The meta-view from meta-nowhere

If anyone coined the phrase it was Thomas Nagel in his 1986 book with that title.

Here’s the NY Times on the “font of misinformation and lies” from Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/politics/trump-rallies.html

There are some others to be found there – more in the “opinion” than “news” sections, but some in the news, too, using “lie”.

Rosen credits Nagel with the phrase here.

This does seem pretty profoundly misguided. Objectivity simply means setting the overton window correctly, to reflect the actual consensus as it exists within the field in question.

As I understand it, scientists, to the extent they disagree about the shape of the earth, consider the oblate spheroid and ellipsoid models to be reasonable approximations. GPS is built on the former, so in practice everyone uses that. But if gps had been implemented based on an ellipsoidal model it would likely have worked equivalently well, and possibly marginally better.

The correct way to present that is to treat those two views as inside the overton window; it is not a question journalists can resolve in behalf of their viewers. Flat and spherical earth views are not held by accredited scientists, so should’t be treated as inside the window. Hypothetically, if a third of all scientists thought the earth was flat, then journlaists should report that position fairly too. The thing about absurd hypotheticals is that they correctly lead to absurd conclusions.

Politicians disagree about whether Trump was lying. So until and unless politicians who hold the view that he wasn’t are expelled from political parties that have mass support, it is not an objective truth that he lied. Even thougfh, of course, he did.

There isn’t a shortcut to the situation in which Trunpism is outside the overton window other than that actually happening.

The media did at some point start calling out Trump’s lies and indeed calling them lies, and they continue to call out his election lies, but that was relatively late. Better late than never but the real issue that during the 2016 election campaign, Trump was treated with velvet gloves. And some news people have openly admitted they put their thumb on the scale. I think it was somebody from CNN who openly stated that his understanding of “objectivity” required showing Trump in a better light because he was an inexperienced outsider running against a professional politician. And the media did what it could to show Trump in the best, and Clinton in the worst possible light.

That sums up the deeper issue: if one candidate is terrible, then objectivity requires reporting how terrible he is, but American journalism has a different definition: objectivity as equidistance. So you end up equidistant between truth and propaganda, equidistant between science and superstition, equidistant between liberalism and fascism.

I would have no quarrel with truly impartial journalism, objective journalism that reports the facts as they can be verified, impartially reporting what the relevant political actors have to say but always checking their statements against the facts. That kind of journalism is not on offer I’m afraid to say.

The view from nowhere privileged, as in meaning, multiple viewpoints rather than a single viewpoint, is generally a good thing. The synthetic view is exactly not the same as any individual view, which is why it’s more likely to be complete, which tends to favor being correct. Indeed, it is the comprehensive view which is most apt to justify criticizing an individual view as erroneous. And it is the singular view which is most apt to be wrong.

If there is an unspoken premise that only a certain kind of individual/group of individuals can truly know any view, I reject it. The notion that truth is unique to the individual smacks to me more as an inadvertent concession to principles of inequality long ago refuted, albeit by more complete views, from “nowhere” so to speak.

In the case of Australia’s duty to buy nuclear submarines, the notion that the People’s Republic of China may not actually constitute the kind of threat that demands such expenditure, is as reprehensible as, say giving the Roman Catholic Church’s side in sex abuse cases. The Overton Window is a pejorative way of describing the fact that certain propositions are unacceptable in polite society. Unvarnished truth is for the privilege of the doctors’ and lawyers’ offices and whatever corners of the ivory tower Governor Gleichschaltung (DeSantis et al.) leave undusted.

The issue is of course is how such issues are decided and who decides them. The notion that institutions run for profit are controlled by the genitals and skin color of the individuals needs a little explaining. I will say that the news media have absolutely nothing to do with objectivity in the research scientists’ practice. Comparing the news to that is more self-flattery than a pertinent point I think.

The difficulty of getting the news media to clearly distinguish between the year’s budget and anticipated deficit versus ten year projections of outlays and deficits is my favorite example of time-honored malfeasance. (Though the difficulty of getting a sound total of military spending for any year.) There is tremendous patience for statistics on sports and box office grosses, so I don’t think this is driven by the popular taste…unless you mean the popular taste of advertising purchasers perhaps.

At any rate, the notion that Trump’s business career was not in any sense “news” in 2016, while Clinton’s email server was, strikes me as an excellent example of how objectivity doesn’t mean indignation at wrong-doing nor refusal to be equally deferential to partisans’ right to reject criticism of their opinions. It means putting things in perspective. Like perspective in art, that means careful analysis.

