I don't understand columnist worship.

[Zynx]

Why do people cling so religiously to the words of specific columnists/journalists? Why can't you read a broad spectrum of columns and the relevant background information and draw your own conclusions instead of just lazily citing a single column and forming your opinion around that? The odds that one specific columnist has a total understanding of any subject are quite low indeed. I find it rather bizarre that just because one semi-informed columnist says something that any group of people will say "Alright, that's what I believe now".

I don't care if it is Matt Taibbi, Paul Krugman (though he is infinitely more credible than Matt Taibbi), Bill Moyers, etc. Whatever they say should only be a single data point you use in the construction of a broad understanding of a subject. If you don't have the time to do it yourself and feel that you must rely on a single opinion writer, that's very unfortunate for you.

[Enrique]

1. are people really doing that?

if you yourself post someone's column favorably, are you worshiping that columnist?

[Zynx]

2. That's not what I said.

People post it and base their opinion solely around it. There is a distinct lack of critical thinking and it bothers the hell out of me.

[Enrique]

3. I notice that the columnists you mention have all written critical things of Obama.

Has columnist worship bothered you before Obama has faced this kind criticism from respected columnists?

[Zynx]

6. Actually, yes it has.

It bothered me when Bush was president too when people would post things from Truthout like they were gospel. Any inability to think for one's self is distressing to me. Simply substituting your views for the views of someone else is not demonstrating critical thinking.

[Enrique]

8. ok

I'm with you there.

[Zynx]

9. To be fair, it's worse with the right due to their natural tendancy toward conformity.

The number that just cite what Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck say verbatim is astonishing. They accept it without the slightest thought as to whether or not it is correct.

[Enrique]

10. the way they adore Ann Coulter on FreeRepublic is embarrassing

that's why I'm glad that people like Michael Moore and Matt Taibbi are at least controversial here. But it has to be fair. I love people factchecking Moore and Taibbi, but I've seen fact checks of both which were totally unfair to them.

[LooseWilly]

20. And I've seen posters who take the factchecking as gospel, if it is critical of a critical piece.

I'm thinking specifically of the Taibbi fact checking... and I think it's ironic, because the facts were rather accurate, but the interpretations seemed to me to be very open for criticisms/re-visiting... but I don't see many posters questioning the interpretations... just people latching onto a "factchecking" as being definitive.

The thing that I find most disturbing, personally, is that many also seem to assume partisanship based upon one's choice to defend an article in the face of bad factchecking... as being synonymous with a defense of the content of the article itself, rather than simply the merits of the article in terms of validity as a point of conversation...

[paulsby]

13. very true

and people also refuse to even consider arguments (columns) from other sides of the aisle. sorry, but if you only read the nation and mother jones, you are just as underinformed as if you only read national review and reason.

[chimpymustgo]

31. What bothers the hell out of me is the cheerleaders' new meme: "if you post something critical of

Obama you can't think for yourself - you worship a columnist."

That's a really stupid, nonsensical argument made by folks fast running out of excuses.

[mkultra]

32. what columnist did you get that from?

[Zynx]

37. That's a meme? I haven't seen it as a meme.

Also, when you fail to move beyond the arguments formulated by a single columnist, you have proven you can't think for yourself.

[bigwillq]

4. I don't understand politician worship.

But that's just me.

[Zynx]

7. Two sides of the same coin.

[snagglepuss]

17. +1

[n2doc]

30. +100

[NYC_SKP]

5. Never thought I'd use the term, but DU has Jumped the Shark on this Taibbi shit.

Unfuckingbelievable.

:banghead:

[HughMoran]

11. I agree

I enjoy when a poster of one of these articles challenges anybody who questions their O/P when indeed all they've done is cut and paste the words of another. I chalk it up to laziness.

[elocs]

12. I notice it a lot here with tv people like Keith Oberman as DUers fall all over themselves

with praise for them. They tend to sing the same tune everyday and just change the lyrics, singing and preaching to the choir and the choir shouts "amen!" and those who really need to hear the message never listen or watch.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Read an article or essay without looking at the by-line.

