The Trouble with the Truth
These days the art of lying seems more brazenly practiced than it was in the past. Of course, that’s not true, but we tend to see the past more idealistically than the present and believe that the people who lived then had an innocence they really didn't. A rebroadcast of "Nixon" on Channel 13 cleared away my naive nostalgia. I watched Nixon addressed the nation about his innocence regarding Watergate thought how his deceptions soured the air with the words that dripped from those sweaty jowls. How easily he lied. When behind closed doors with his advisors, he was crudely frank about how to use lies against adversaries. Lying for him was never a question of right or wrong, but one of practical and political utility.
Like Nixon, many politicians will lie liberally as they try to manipulate the media and deceive the public. They fool few, yet resist unrelentingly telling the truth. Other politicians tinker with facts in order to mischaracterize an opponent or promote an agenda. Habitually and naturally mendacious, politicians lie as a matter of course. However, I shouldn’t castigate politicians without admitting that everyone feels occasionally the irresistible urge to lie. It’s easy to think of examples when my conscience surrendered custody of the will and a lie or two suited better (I thought) the situation I faced. Who hasn’t tried to lie, mislead or obfuscate his way out of trouble? Who hasn’t stretched the “truth” to serve some purpose hidden from family, friends, and acquaintances?
Two insouciant liars came to my attention this week when I read Stanley Fish’s blog post, “So’ Your Old Man,” and in Bob Herbert’s op-ed column, “The Sports Needs to Change,” (New York Times online: March 14.)
Fish’s blog considers the logical flaws in Leonard Pitt’s recent column in The Miami Herald, in which Pitt excoriates Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour for not “denouncing” a proposal to honor “Nathan Bedford Forrest by issuing vanity license plates bearing his name.” When asked by the NAACP to “denounce” the proposal, Barbour stated, “I don’t go around denouncing people.”
Pitt’s logic might need shoring up, but his conclusion is no less valid. Barbour has claimed not to be a racist (especially as he now runs for president), but when he tried to burnish his bona fides as a good old boy of the south and sidestep the racist implication of supporting the Forrest license plate by feigning to be a man who eschews denouncing others, he betrayed instantly his propensity for deceit. To no avail, Barbour tried twist his way around being labeled a racist while simultaneously scoring points with those in Mississippi possessed even today by an inexorable racism. Subsequently, Barbour learned that it was better politically to oppose the Forrest license plate proposal, and announced his plan to not sign the legislation honoring the K.K.K. leader if it reached his desk. Is Barbour a racist? When he refused to take a stand in the first place, was he lying to the racists who proposed the plate? Is he lying now that he has taken a stance against it and, in fact, is really for it? Racist or not (I think he is), at least we can count on him to lie regardless of his beliefs; though I’d think with so much practice he could become more adept at it.
In a different story, Bob Herbert looks at the effect of the destructive violence in professional football. Herbert tells the story of Dave Duerson who shot himself to death in February this year. At the time of his suicide Duerson was suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (he thought he was, but did not know for certain) which symptoms include memory loss, dementia, and depression.
More and more retired football players have been reporting symptoms of dementia, memory loss, and depression, but the NFL, until recently, did what it could to hide from the public the irreparable brain injuries caused by the physical collisions unavoidable in football. In October, 2009, NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, testified before the House Judiciary Committee and would not admit a connection between “football and cognitive decline among retired N.F.L. players. (“N.F.L Scolded Over Injuries to Its Players” Alan Schwarz New York Time October 29, 2009)
Goodell’s testimony is another illuminating spectacle of lying. Of his testimony, committee member Linda Sanchez noted that Goodell reminded her of the tobacco companies when they used to argue that there was no connection between smoking and lung disease. (Schwarz, New York Times, October 29, 2009)
Since that hearing in 2009, Goodell and the N.F.L. have begun to admit a connection between football and brain damage. They have even urged states to pass legislation protecting young football players from concussions. How many fans will view this admission and their efforts to help youth avoid damage from head injuries as sincere? How many will forget all the years they intentionally obstructed the truth about brain damage incurred from playing football?
The lies told by the pro football establishment about the dangers of head injuries shouldn’t be forgotten. But even if they aren’t, the fans will continue to fill the stadiums and stare at their oversized television screens while lovely autumn days recede into winter. Millions of dollars will flow into the coffers of advertisers and corporate sponsors. And commentators will incessantly yap on about the game that’s greater than all the rest—a lie too many will believe or deceive themselves into believing.
