Over at The Blue Voice, Dave asks an interesting question about people who call others “Conspiracy Theorists:”

“So why is it the minute someone suggests that the people who own and control EVERYTHING–the land, the labor, the resources–might pursue their best interests at our expense they are labeled a “[Conspiracy Theorist]?” Instantly we are lumped in with the crop circle and black helicopter crowd.”

I’m not referring specifically to Dave in this definition, nor do I recall ever singling him out as one. But since he used the collective pronoun we in his question, I’ll assume that he has been classified that way by others, and I’ll address the situation with that understanding.

When I do refer to “conspiracy theorists,” here’s what I have in mind: someone who analyzes any action until he finds the worst possible motive for that action, and who then insists that this motive must have been the one that caused the action.

After Katrina, rapper Kanye West looked at the suffering caused by the FEMA fiasco and said that George W. Bush hated black people. That, to me, is a conspiracy theory.

It ignores the facts that local and state emergency management officials failed in a major way in evacuating their own people, ignores the fact that FEMA itself suffered major failures, ignores the fact that not all black people are Democrats, ignores the fact that people other than blacks were trapped there, ignores the possibility that the Bush’s failure to micro-manage the rescue efforts might have been caused by him either not grasping the serious of the situation or placing too much trust in everyone else — or both — and assumes instead that Bush intentionally inflicted pain and suffering on those survivors because he must have thought they were all black.

You’ll note, hopefully, that I’m not arguing that Bush doesn’t hate black people; he may or may not. What I am saying is that you have to ignore a great deal of material to leap to that conclusion and be so sure that it is the only possibility.

When it comes to such theories that involve the current president, it’s amazing to see two different versions of the same man begin to emerge. One minute, Bush is a bumbling fool who can’t navigate his way out of the proverbial wet paper bag; the other, he’s a mastermind racist who commits genocide under the clever guise of failing to kick his own emergency management agency’s butt into higher gear to get help, all the while assuming that the constant pictures being beamed into everyone’s living rooms of the shocking conditions would go unnoticed.

Either he’s an idiot or he’s brilliant. Either he lucks into everything that goes his way because he hasn’t the brain power to successfully execute a plan on his own, or he’s a genious who occasionally plays dumb to stay under people’s radar while carrying out an incredibly well-thought-out plan that seeks to accomplish his secret goals while making him appear incapable of having thought said plan up to begin with.

The only way he can be both, it seems, is if you’re a conspiracy theorist, at which point he bounces back and forth to whichever one supports the conspiracy du jour.

As an example in that post, Dave displays a cartoon parody that takes a page from the old ABC Saturday morning series, Schoolhouse Rock. It points at media conglomerates as being evil, truth-hiding monsters who intentionally keep you in the dark to pad their own pockets. (The media is always a favorite target.)

It’s true that less diverse ownership can create more opportunities for a major corporation that has an agenda when it comes to influencing public opinion. Conspiracy theorists who argue about the “evil” media stop right there, right after they remove that pesky conditional word, can. They don’t mention the flip side of the coin: that larger media outlets generally have more money, and are able to provide more coverage, hire more people, and afford more extensive coverage of stories that are important to your community than smaller, “mom and pop” operations usually can. They don’t even seem willing to consider that possibility. It’s ironic that people who criticize the media for their alleged universal bias seem incapable of being impartial.

I once worked for a station that was purchased by one of those big conglomerates. I worked there for years before the big dogs arrived, and stayed for several years afterwards. The changes I saw were profound: the size of our news operation more than doubled. We got new equipment — much better equipment — that allowed us to do more stories in the community. We were encouraged by our new owners to get out into the community more, to become more involved and make note of more diverse opinions in our audience. We began doing more market research, something that was cost-prohibitive before, to see what our viewers wanted our newscasts to be. When severe weather, specifically hurricanes, threatened the coast, we had MORE resources, not less, because we suddenly had more sister stations from which we could borrow more facilities to get the stories told. And local charities had access to grants the big company offered in cities where it held properties, so that the community was able to benefit from corporate donations. Even corporate matching for charites we as individuals chose to donate to was better than when the station had been owned by the smaller company. More than it ever had been before, the station became a good “corporate citizen” and was able, thanks to a new owner with deeper pockets, to better serve the interests of the community.

Not once in all of this change, was there the demand from our corporate office to ever “spin” a story in a manner that would make some corporate concern be portrayed more favorably. Not once did I ever hear or see anyone from the corporate level step in to guide coverage towards one side or away from another. Not once. When it came to day-to-day coverage of news, they didn’t get involved. Their headquarters was located out of state, and their philosophy — as it should have been — was that we knew our market better than they did, and we were empowered to act accordingly.

I think that most people realize that no one can always be completely trustworthy. When it comes to the media issue, I’d never say that the media is perfect or that conflicts of interest do not arise. I do say, from having worked on the inside, that they don’t happen nearly as often as some would have you believe. The fact is that there are many, many dedicated people working in this field, usually in thankless jobs, who care about doing the right thing. It is a supreme insult to them to group them into the same category as those who don’t (just as it is offensive to Dave to find himself grouped into the category of UFO enthusiasts).

But on the other hand, one has to consider the fact that with more scrutiny than ever before, it’s increasingly harder for abuse to occur. Not impossible by any means, but certainly more difficult. Part of that is because of competition itself: if one media outlet doesn’t report on the transgressions of its corporate owner, you can bet that media outlet’s competitors will. Why? Because it plays right into good graces of the conspiracy theorists who can then say, “Hey, look at what Station X or Newspaper Y didn’t tell you!”

