Nobody “Decides” What’s True

NBC Anchor Lester Holt is in hot-water. Because this is 2021, it’s because he said something obviously uncontroversial and good — that he values “truth” over “fairness.” Here is a snippet of his speech:

That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention. Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.

Of course, not giving obviously incorrect ideas airtime is a good thing and makes perfect sense. I can’t help but notice that nobody who agrees with “fairness” would be willing to host a flat-earther, a neo-Nazi, or a communist on their podcasts or outlets. The reason why they would not do this is simple, they understand that some ideas are bad and do not deserve a platform, even if they should not be censored by the government, they should be forced to make their own outlets instead of being allowed on the mainstream news.

You hear a lot of people talk about the importance of “the marketplace of ideas,” but even the most genuine “free-speech advocate” has its limits. Dave Rubin has never once invited a pedophile apologist on The Rubin Report, because even he understands that some ideas simply should not be allowed in the public sphere. The closest he came was defending Amos Yee, who has defended pedophilia in the past, but that was over him facing blasphemy charges in Singapore, and his views on pedophilia never once came up during Rubin’s interview of him. When Yee started spouting pro-pedophilia opinions in November 2017, Rubin said nothing as his YouTube, Twitter, Patreon, WordPress, and Discord were all taken away.

Now, I’m not saying that Rubin should have defended Yee, quite the opposite. I am saying that even Dave Rubin, the man who prides himself on hearing all ideas and allowing all issues to be debated, has limits on what he thinks should and should not be debated.

However, in our age of philosophical supremacy and factual relativism, the idea that some things are true and some things are false is rather controversial. For example, here is how Gabe Kaminsky of The Federalist responded to Holt’s comments in an article published on 4/1/2021:

Holt is squarely admitting what those on the right have recognized for quite some time. The left is no longer comfortable embracing liberal principles like equality of opportunity and instead has grown to be quite authoritarian. The NBC anchor’s embracement of censorship surely ought to take any constitutionally minded American or lover of freedom aback. In addition, his words align with a frightening sentiment brewing among Democrats that the other side must be muzzled at all costs.

So, according to Kaminsky, the concept of truth, which Holt was defending in his speech, is authoritarian. Saying you will not platform obvious lies is an example of muzzling your opponent. Never in history has an opposition force been so open about how wrong it is, and yet the best defense the modern Conservative can give is not that he’s correct, but that he has the right to be incorrect.

I remember earlier this week I saw someone in the comments of an episode of The Matt Walsh Show (yes, I listen to The Matt Walsh Show — it’s my daily dose of opposition) say something like this (I’m paraphrasing to the best of my memory):

I really hate the phrase “we only care about the truth.”WHO DEFINES WHAT’S “THE TRUTH”?

This is a question that has become increasingly popular, “who defines what is and isn’t true” is one that, while once only asked by pretentious philosophers, is now asked by everyday people. It’s rather odd to see conservatives ask this, however, as historically conservativism has been about a rigid view of truth and liberalism has been what questioned this.

However, the question misses the point of what “truth” actually is. Nobody “decides” what is and isn’t true, as if there’s some truth decider who writes down what he (or she, or they for that matter) know to be true. Human beings can recognize what’s true and what’s false, but that doesn’t mean we “decide” what’s true and what’s false.

If a news network says something that is factually wrong, I do not want them to just allow someone from the other side to join “the conversation.” What I want is for them to retract their statement and apologize, because that’s what people who are dishonest should do when they’re exposed for lying. If they’re being falsely accused of dishonesty, then they should be fighting back against the label and prove themselves to be correct.

To those who do value “fairness,” I must ask, where does it end? Must a network have “fairness” between those who think pedophilia is wrong and those who think it’s right? How about between those who think the Holocaust happened and those who deny it? How about between those who AIDS is real and those who deny its existence? How about those who think the Founding Fathers were correct and those who believe King George was in the right? And I could go on and on for ideas that are obviously bad and should not be allowed in the public square.

Holt is right, fairness is not the goal, truth is.