There are a number of pretty incredible claims in the world of “poli-tainment”; those news media outlets and talking heads that book themselves as serious journalism but are really just shock-jockies. Poli-tainers and their congregations poison the national discussion with baseless lies and bigotry at a time when an open, honest dialogue about what's best for this country may be most important. There are two types of people that do this; one type comprise the victims in this scenario (thought it may be difficult for us to see them in that light), and the other is comprised of the victimizers.

It's fundamentally true; people will believe what they want to. What matters are the conditions before ideas are made beliefs. Someone that grows up in a household where democrat, black, muslim, and any foreign-sounding name are considered bad words has the necessary pre-existing conditions to believe rumors about a democratic, light-skinned, black president named Barack Obama. Likewise, an individual that is taught to be mistrustful of their own government will grow up to be paranoid of any policy passed or enforced. However, far from excusing these people as simply victims of circumstance, I say they have a responsibility; a responsibility to use their mind for more than accepting information that fits snugly in the gaps of their reality. In other words, use it to THINK.

In Michael Shermer’s 1997 book, "Why People Believe Weird Things", he posits that there are twenty-five fundamental thinking errors. It is these very thinking errors that are exploited in media outlets and in the national discussion, which is exactly why I mention this book. I’ve mentioned some of the most common among the victims below.

Rumors Do Not Equal Reality: Just because you're told something that may, at least on the surface, seem to be true; you have an obligation to substantiate it before you pass it on. If your trusted source is anything on TV, you need to find a new source. (I'll get to this a little later.) If your source is a family member, have they ever been wrong before? Have they ever made outrageous claims about anything else that you knew, unequivocally, to be totally false? By the way, "I heard from someone...." and "I read somewhere..." are not reliable sources. Anyone emotionally involved in their message is not being objective, and thus is not giving you accurate information. Which brings us to the next thinking error...

Emotive words and false analogies: These are ways of speaking to persuade and manipulate, not to inform. Don't believe me? The next time you're worked up about a political issue, record yourself talking. The next day, when you've had time to calm down, play it back. Tell me if you think you sound...rational.

Representativeness: This is the tendency for people to dismiss those things that do not fit into their belief system. For instance, in a conversation with a coworker that is a self-professed tea party member, I attempted to explain the implications of a government shutdown should the congress have been unable to pass a budget earlier this month. I explained about the uncertainty of public workers’ pay checks, the loss of GDP, and the wasted tax dollars. When I had finished she asked, “But if the government’s not going to spend my money the way I want them to, we need to shut it down.” Where had she been when I explained that it would actually waste “her money”? Impatiently waiting for her turn to speak and subsequently ignoring any information she deemed unimportant.

Failures Are Rationalized: Perhaps the most obvious thinking error is when a person is shown that their belief is wrong, they find excuses rather than revise their belief. A young man made the assertion that President Obama was a communist and was going to bankrupt the country by giving our tax money to the poor. (I didn't have the heart to say that his "people" were actually accusing him of socialism, not communism.) I reminded him that the first stimulus package during this recession was actually doled out by President Bush's administration, and that President Obama was following a precedent set down by President Roosevelt in the 30's. His response was, "Yeah, but Bush and Roosevelt weren't terrorists." (I'm going to call this rationalizing, even though there's nothing rational about it...but you get the idea.)

I consider these a few of the basic thinking errors perpetrated by victims (perpetuators) of the national dialogue. These are the people, often concerned citizens, that have for whatever reason adopted a very narrow view of the world; where conspiracy is more convenient than debate. Where believing what you're told is better than thinking for yourself.

However, I'm far more concerned about the victimizers, in this situation. The people that have far-reaching influence, but have shirked the responsibility that comes with it. Of course, I'm speaking of the media, in particular that brand of people that pass themselves off as political experts and journalists, but are far closer to entertainers...even charlatans. I call them, poli-tainers, and I believe they are one of the principal reasons for this country's partisan, stagnant predicament.

Here are a few of the poli-tainers favorite thinking errors. (And readers, I hope you know that they're all very well aware of the fact that what they're spreading is, in fact, misinformation.)

Ad Hominem: The practice of taking legitimate information by a legitimate source, and rather than refuting the information, attacking the source. An example of this was illustrated above, where the young man dismissed my comment by attacking Obama. Any "news" source that attempts to discredit something someone has said by attempting to discredit the person with personal attacks (legitimate evidence can be found to discredit someone...various members of former-President Bush's administration come to mind) is not a reliable source. If they're ignoring the information and fixating on the person, change the channel.

Hasty Generalization: A form of induction, where a person persents a few facts, enough to give a claim the appearance of "truth", and makes a generalization a fact. For instance...Barack Obama is black, his father was from Kenya, there’s an out-of-context soundbite of his great-grandmother saying she was present for the birth, thus, he was not born in the U.S. A hasty generalization can include the omission of information to farme a conclusion…a popular tactic among documentary film-makers and politicians alike.

Either-Or: This is the last one I'll mention, but it's also the most infuriating to me. A kind of McCarthian technique where if you're not for one side, you must be for the other. If you're not a Republican, you must be a Democrat. If you're in favor of finance reform, you must want to bankrupt the country. This kind of leap-in-logic is the bread and butter of talking head poli-tainers that command millions of people in their audience. It fallacious, and a very juvenile way to look at the world. Black and white? Where's the gray?

Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron anymore. Want to know if you're being glamoured by a poli-tainer? Ask yourself this: Is this persons' salary dependent on their ratings? Will their ratings go up if they sensationalize, exaggerate, generalize, or otherwise pervert the truth? If the answer is yes, change the channel. I have a feeling as the 2012 presidential race heats up, so will the rhetoric, and when that happens it might just be necessary to turn off the TV.