I saw this today at Huffington Post and when I read the part quoted below I thought I'd paste it in at length because it goes *directly* to what we're discussing here:
I spoke to Scott Roeder at least a dozen times over the course of reporting. He told me he listened to Bill O'Reilly sometimes on the radio. (Scott wasn't a guy who had cable - he worked at marginal jobs and moved apartments an awful lot.) And he liked Bill O'Reilly. But Scott had a keen interest in and hunger for learning about terrible conspiracies that lay, as he believed, just beneath the fabric of society. He went to meetings where people discussed how the Illuminati were controlling the country and the world and feeding innocent women into a satanic sex cult. He believed the fluoride in drinking water was there to render the masses more docile, which is why he wouldn't drink from a tap. He believed federal tax laws weren't laws at all - and so they needn't be followed. And he believed in the information about George Tiller fed to him through websites and literature and conversation by the most violent fringe of the pro life movement. He believed Dr. Tiller intentionally tortured babies. He believed that once, when a fetus had been delivered still breathing during one of Dr Tiller's procedures, Dr. Tiller killed it with his bare hands.
Talking about the sick things Dr. Tiller supposedly did was one of Scott's favorite topics during our conversations. After all, if you are going to murder someone, it's not enough simply to say you have a philosophical difference with him. And he presented all this to me as if it had been printed in the New York Times. He presented this information to me as if it were unimpeachable. As if he were educating me about some material that I hadn't done enough research to know about.
Bill O'Reilly is not the person who created for Scott Roeder the specific narrative that he used to create in his mind a picture of a person whom he could murder proudly. But he did help to create an environment in which Dr. George Tiller was thought of as a criminal and a murderer (whatever you think about what he was doing, it was legal). He provided a kind of moral cover and cable-sanctified legitimacy.
It's a problem that's bigger than extremist pro-life elements or Bill O'Reilly. The problem is the thriving culture of manufacturing dehumanizing lies about people you disagree with, whether they are about Dr. George Tiller, or George W. Bush. It's dangerous. It's dangerous whether you say George Bush wanted to murder Iraqi children or Barack Obama is a secret terrorist who wants to use two married gay men to kill your grandmother. And it's incredibly dangerous for people in positions of authority or power to ratify insane, dehumanizing narratives about people. That's a relatively new phenomenon. The militia movement didn't have a cable channel. Scott Roeder did.
This goes exactly to what concerned me enough to create this thread. Now, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying ANYONE in this thread has done anything talked about above but what concerns me is the habit of *mind* that allows this kind of thing to take hold and flourish. Here is the value that skepticism brings to society. Skepticism, as a habit of mind, provides a near *reflexive* questioning of the received wisdom. We are quickly becoming a society where no useful distinction is made between lies and truth.
Was Saddam Hussein's Iraq involved in the 9/11 plot? No. But people *believe* he was although anyone with Internet access could have found information that would throw that belief out the window within half an hour of research. Is the Health Care Reform bill a plot to kill grandma? No. And anyone with Internet access can download the bill, search for "death panels" and see that the language isn't in there.
As a political liberal, I am disappointed with my side because there is a space that has opened up in the American body politic for reality-based politics but we on the Left seem to show no real interest in doing the hard work of basing our politics on reality. This isn't to say that reality is the provence of the Left, rather it is to say we could MAKE it our provence (just as the Right could if they wanted to).
Cheers
Aj