I’m in agreement with what I think is the basic idea of the post. (I’ll add that I don’t think Nagel takes a “naively objectivst view”, – he’s contrasting what he takes to be “subjective” views, which involve the “what is it like?”/qualia aspect of the world with more and more “objective” aspects of it. I don’t actually think that approach is right, but not in a way that lends any comfort to bad journalistic approaches.) My only issue is, like TM above, I’d seen “lies” being used by news media about Trump, so thought the “never ever” claim about calling Trump’s claim “lies” was too strong, even if there’s good ground for criticism here. What I linked to was just what I’d seen in literally 30 seconds of google searching, but it seems to me that it’s the one making the (strong) claim that has the burden of showing that it can be substantiated. (If I had been writing it, I would have made the more plausibly true claim that “objectivity” requires calling lies lies, when that’s established, and that this should have been done sooner and more frequently, when it was well established.)

The (mainstream) U.S. news media construe objectivity to mean “balance,” but in certain extraordinary circumstances journalistic responsibility may require a departure from objectivity-as-balance. The entry of Trump into electoral politics was likely one of those extraordinary circumstances.

However, in most (not all, but most) circumstances, labeling a terrible candidate as terrible, in a front-page news story, would be a violation of journalistic objectivity and probably of journalistic responsibility as well. For example, in 1980 Reagan was a terrible candidate and Carter a not-terrible one. In 1964, Goldwater was a terrible candidate. In 1972, the choice between candidates from the standpoint of “terribleness” was clear. Yet if the Washington Post had run a front-page news story in 1980 stating “Ronald Reagan is a terrible candidate whose election will do long-term and severe damage to the republic,” that statement, while reflecting an entirely reasonable evaluation of Reagan, would have been inappropriate on the front page, though it would have been fine — indeed, if the Post had been living up to its full journalistic obligations, it would have been close to mandatory — on the editorial page.

In short, the case for departing from objectivity-as-balance must rest on showing that Trump was different in kind from, say, Reagan, terrible and execrable as the latter was. I think that can be shown, notwithstanding that Reagan’s general outlook and worldview, which among other things labeled government as the source of all problems and viewed the solution as “getting government off the [people’s] backs,” marked him as one of the worst presidential candidates in recent U.S. history.

@RichardM

I think you are wrong: “objective” means corresponding to reality, so if Trump says X, and X turns out to be objectively false, then T objectively lied and an objective journalist should say it.

What you call objective really is more like “unbiased” or perhaps “doesn’t take sides”.

It is arguable wheter journalists can be objective in the true sense of the word (they are far from omniscient) and perhaps then the best they can do is to be unbiased, or to not take sides.

But the two things should not be confused, otherwise we come to the weird conclusion that he says she says journalism is objective and that reality changes if enough people think in a certain way. This approach makes it impossible to even try to be objective.

This from 2016 is worth recalling to remind us how profit oriented media translate „objectivity“. It’s important to understand that the „view from nowhere“ is a pretext used where it is convenient.

„“With the Trump administration,” Mr. Martin [John Martin, chief executive of CNN’s parent company] said, “there will be a general fascination that wouldn’t be the same as under a Clinton administration.”
How that plays out journalistically is another question. On Wednesday, Mr. Zucker [CNN chief] defended his hiring of Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s ex-campaign manager, who was constrained as an analyst by a nondisclosure agreement with the Trump campaign. “It was important to have people who could give us a peek into what people supporting Trump were thinking,” Mr. Zucker said.
…

That prompted Ms. Tumulty of The Post to ask Mr. Zucker why he allowed on so many “nut job surrogates” to appear, noting that some Trump supporters told lies, which CNN anchors had to correct. “At what point do you say you cannot come on our air anymore because you have told too many lies?” Ms. Tumulty asked.
Mr. Zucker said it was up to viewers to decide whether a supporter offered a compelling case for their candidate. And he circled back to the notion that televising Mr. Trump’s words was one thing; voters choosing to support him was another.“

They don’t even try to keep the pretense of journalistic objectivity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/business/media/trump-cnns-coverage-biased-presidential-candidates-aides-say.html

Is there any evidence for the conceit of this post, the “[journalism] has failed miserably” because “Donald Trump got elected in the first place, despite….” thing?

Would a different editorial stance by the collective MSM have delivered a victory for HRC in 2016? What analysis should make me believe this?

And even if so, would this have been a good thing? In the long run? It isn’t as if most people on the right (and some in the center and left also) don’t already think the MSM is biased towards the D’s and against the R’s.

