ReConsider Media combines podcasts and articles to discuss international and domestic politics, political structures, and the news of today. We strive to provide a reliable, unbiased resource for processing information and understanding the context around many of the issues we face.
Challenge the conventional wisdom on critical politics issues and reconsider politics with us.
Imagine with me a happy, hand-shakey, bipartisan Congress. We're working across party lines, we're passin' bills, and everything's good.
Right now we're so far from that vision that I am almost afraid to malign it, but malign it I shall.
What better way to discredit something than to call it "fake news?" What better way to subtly deride your political opposition by bemoaning the "post-truth world" that we now live in?
It seems difficult to argue against the idea that fake news plays a larger role in our society today than it did 10 or 20 years ago. But there's a risk to thinking that we are in some unique moment in history, or having false nostalgia for some time back in the day when everything was trustworthy and you didn't have to be a discerning reader.
The good news: fake news may come in historical cycles that ebb and flow. That’s also the bad news.
I think a fairly reasonable way of describing the ideal way to come up with political positions is this:
- Use empirics, reason, and philosophy/theology to determine your core values
- Search out for facts to help you understand what courses of action best help you maximize those values, make the best trade-offs, etc.
I'd like to believe all of us are pretty committed to being based in fact. Especially with respect to the opposite commitment, which is not caring at all about facts.
But how committed are you, really?