Who ever said it was a good idea to trust blindly in one particular media institution? You shouldn’t put all of your eggs in one basket. If you want to stay informed, unfortunately, some amount of work is required on your part. No one said it was supposed to be easy, you know.

Also missing is the consideration that even a mom-and-pop operation could unfairly influence the spin of stories. In this day of the countless media watchdog groups who are champing at the bit for the chance to accuse a major media company of bias, it’s conceivable that a smaller company might be able to slip bias into a story and not have their action be noticed.

A conspiracy theorist doesn’t want to hear any of that. Instead, a conspiracy theorist would simply look at me and claim that I’m “brainwashed” and that this is why I can’t see what’s so obvious to them.

Conspiracy theorists also hate the rich because they suspect that the rich have as their primary motivation your own financial ruin. I don’t understand that. Do you think that Donald Trump gives a damn how much money is in your checking account? If he does, it’s probably only to the extent that he’s competitive enough that he wants to make sure he has at least a cent more than you do. But if the average rich man could be rich and still have all he wants, don’t you think he’d be just as happy if no one was living below the poverty level? Perhaps my view of the rich is too self-centered; but if so, it’s no worse than the labelling of them as heartless, cruel monsters who want everyone else to suffer.

Then there are conspiracy theories about health treatments. Some people believe that the cure to every conceivable illness not only exists, but is being hidden by the drug manufacturers (and/or the government) so that they can profit on medical research. Well when you think about it, that argument really doesn’t make sense, either. If one terminal illness is cured, the patient lives longer. If the patient lives longer, sooner or later, he’ll come down with another illness…or even another course of the same one. (Haven’t we all had the common cold more than once? Haven’t you heard of people fighting cancer that has come out of remission?) The drug companies can make their profits as they keep charging him for cures of the endless series of maladies he’ll endure before he finally dies, sometime around age 215, when even the greatest medical secret ever stumbled upon can’t do the trick.

You get the idea when it comes to the conspiracies. Now consider the way some conspiracy theorists argue their point. Note the language that follows Dave’s initial question:

“You might want to question the wisdom of such an assumption. Ask yourself a simple question: Who benefits from your ignorance? Who benefits? Who benefits from you ignorance of history? Who benefits from your ignorance of corporate welfare?”

Who will your ignorance benefit? What problems will your ignorance cause? A conspiracy theorist always thinks everyone else is ignorant. Only conspiracy theorists know what’s really going on. Anyone who can’t or won’t agree is either a fool, blind or conditioned to accept everyone else’s word without thinking for themselves. Sorry, but I’m not going to automatically side with someone who attempts to use grade school peer pressure to make me conform my thinking to fit their ideals. Why would anyone?

Yet language and wordplay is a big part of the conspiracy theorist’s strategy.

If Dave feels that he has been considered a “conspiracy therorist” for his beliefs, I’ll use him as an example and point out that he once asked, “When will you find the courage to admit that the War in Iraq was wrong?”

It is a very cleverly-constructed question. In fact, it might remind you of that old joke, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” That is a joke question because it’s a no-win scenario: either you’re a wife beater who may have reformed or you’re a still-practicing wife beater.

There’s a very important difference in Dave’s question, however. If you don’t side with him, you’re a “coward” because you lack the courage to admit the truth he wants you to admit. If you do side with him, you’re somehow “courageous” for having done so. So it isn’t a “no-win” scenario, but a “one-win” and that win happens, not by coincedence, when you believe what he wants you to.

Also very much a part of conspiracy theories is the use of “pet names” for the “bad guys” being bashed. That’s why, in political blogs that always vilify the opposing party, George W. Bush is often referred to as “Shrub,” why Donald Rumsfeld is “Rummy,” and why Bill Clinton is “Slick Willy.” The hope is that you’ll jump on the bandwagon more easily if you are provided easy access to cutesy nicknames. Again, it’s a very juvenile, schoolyard thing to do, but it’s quite common.

It strikes me as a somewhat less-than-honest form of debate. And when I see such game-playing, I start asking a few questions of my own. I wonder why such tactics are even necessary. And I wonder about the agenda of the people who are so determined to get you to side with them.

Dave, for example, is anti-capitalist: he’s said so. He’s pro-labor unions: he’s said so. He’s a proponent of anarcho-syndicalism: he’s said so. Is it so unreasonable to wonder, while Dave is questioning the motives behind every action those who don’t side with him take, whether Dave himself might be capable of downplaying any negatives associated with his sides of the issues? Understand: I’m not saying he does, I’m just asking whether it would or wouldn’t be reasonable to ask.

If he’s going to raise the question of bias or dishonesty or unfairness, it seems to me that it’s perfectly fair to apply that question right back to him at least once in a while; otherwise, we must conclude that those who question others should automatically be exempt from their own questions.

The fact is, of course, that we’re all capable of spinning a story in a manner that makes our own position look better than someone else’s. Think about those times you told a friend or co-worker about a rude employee you encountered at a grocery store, or the driver who cut you off this morning, or the telemarketer you told off last night when she interrupted your dinner. Can you honestly say you never embellished such a tale just a bit?

The people I call conspiracy theorists take this a step farther, by identifying the worst-case scenario then insisting that it is common practice, and by twisting the facts so far as to make their position look like the only reasonable position anyone in their right mind could possibly take, which is illogical: if that were true, the masses would already be on their side and there’d be no “all-powerful” opposition to debate about.

Thinking if something has the potential to be bad, or if something has been bad before, then it must be bad, and as bad as it can possibly be, all the time, doesn’t make sense to me. No one is all good or all bad: there are degrees of each.

I’m willing to have an open mind and watch for problems on a case-by-case basis. Some would say that makes me the unreasonable one.

You have to decide which sounds more reasonable to you and act accordingly.