If you drop “objectivity” and go open slather on what is or isn’t a fact – adopt say, the standards LFC suggests in comment 18 – is there really any reason to think this will help the D’s win elections, over time?

Keep in mind that all politicians say untruthful things, and that most of us will disagree a lot of the time as to what statements are untruthful and what statements are not, and that it can be hard to tell when someone is lying and when some actually believes the lies they tell. And this is especially an issue with someone like Trump, for whom (a la CJ Colucci’s comment 9) part of his appeal – to his fans – seems to be his cavalier attitude towards saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

I admit, I believe entirely in the exact opposite strategy – the D’s would be better off if the MSM would simply quit using the words “lie” and “racism” and “misogyny” entirely. (Mission creep is inevitable). Donald Trump is (and always has been) incredibly unpopular and a very weak opponent, and I’d argue for letting people listen to what he says and then vote against him without the proposed gloss – i.e., with the fewest possible reminders of why they also want to vote against the sort of candidates and policies and ways of thinking that are preferred by upper-middle class, highly educated progressives.

This comment replies to both anon/portly and TM.

1) anon/portly says that I suggested going “open slather on what is and isn’t a fact.” I did not suggest that, though my position probably could have been stated more clearly.

2) TM: I agree with you that the media did not treat HRC fairly. By the MSM’s own standards of objectivity-as-balance, the MSM did not give an objective, balanced treatment to the two candidates in 2016. There was indeed excessive press attention to the HRC emails. That said, I think part (not all, but part) of the blame for HRC’s defeat lies with herself and her campaign.

I would also point out, TM, that you opened yourself to some possible misinterpretation by the way you phrased your comment re terribleness.

Finally, I think it would be helpful for people on “our side” to adopt a stance that allows us to be occasionally self-critical in various ways, rather than relentlessly blaming all our defeats on others and never in any way or in any degree on ourselves. Day after day, week after week, the political scientist Scott Lemieux, blogging at the site Lawyers Guns and Money, put up posts with the shrieking title “‘But her emails!!'” His point that the media treated HRC unfairly and paid excessive attention to her emails was correct. But his implication — or what a perusal of those posts might suggest was the implication — that the skewed media coverage was the main reason HRC lost was, in my view, not correct (or, at best, highly debatable).

LFC: The topic of this thread is the media. Clinton’s own deficiencies and mistakes were widely enough debated at the time, of course part of the blame lies with herself and her campaign, but that is not the topic here and there was no reason to bring it up. But since you did bring it up: everybody makes mistakes and Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes despite huge structural disadvantages. After two Obama terms, a third Democratic victory was actually an extraordinary feat. Part of the media narrative at the time was that Clinton should have won easily, which is absolute nonsense. That was another way in which media cynicism played into Trump‘s hands.

anon/portly’s view is supported by the evidence one gets from reading or viewing US media from the days of segregation. There was a great deal of effort to avoid calling people racists, and white people probably did get along better with each other. Also, in general, more Democrats got elected.

But anon/p and Baron misstate the critique of Baron’s version of objectivity. The task of the honorable media is not to elect Hillary Clinton or other Democrats; it is to tell the truth. The media’s outrageous anti-Clinton stance has been persuasively linked to her defeat. But even if the media weren’t responsible, that doesn’t let them off the hook for promoting bullshit.

Basically, statements of facts (this book has a green cover) are objective, while statemnts of value (this book is interesting) are subjective, as they reference not a quality of the object but the fact that the object satisfies some need/desire of the speaker.

It is significant that statements of value reference facts.

If ‘This book is interesting’ is a subjective statement and not an objective one, what about ‘This book is interesting to me’? What about ‘This book interests me’, ‘At one time this book interested me’, ‘At one time this book interested my daughter’, and ‘At one time this book interested a great many people’? Where should the line be drawn, and why?

I think Rosen ties himself in knots because he doesn’t distinguish between the way experts know things and the way journalists do, and because he’s kept on the idea that the way ordinary people know things is less good than both of those. “The view from nowhere” in Nagel’s sense may well involve one political party being objectively wrong and the other being right. (It almost always tells people who aren’t scientists that they way they know things is lesser.)

Rosen often seems to be saying the opposite, in a way that might make his opponents feel they have the right to do the same thing he seems to be doing: to elevate politics over truth: to say that truth is different for people on different sides of a political argument. Where I think it’s obvious he thinks he’s saying that a journalist who develops some amount of expertise on a subject earns the right to consider truth in his own right – to stop asking people on “both sides” for their opinion and treating them all the same. She no longer has to consider her opinion to be the same as the woman on the street’s, and always be questioning herself anytime anybody voices a difference of opinion.

