Why the Thinking Behind MSNBC's Depp & Heard Article Will Destroy America

This video just shows the danger with the thinking behind “believe woman”. I quickly take apart this MSNBC article to show one example of bias in the main stream media.

I am taking apart this article specifically. That does not mean I am on the side of Depp or Heard.

I hope to continue making videos that analyze possible biases from many different sources. If you would like me to analyze something, send me a link. It could be Left, Right, Democrat, Republican... I don't care. Bias lives everywhere.

Video Notes
Not edited (there will be errors)
-------------------------------------------------------------

MSNBC Amber Heard and Jonny Depp article: “No Matter Who Wins the Jonny Depp-Amber Heard Trial, America Has Lost” by Liz Plank

“The jury has the final say. But I’m less interested in whether amber heard is a liar, and more interested in why so many people are interested In the idea that she might be.”

The piece starts by defending something it ultimately does not believe in upholding. For example, the judicial system has the knowledge, the facts and understanding the practice. to make the final judgment in this case, but this opinion does not care about that knowledge, the facts, the understanding, or the system. Instead, this article asks why the truth is important. Actually, they ask why simply desiring the truth is important.
Well let’s look at other akin questions. Why should we ask ourselves, or God forbid, our fellow countryman, if someone tried to steal an election, or why someone might feel the need to overturn an election. Why question anything that happened on January 6th? Why look into rape allegations or assault charges? If the truth is less important that the loudest voice, than why do look into anything at all?
This article kicks itself off by saying, I’m less interested in the truth and more interested in why people want the truth. Plank comes at this trial with an interestingly backwards and detrimentally insidious philosophy that goes beyond mere domestic dispute claims. The author is vilifying those who ask questions, who seek knowledge. Simply because the answer may be uncomfortable or unpopular.
She is teaching people, students, inventors, investigators, etc. to stop progressing if it does not fit the current popular rather loudest opinion. Why is this dangerous. Because it teaches people that thinking is unimportant and even criminal.
You may think that this is an overreaction. But imagine this philosophy gaining ground. Progress, ingenuity, invention, medical advancements, morality … would collapse. It’s already starting. You can see it around you today. Other countries passing us by because we are too afraid of what we might find. Because we are too afraid of what people may think. That is foolish and it will ruin this country.
But let’s move on to the rest of the article, because we are only two sentences in.
We are going to skip down passed the campaigning and get to the point of the article. The first bit is really just priming the reader to be on the side of Amber heard. It is a type of manipulation but its really the most important part of the article. So, we are going to skip it.

“The trial …. … their humiliation”
“supposedly progressive culture” stop there. What does she mean by this. I would define progressive using the 1780s definition, as one who is intellectually improved, who has advancement in knowledge, and continues to do so. So, by this definition, she is right we are definitely progressive. Knowing history, I don’t think you could argue that. Although she gives it the old college try here in a second.
But before we get to that, I want to mention that I think her definition differs from my definition in my opinion. I think her operational definition of progressive is more closely related to loud opinion than advanced thinking. Meaning the loudest voice is the right voice. I think this because she mocks the US population for asking questions. To be fair, she does believe there is a reason for this, Ill explain why I think she does this in a minute. But she is mocking us for asking questions. But to me, here is where it gets tricky, how could one possibly advance, move forwards, seek enlightenment or progress, if they are not open? If they don’t ask questions or seek truth? It’s not probable.
So why does she believe she is right to mock our tendency to question?
She gets to that when she asks why “our seemingly progressive culture is suddenly obsessed with old school, misogynistic tropes about lying harlots”.
There are a few things to unpack here.
1)
The author is asking why we concerned about old school themes or instances of women who lie? What I assume this boils down to is her questioning, why is this trial so popular. And why are we using past, possibly unfair and sexist history or context to create our first judgments of this trial? In other words, the author assumes that we are letting a flawed past as sexist humans colour our intrinsic opinions today. Suggesting that the only reason one might question Amber Heard today, is not because they want the truth but rather because they are inherently biased towards woman. Now we get to it. The first thing to unpack, is that the author is saying people are inherently sexist against woman, and that is why they question Amber Heard.
Not because any human being, male or female, could be a liar. Certainly not that. No the reason is, we are all sexist against woman at heart.
2)
Having figured that out number one, and going further, it seems that this article is self-proclaiming bias to begin with because it assumes that Amber Heard isn’t lying. How does it assume that. The author says that today we are relying on” old school”, “misogynistic tropes” to make judgments. Meaning Plank believes that we are not using facts or anything provable to damn Amber Heard, we are simply saying “in our sexist history a trial like this would deem a woman a liar, so she must be wrong in today’s world”. But the fact that there is a trial at all and that it is so serious and controversial, already contradicts that opinion. Watching the trial shows that we are looking at evidence rather than past precedent.
3)
This opinion goes against the very first sentiments of this article, that chide the media for prematurely making up their mind about the truth. Yet here she is, say that there is no good reason for this trial because Amber Heard is not lying. We’ve in essences been lead in a circle by the author. At the start of this article, the reader is in trouble for having already deemed Amber Heard a liar, all the while the author herself has deemed Amber Heard innocent.
Now, unbiasedly, I agree that the media tends to create lynchers of us all. We, that are not a part of a publicized trail, don’t know the facts or evidence or truths or lies. Yet the media perpetuates and manipulates opinion like its their job. This is bad. It is a good idea for everyone to be mindful of themselves and their judgments as well as their possible biases. Lest we forget what could happen if we do not police ourselves. Just look at what happened to Jonny Depp’s career at the simple allegation.
What the author does wrong in this article so far, is that she tells us we are wrong for something she does quite obviously in front of us. This piece has nothing to do with believing woman and everything to do with ignoring possibilities.
Let’s move on. The next bit of the article brings in the dangers of overly apathetically popularizing a trial of this nature. Suggesting that is could damage further cases. It then gives evidence of how Heard the victim may be while casting a shadow on Depp. Go as far has profiling Depp’s body language to suggest “odd behavior”.
“I’m less interested in whether Heard is a liar and more interested in why so many people are gleefully invested in the idea that she might be. Millions of people seem suddenly interested in domestic violence- but only because there is a chance that a scorned and vengeful woman might be lying about it”.
Again, the author does not care about the truth but wants to know why people want the truth. Further still are more examples of the author assuming Heard’s innocence when she says there is some type of agenda to get back at woman who speak up, that lead to this trial and indeed this type of behaviour, being so popular.
The article goes on to state the statistics of rape allegations, how often they are wrong, and how often men are innocent. I can only assume this is to manipulate the reader into using inductive reasoning to conclude Depp’s guilt. It further suggests the dangers of this case by suggesting that it could lead to victims not coming forward.
The article then speaks about “mutual abuse” effectively deleting any culpability Amber Heard may have had. Suggesting that such a thing does not and not cannot exist. This just abandons possibility further.
The article wraps by saying this trial will scare away victims form getting help or justice and states that America has lost. But what it fails to understand is it’s own biases. Which will indeed lead to our collective loss.

This article is the paragon of dangerously flippant and transient thought. If we are to indeed simply believe woman, or anything for that matter, we have lost. We cannot allow ourselves to abandon reason for madness.