Truthiness
As he explained it to his viewers that night . . .
Now I'm sure some of the 'word police,' the 'wordinistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'hey, that's not a word'. Well, anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books.
I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.
He later said in an out-of-character interview that . . .
It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...
Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.
The word captured an element of current politics that seemed disturbing to many — a concern not with facts and evidence but rather with gut feelings. Not surprisingly, it was named Merriam-Webster’s 2006 Word of the Year.
Right now, you may be thinking “Hey, Stadium Facts, truthiness is all well and good for those inside-the-beltway, Washington-insider types, but surely we don’t have that problem in Santa Clara?”
Alas, fellow citizen, we’re having our very own truthiness-fest right here in our own city.
Some examples . . .
From Councilmember Kevin Moore on April 24, 2007:
“There's a risk with anything, yeah, but we're going to bring the ball all the way down the field and score on this one. This is an absolute winner for the city.”
He’s apparently relying on the information provided by the San Francisco 49ers and their paid consultants, because every independent academic economist who has studied the issue of public subsidies for professional sports stadiums has concluded that they aren’t a good deal for cities.
In fact, retired Stanford economics professor Roger Noll has looked at this specific proposal and concluded that it’s not a good deal for Santa Clara.
But, hey, that’s what truthiness is all about. Thinking with your gut, not with your head.
From Mayor Patricia Mahan on April 24, 2007:
The team wants Santa Clara to contribute $160 million to the project - a figure Mayor Patricia Mahan called "doable" - and an additional $20 million to $30 million to move an electric substation to make way for the stadium.
Hmm — I thought the feasibility study needed to be completed before we would have the facts to determine whether or not this project is possible? But if your gut tells you it's doable, why, then, it must be!
From Councilmember Dominic Caserta on May 15, 2007:
“We are studying this issue. We are rolling up our sleeves.”
Uh, Dominic, take a look at Mahan’s and Moore’s statements above. Some of your fellow councilmembers have rolled those sleeves back down. They ain’t waitin’ for no stinkin’ feasibilty study.
And the winner (at least so far) of the prize for best display of stadium truthiness from the media is
. . . . [drum roll] . . .
Miles Barber, the publisher of the Santa Clara Weekly [which, we should note, must have been paid quite a bit of money from the San Francisco 49ers to include a glossy 4-page
As you read the excerpt below, note how he first seems to criticize truthiness — people forming opinions while ignoring facts — but then just as quickly falls into truthiness himself. Pure truthiness genius!
He writes . . .
Opinions are just that….opinions.
They are not necessarily based on fact. They are just opinions and some folks speak their opinions with such authority they sound factual which almost makes them believable. . . .
When forming an opinion, it is important to get the facts. . . .
One tactic often used by these makers of “truth” is the fear factor.
“A stadium in Santa Clara will bankrupt the City!”
“Our utility rates will skyrocket!”
“The owners will pocket millions while the taxpayers foot the bill!”
Folks, these are opinions based on fear not based on fact.
These are statements made by individuals who always ask “why” and never “how”?
While a project of this magnitude raises concerns for all of us and investing this amount of money is not an everyday occurrence, it is absolutely a visionary project.
Of course, he provides absolutely NO facts for any of his assertions and uses the same fear tactics he demeans [“You don’t want do be one of those no-thinking opponents, do you?"] to try and convince you that the stadium opponents have no facts.
See!! Isn’t that absolutely INSPIRED truthiness!
Sadly for Miles, however, stadium opponents DO have the facts. In fact, all of the independent, academic economists agree that public subsidies for pro sports stadiums DO NOT benefit the cities to any significant degree, and may, in fact, be a detriment to the city [see, for example, Oakland, California.] And the owners WILL see the value of their team increase by HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars if they get a new stadium and a new revenue sharing deal.
But please, I wouldn’t want Miles to worry about a silly thing like facts and evidence getting in the way of such great truthiness!
And if you’ve read this far, you deserve a great reward. Click the link below to see Stephen Colbert explaining truthiness.
The Wørd of the Day: Truthiness
[The video doesn’t seem to be available to embed directly, so the link will take you to the video on the Comedy Central website.]
Enjoy!
