The "Brokenness" Controversy

Both of those words have been setting my teeth on edge for months.

"Broken" because any pundit or politician with a big megaphone can declare something (Obamacare, education, our foreign policy) to be "broken" and then, perhaps because it is such an extreme statement, it becomes a matter of common knowledge and any crackbrained scheme to replace that "broken" system is worthy of thoughtful consideration.  The only thing that doesn't seem to warrant study is whether the declaration itself is true!

"Controversy" because the news media, in its search for the two sides of everything, continually declares settled fact to be "controversial" as long as there is somebody to publicly question that fact.  The current heavy hitter in this usage is clearly climate change.  Anybody who has observed the blooming of flowers or the migration of birds for more than a few years knows that climate change is a fact.  But as long as there are paid shills for the energy industry questioning this fact, there will, apparently, be a "controversy."  We have seen such "controversies" before, such as the "controversy" over whether cigarettes are a health hazard.  Well-established science is confronted by people who say, "I don't believe that," without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and the news industry allows its public to consider a question unsettled.

Today I came across the name for these approaches, the concept of agnatology, or manufactured ignorance.  The PR people for corporations and politicians consider these to be well-established tools, with their own advantages and disadvantages.  I find it reprehensible.