See whether you agree or disagree without knowing who the writer is. This can be a bit of an eye-opener sometimes.

[janx]

15. Very good suggestion! n/t

[Zynx]

22. That's a really good idea.

I'll try it out myself more often. I do it often by accident when I am bumming around.

[BeyondGeography]

16. Well said

K&R

[grantcart]

18. I also find the Druids to be impenetrable

[boppers]

19. Two words: Confirmation Bias

Two more words: echo chamber

[Zynx]

21. Yep. I tried to stay away from the formal terminology for it because many don't

understand it.

[boppers]

25. There's lots of terms for it.

NIH, "Not Invented Here" also works.

It all comes from knee-jerk tribalism instinct, where humans tend to think that *their* witch-doctor is a messenger of truth, but the *other* witch-doctors are quacks... its an odd herd instinct, to only trust a specific herd group, even though the species is the same.

[smoochpooch]

23. I knew a dude who was totally for the Iraq war, even in 2006.

Then the day Thomas Friedman finally said the war was a mistake, my friend all of a sudden decided it was terrible too. It was pretty ridiculous.

[chimpymustgo]

34. Yeah, kind of like DU'ers against DUMB WARS till Obama does it! Exactly!

[Mithreal]

24. The wingnuts say similar about science and scientists

What is so hard to understand?

Someone makes it a habit of liking another person and thereafter considers the word of that person to be credible. When those words fit into someone's world view than they are even easier to accept. Worse, when someone considers another to be an authority on a subject it has even more weight.

The Taibbi piece that caused so much handwringing was particularly pathetic. Taibbi opponents failed to answer or outright ignored Taibbi defenders who asked about the substantive points. There were screechers as well, who seemed to be only concerned with muddying the debate. To the credit of defenders they did acknowledge errors, but there was no such give from their opponents. Neither side communicated with the other at all very well. Big site so I am sure I missed the exceptions.

Not everyone is going to fact check everything they read or hear. Most of us understand and appreciate the differences between people like Taibbi, Krugman, Moyers, etc.

By the way, a significant part of your op was a Straw Man. I did strongly agree with your one statement though. "Whatever they say should only be a single data point you use in the construction of a broad understanding of a subject."

[chimpymustgo]

26. This thread is HILARIOUS!! Mirror, mirror on the wall...

[mkultra]

33. the person on the other side keeps acting look you

doesn't she.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. I don't understand hyperbole in service to one's own ego

If you feel some here place undue weight on the opinions of columnists you do not agree with, why not just say that? What is the reason for the editorializing about them? Why 'worship' and 'religiously' and 'bizarre'? No. Really. Why those words?
Tawdry straw.

[dionysus]

29. LOL "Why 'worship' and 'religiously' and 'bizarre'? No. Really. Why those words?"

you mean kind of like the people who do the exact same thing when insulting supporters of the president?

"what do you cultists mean we "worship" matt taibbi! that's unfair!!11!!"
:rofl:

[Zynx]

35. I am supposed to use guarded language when I am truly offended by something?

Lord knows that Matt Taibbi doesn't stay away from hyperbole. Obama "sold us out"? Why those words?

[dionysus]

28. it's easy. they pick any columnist that enforces the "obama sucks" meme and cling to it like a banky

it's a substitute for thinking, you can get your hate spoon fed to you.

funny exchange last week, some radio guy was going off on obama, so someone posted a breathless thread about it.

someone goes "who the hell is this guy, and why should i care?"

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHO IS _____!!11!!11???"

[Zynx]

36. It's kind of like how a guy at my office is always asking "Did you read the latest Tom Friedman

column?"

I respond, "I don't really care what Tom Friedman thinks."

[Aramchek]

38. you'll find that the worshippers are actually more in love with the Obama-hating rhetoric

than the writers, themselves.

[Zynx]

39. It's not specifically about "Obama-hating". People generally use columnists as crutches

and it bothers me. It's also interesting it comes from a lot of the same people who bash religion for being a crutch.

[Aramchek]

40. they just want to have someone who agrees with them to trumpet about

perhaps, because they know that their position holds little intellectual integrity and they are desperate for something to back it up.