Skip to main content

Beware of Disinformation on the PBS News Hour

                                                                                                      Originally, back in 1975, the PBS News Hour, under McNeil/Lehrer, was a source of reliable and intelligent programing. Judy Woodruff did her best to uphold those standards. But since Judy left, in 2023, the News Hour has become an embarrassing source of patent disinformation.

The latest example: somebody named Manisha Sinh, from some foreign country (Pakistan?), was given uncriticized time to totally MISINFORM the audience about the US Constitution’s THREE requirements for any president.

Art 1, s. 1 states, the person must be 1) “a natural born citizen,” that is, born to an American parent (not necessarily in the country). A baby born to an American astronaut on the moon can become President of the USA. 2) 35 years old. 3) 14 years a resident within the US.

But that guest didn’t say that. She only got one out of three correct! She said 35 years old, but then “born in the US” – false – and “not incited an insurrection”* – false.  

The three requirements in Article One , written in 1787, ratified in 1788, say NOTHING about “insurrection.” That comes up 82 years later in the 14th Amendment. Even then, its s. 3 does NOT specify that if a person engages in insurrection (which is undefined), then they cannot become president. Indeed, that is the very point the US Supreme Court is taking on today (Thursday 2-8-24).

Ms. Sinh pronounced as true that which the Supreme Court has yet to decide. The folks at the PBS News Hour gave her the platform and did absolutely nothing to correct the ill-informed untrue statement.

As a result, millions of people are misinformed, or confused if they remember what competent teachers told them in school.

Small wonder the US media is becoming a despised and untrusted institution in the USA.

 

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

@InterpretivePo1 


*You Tube, 43:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5Z2TBJGlow


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Reappraising David Easton can make Political Science Research more Exciting.

D avid Easton’s theory of the political system has long been  misrepresented  as requiring a mechanistic theory of causation, thus dehumanizing political behavior. The widespread claim that his vision was of the political system as striving for equilibrium is totally false.   Easton was a humanist. He envisioned human political behavior as a consequence of the meanings people create volitionally in their own minds and social context. He rejected the automaton theory of political behavior.     He also understood the relationship between system performance and public opinion and sentience. A well operating system will likely result in public satisfaction and support. Poor operation, the opposite.   That, in turn, implies a  standard,  or norm, by which to assess how well a political system is performing. Indeed, Easton's theory of the empirical political system can also be used as a way to assess how well a political system is operating. Efficiency and effectiveness are elements to b
Post a Comment
Read more

Causation, Not Correlation, in Interpretive Political Science

Using David Easton’s theory of the political system as my interpretive framework, in this post I will offer a non-mechanistic theory of how human political behavior can be “caused.” I will argue that, for Interpretive Political Science, reasons can be causes of political behavior. Indeed, respect for the subject matter – human political behavior – requires this causal theory. After all, people are not machines. “Reasons” will be understood as units of meaning in the minds of people. I will offer examples of such causal relations in the operations of two political systems, China and Peru. Hypothesis: The operation of a political system will tend to provide reasons which explain the political sentience of the public. A well-functioning political system will probably be the reason for high approval ratings among its membership. Likewise, a poorly functioning system will probably be the reason for low approval ratings. China In the past 40 years the Chinese political system hel
Post a Comment
Read more

Does Political Science Force Graduate Students into a Career of Irrelevancy?

Introduction In a 2014 New York Times op ed, columnist Nicholas Kristof drew numerous defensive responses when he criticized political science for having very little “practical impact” in “the real world of politics.” [1] Rather than exercising civic leadership, political science has been most noticeably AWOL from public policy debates since WWII, he claims. And, in his view, there are “fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.” How does he account for this absence? Primarily, it is due to the academic interest in pursuing the quantitative approach in political science research. This kind of research is too often unintelligible to both the politically interested general public and the policy making community. Also, the “value neutrality” required for such studies prohibits advocacy. The pattern persists, in part, because graduate students must conform to the expectations of their professors, as a requirement for a successful academic
Post a Comment
Read more