Irony lives on in the news

I generally avoid Fox News or even the mention of said news outlet here.  I don’t watch any of their programming on TV because I equate their programs with propaganda more than actual news.  Some of their on-air personalities come off as ill-informed, and I don’t trust uninformed people to deliver me any news.

Elizabeth Hasselbeck asks the question about requiring a civics test in order to vote in America, and my response is a resounding F**K NO! She suggested that a more informed voter would make the process more meaningful.  I don’t disagree with that, but first we have to have knowledgable people doing the informing, and she just failed miserably IMHO.

If we were to enact such a law, she would have disqualified herself to vote at that very instance.  Someone who is knowledgeable of American laws in regards to voting would know that the Voter Rights Act of 1965, codified in 42 U.S. Code § 1973, would make such tests illegal.  Hence, any attempt to construct a test to qualify voters would render the person making the test unqualified to vote based on this suggestion.

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

I don’t think there’s anything about requiring reporters to be informed of things before they spout off, but I’d say that this particular video makes a strong case for such requirements.  An informed electorate is a better electorate, but those who try to inform should be knowledgeable themselves.  Otherwise, we’re simply furthering ignorance under the guise of knowledge, and that is why I don’t care for Fox News.

I doubt she sees the irony in that she would cause herself to lose her right to vote.  I saw it crystal clear.


4 thoughts on “Irony lives on in the news

  1. Besides which, she’s beginning with a false assumption: that knowledge of facts is what forms peoples’ opinions, which are then modified by new information. Generally not so for the partisans.

    “Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

    This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

    – See more at:

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ve got to agree with Paul. My wife was recently engaged in an online discussion with some folks back in her home territory (rural coastal Oregon) and some of the participants were dead-set convinced that the Second Amendment was there to ensure that they could revolt against the government if it came to that.

    Didn’t matter to them that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to control citizen militias (Article 1, Section 8; have a look at your convenience); they were absolutely convinced otherwise. My wife pointed out that the word “militia” is only used twice in the Constitution; in A1, S8 and in the Second Amendment, so how could it not be obvious that the Founders’ intent had nothing to do with armed revolt?

    Well, to make a long story short, I’m sure y’all can imagine where the discussion went from there.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s