But What About the Truth?
Last week, Sean Hannity invited his audience to vote if they thought the Times Square bomber acted alone or with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda. What an interesting way to decide.
No doubt, Hannity clearly understood that such a "vote" could not actually decide the truth. The public verdict could not send anyone to jail. On the other hand, calling it a "vote" suggests a significant step beyond opinion. A verdict was to be reached.
Elections confer legitimacy to opinion. On American Idol, someone wins and someone loses. In a jury trial, the defendant ends up being sentenced. Something has been decided, agreed upon, set in place. So what is going on here?
Is it just a kind of mob flattery? The audience is asked to believe in its own wisdom or insight, and, even though it is unlikely that many voters in the audience could make a clear cut distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that would not prevent them from being sure which was worse. And, in fact, the winner announced at the program's end was Al Qaeda. (The Attorney General last week said it was probably the Taliban.)




