campaign — and before House Republicans are poised to take power with little interest in addressing the topic.”
“Republicans poised to take power…” Exsqueeze me? Four months before the election? In the context of news? No.
To be clear, I am not, today, in this opinion piece, calling for abolishing judgment in our political discourse. (Not yet anyway.) I am, however, calling upon conscious politics practitioners to simply see and hear judgment for what it is when it’s presented and…act accordingly.
NOTE: In two days: The Conscious Politics Free Monthly Training for July. It’s this newsletter come to life except instead of talking about what I want to talk about, we talk about what you want to talk about. Invite your friends and relations…ALL ARE WELCOME.
This was a fun one to play: Guess the Judgement! I'd say I racked up a near perfect score. Now comes to putting it to work in the real world... Thanks for another great article!
If beliefs are presented as facts, then de facto these facts are judgments in disguise. Raising consciousness about the relationship between beliefs/facts/judgments will crack the stalemate of politics as usual. Judgments separate us, in plain sight.