(1) The Untraceable Trace - "How do you know Christopher Columbus discovered America? Do you remember the name of the book where you saw this? Who, exactly, told you this - do you remember his name? You don't? You must be a liar."

(2) Rubberglue - Circular reasoning. "It's outrageous!" "Why is it outrageous?" "Because he said blah blah and did blah blah and the fact is it's just simply outrageous." Making the premise equal the conclusion (also applies to religious "logic.")

(3) The Redirect - Most often as the word "LOOK." Used to quickly get past some debatable claim. "I've been to the Moon, twice, and even found life there... but LOOK - let's get back to the point..." Occasionally used for a moment where the liberal has, or is on the verge of, scoring a political point. "But wasn't George Bush considered AWOL in the 70's?" "I don't know, save it for another time, but LOOK ..."

(4) The Factpinion - "Two New York City policemen said the situation is chaotic" is a fact. "The situation is chaotic" is not. Real pros wield this tool to curb their opponent's argument: "But the opinions of two policemen do not equal the fac..." "Are you saying they lied?"

(5) Quali-no-Quanti - Qualifying without quantifying. "Your argument is specious," then neglecting to explain how the argument is "specious."

(6) Ignor'Bliss - "Don't know, don't care!" The sarcastic "Yeah, okay!" "Whatever" etc. Best when accompanied by an eye-roll or annoyed-sounding sigh.

(7) Thinking in Blocks - Leads to stereotyping. Psychologists call masters of this tool cognitive misers. An example: Joe, democratic mayor of a tiny town, thinks there are too many American flags on display. Conclusion? "All Democrats are flag-burning communist hippies."

(8) The Pep Rally - Repetitive, space-filling, "morale boosting" coach-speak...

"The NEW YORK TIMES,
the L.A. TIMES,
the Washington Post,
the U.S.A. TODAY"

Etc. Patterned as a rabble-rousing, rhythmically repetetive chant:

"da DAH DAH DAH
da DAH DAH DAH
da DAH DAH DAH..." etc.

(9) The Pseudo'cession - The pseudo-concession; focuses more on the magnanimous gesture of the concession, while ignoring the original act/error. "I was incorrect, but now I'm setting things straight! That's the kind of man I am. I admit my mistakes. Unlike some liberals I know... I admit my errors."

(10) Phony Authority - Twisting a normally valid tool into a lie, as in citing the percentage of liberal journalists while neglecting to cite the opposite & equally tilted percentage of conservative editors and publicists. Embellishing actual statistics, such as the time O'Reilly said, "37% of Florida college students are black!" In reality, 37% of Florida college students were minorities.

Know your enemy.

News is about reporting facts, and as change is inherent to just about every aspect of life (evolution, societal growth, technological advances, thermodynamics, universal expansion, etc.), prudent coverage of these facts will naturally reflect an ever-changing world. So it's no mystery how the conservative mind ultimately confuses ongoing long-term news organizations as those who "embrace change." Add a dose of confirmation bias, and the result is a group of right-wingers who think the news media is largely a bunch of left-leaning wackos.

If, in our walk through this playground of reality, we dismiss the notion that every modicum of life itself is black or white, it should be clear that conservatism and liberalism are not so much twins on a seesaw of "balance," but more like a merry-go-round's stop and go. Of course, no sensible person wants to ride an unrestrained merry-go-round, but life does not stop (actually, it does. But none of us here is fairly qualified to discuss that matter).

Certainly, the ability to understand and appreciate the forces behind change is required in order to stay in stride with the ever-changing world about which one might purport to report "factually." It's important that someone who professes to impartially report the news not only be able to identify specific trends, but also to correctly analyze the forces that precipitate those trends. And if an observer becomes excessively obsessed with the trends he or she is doomed to miss the forces that lead to them.

Simply put, one cannot pretend to objectively describe an ever-changing world if he thinks change is an alien force in a static world. If you're prone to knee-jerk at life's continuous stream of surprises, any claim you might make of neutrality in news reporting is either egregious or just plain stupid.

(Considering the money FOX News' phony baloney makes, I'd say egregious. It's the fan base at FOX filling the stupid shoes)

It's my opinion that a conservative bent and the reporting of news are akin to oil and water; while some slower spectators may be captivated by the performer's sleight-of-hand, no amount of spin can truly unite the two.

PT