My profound, instinctive aversion to collective thinking may be a bit idiosyncratic for a democratic socialist, nonetheless there it is. It's a given that my aversion would extend to rightist versions of collective thought--namely Fox News--but it is perhaps only another of my warped idiosyncrasies that my aversion runs even deeper to MSNBC--the left's unofficial broadcasting arm, much as the right has Fox. There's something about watching (as I do less and less) one's own side shamelessly whore itself for rank partisanship, though, that seems to intensify the pain.
Anyway, I find this quite genuine explanation a plausible counterargument to the inevitable charge of "false equivalency." I don't contend that Fox and MSNBC are equivalent whores--just that both cause me headaches. Tom Ricks, however, who was a two-minute hero of MSNBC fans the other day, relates his differing counterargument to The Dish:
My response to those who claim a "false equivalency" is this: When I told the guy from MSNBC that if I went on his network, I would say they were just a less competent version of Fox, they should have invited me on to discuss that. That would have underscored the difference, if it were there. The fact that they shied away from the criticism indicates to me that they are indeed similar.
It's tough to find a plausible counter-counterargument to that. Ricks's truncated appearance on Fox was an authentic news story, yet MSNBC failed to interview the newsmaker, for fear of the interview's content. And that differs from Fox--how?