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 14^th 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

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more: 1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no. 2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...

The Political Science Interpretivist

Search This Blog