Liberal And Conservative Propoganda

Modern news about current events is nothing more than glorified hearsay even when it is accurate and presented without irrationalistic biases, as it is this inherently fallacious to believe that any particular event has happened just because someone claims it did.  Bipartisan political assumptions only obscure the truth even more by changing hearsay claims that might otherwise have provided genuine evidence for certain events into biased declarations used to sway emotions.  At this point, news is actually propoganda meant to persuade people of an idea's veracity unsoundly--and, in many cases, the idea isn't even true to begin with!

If conservatism and liberalism are conceptually attached to assumptions and biases, any news sources that interpret events through the lens of either ideology will tie itself to mere assumptions and logical fallacies.  Indeed, this is exactly the case.  Conservatism is tied to tradition, intentionally slow change, and a respect for the status quo, while liberalism is tied to mostly arbitrary definitions of "progress" and selective affirmation of societal hypocrisies.  Although some individual ideas associated with either conservatism or liberalism (at least in the modern standing of the terms) happen to be logically valid by accident, both political frameworks are thoroughly irrational.

This has important ramifications for news media and how followers of either party misperceive what happens around them.  For example, conservatives and liberals who zealously cite biased news sources are even less likely than mild conservatives or liberals are to evaluate the political landscape in the light of reason, without concern for who may be offended or what may be rejected as a consequence.  They make assumptions (which are philosophically asinine regardless of what they are about), shelter their biases in favor of those assumptions, and panic at the thought of others making different assumptions or rejecting political assumptions altogether.

The tendency for non-rationalists is to call a great amount of attention to the logical or moral failings of their political opponents, real or imagined, while selectively tolerating the same errors, hypocrisies, and injustices of their subjectively preferred political party.  This is why conservatives seem to care far more when a liberal candidate is accused of sexual assault than when one of their own candidates is accused, and vice versa.  Very rarely does someone truly support a candidate because they are intelligent and morally consistent; in almost every case, the supporters of both primary parties betray their lack of concern for truth and rationality by saying whatever they think will discredit their opponents, whether or not it is true.

The only path to sound political philosophy is rationalism, which necessarily entails the absence of assumptions, inconsistencies, and propoganda.  The more rational someone is, the more they will reject or even effortlessly sidestep the common assumptions in favor of either major political party in America.  Rationalistic philosophy uproots the foundations of the bipartisan giants of conservatism and liberalism.  Tradition and novelty have nothing to do with truth on their own, and thus a political cannot both be valid and rooted in one or the other.  Propoganda from both conservative and liberal sources is asinine by default.