These days the art of lying seems more brazenly practiced than it was in the past. Of course, that’s not true, but we tend to see the past more idealistically than the present and believe that the people who lived then had an innocence they really didn't. A rebroadcast of "Nixon" on Channel 13 cleared away my naive nostalgia. I watched Nixon addressed the nation about his innocence regarding Watergate thought how his deceptions soured the air with the words that dripped from those sweaty jowls. How easily he lied. When behind closed doors with his advisors, he was crudely frank about how to use lies against adversaries. Lying for him was never a question of right or wrong, but one of practical and political utility.
Like Nixon, many politicians will lie liberally as they try to manipulate the media and deceive the public. They fool few, yet resist unrelentingly telling the truth. Other politicians tinker with facts in order to mischaracterize an opponent or promote an agenda. Habitually and naturally mendacious, politicians lie as a matter of course. However, I shouldn’t castigate politicians without admitting that everyone feels occasionally the irresistible urge to lie. It’s easy to think of examples when my conscience surrendered custody of the will and a lie or two suited better (I thought) the situation I faced. Who hasn’t tried to lie, mislead or obfuscate his way out of trouble? Who hasn’t stretched the “truth” to serve some purpose hidden from family, friends, and acquaintances?
Two insouciant liars came to my attention this week when I read Stanley Fish’s blog post, “So’ Your Old Man,” and in Bob Herbert’s op-ed column, “The Sports Needs to Change,” (New York Times online: March 14.)
Fish’s blog considers the logical flaws in Leonard Pitt’s recent column in The Miami Herald, in which Pitt excoriates Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour for not “denouncing” a proposal to honor “Nathan Bedford Forrest by issuing vanity license plates bearing his name.” When asked by the NAACP to “denounce” the proposal, Barbour stated, “I don’t go around denouncing people.”
Pitt’s logic might need shoring up, but his conclusion is no less valid. Barbour has claimed not to be a racist (especially as he now runs for president), but when he tried to burnish his bona fides as a good old boy of the south and sidestep the racist implication of supporting the Forrest license plate by feigning to be a man who eschews denouncing others, he betrayed instantly his propensity for deceit. To no avail, Barbour tried twist his way around being labeled a racist while simultaneously scoring points with those in Mississippi possessed even today by an inexorable racism. Subsequently, Barbour learned that it was better politically to oppose the Forrest license plate proposal, and announced his plan to not sign the legislation honoring the K.K.K. leader if it reached his desk. Is Barbour a racist? When he refused to take a stand in the first place, was he lying to the racists who proposed the plate? Is he lying now that he has taken a stance against it and, in fact, is really for it? Racist or not (I think he is), at least we can count on him to lie regardless of his beliefs; though I’d think with so much practice he could become more adept at it.
In a different story, Bob Herbert looks at the effect of the destructive violence in professional football. Herbert tells the story of Dave Duerson who shot himself to death in February this year. At the time of his suicide Duerson was suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (he thought he was, but did not know for certain) which symptoms include memory loss, dementia, and depression.
More and more retired football players have been reporting symptoms of dementia, memory loss, and depression, but the NFL, until recently, did what it could to hide from the public the irreparable brain injuries caused by the physical collisions unavoidable in football. In October, 2009, NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, testified before the House Judiciary Committee and would not admit a connection between “football and cognitive decline among retired N.F.L. players. (“N.F.L Scolded Over Injuries to Its Players” Alan Schwarz New York Time October 29, 2009)
Goodell’s testimony is another illuminating spectacle of lying. Of his testimony, committee member Linda Sanchez noted that Goodell reminded her of the tobacco companies when they used to argue that there was no connection between smoking and lung disease. (Schwarz, New York Times, October 29, 2009)
Since that hearing in 2009, Goodell and the N.F.L. have begun to admit a connection between football and brain damage. They have even urged states to pass legislation protecting young football players from concussions. How many fans will view this admission and their efforts to help youth avoid damage from head injuries as sincere? How many will forget all the years they intentionally obstructed the truth about brain damage incurred from playing football?
The lies told by the pro football establishment about the dangers of head injuries shouldn’t be forgotten. But even if they aren’t, the fans will continue to fill the stadiums and stare at their oversized television screens while lovely autumn days recede into winter. Millions of dollars will flow into the coffers of advertisers and corporate sponsors. And commentators will incessantly yap on about the game that’s greater than all the rest—a lie too many will believe or deceive themselves into believing.
No comments:
Post a Comment