I personally don’t happen to feel an institution like the NYT has to use the language of political brawling in order to convey to their readers that a politician is lying. I wonder if there’s some kind of magical thinking about the power of using exactly the right word going on, because it’s common to see people nitpicking that their opponents haven’t done so in the right way.

MisterMr@31 asserts that the enormous attention focused on Clinton’s emails in 2016 is a matter of values, not facts, implying it was therefore inarguable.

The suggestion that it was merely a matter of bias, not a failure of objectivity, may be a language issue. Even if you think objectivity aims at truth that isn’t merely personal viewpoint but a synthetic viewpoint from all sides (implicitly meaning more than just two partisan takes, by the way,) other definitions of objectivity directly invoke lack of bias.

In this particular case, the “value” of the email server issue, is the possible risk to public interests and the integrity of such security regulations. The facts were as I recall, no known consequences to national security and a pattern of many infractions of such regulations with minimal sanctions (due apparently largely to the practical need to use better servers, I think.)

Thus, the facts argue that evaluating the emails as a major scandal is purely arbitrary, aimed at supporting Trump by denigrating Clinton. Any values that defy mere facts can and will be held by individuals (as if we could stop people from being stupid.) But we are not required ever to pretend such nonsense is good public discourse. In public life, public reasons must be given, not personal revelations and intuitions. Such impositions in debate are cheats, not more debate.

This particular case pops up with moral panic over Trump’s sticky fingers dragging documents, including those labeled “Secret,” to Mar-a-Lago. It has been a long and dishonorable tradition in US political life to darkly assert that so-and-so is a traitor and conspirator. It goes as far back as Jefferson’s dingbat theories about Hamilton conspiring to restore monarchy but it has been a cardinal principle in the Republican Party since 1919, and has been bipartisan since 1945 at the latest.

The notion that “objectivity” means accepting the common myths without question seems to be widespread (and Rosen to me seems to believe this too, or at least dare not endorse questioning them.) But I don’t think any coherent notion of objectivity can incorporate such a principle.

“This book is interesting to me”, “this book is interesting to 56% of the people in the world”, “I think that Trump is terrible” are statements of fact.

“This book is interesting”, “Trump is a terrible president” are statements of value, and therefore subjective.

If ‘This book is interesting to me’ is an objective statement of fact while ‘This book is interesting’ is a subjective statement of value, how important is the distinction?

(Currently 39) Why would you pick an example like this when there are thousands of flat-out lies to choose from? For example “I got more votes in 2016 than Hillary Clinton”

Is this example referring to this?

https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/trump-claims-he-won-the-2016-popular-vote-in-a-true-sense/

I hadn’t known about this one, or had forgotten it, but he was claiming there was “cheating” in the counting of votes, in various places. Is this another “hypothetical statement” or just a lie? It just seems like a much more outlandish hypothetical. (This would have been a better example for my point, I agree).

(Currently 41) But like the media themselves, you seem to think that the only alternatives are to call the Ukraine quote a lie, or to report it uncritically.

I can see I may have left that impression, but no, my preference is for things along the lines of “provided no evidence” as opposed to “lie.” Maybe sometimes the word “untrue” will be appropriate, and perhaps even “lie,” but I view the use of the word “lie” as something that will always be difficult for the media to use in an unbiased fashion.

And again, I don’t understand why JQ thinks it’s “crucial” to use the term “lie” in describing something like Trump’s claim about the vote-counting in 2016 being rigged, instead of simply emphasizing the lack of evidence for Trump’s claim.

Calling a lie, a lie, is subjective, a personal opinion affirming intent to deceive. Objectively we cannot distinguish a lie from stupidity, superstition, delusion, second hand sycophancy, mental aberration, brain fog, fits of temper or even the occasional simple error. Some presuppositions (what I prefer personally to call myths or patriotic loyalism/jingoism) are not reducible to simple facts. Nonetheless those that rest on false facts are still false. Calling them lies is a straightforward shorthand of greater utility, even if the attorneys for the opposition object. The prevalence of false and unreasonable propositions which Rosen-style (I think, if I read him right) objectivity cannot contest, because it would be performative disloyalty is I think why the subjective/objective distinction is irrelevance to the truthfulness of media news.

And no, complex propositions do not simply mean subjective evaluations are conjoined to facts. Everybody knows that “facts” are the foundations of very general views. That’s why so many religious people want to deny the facts of evolution, or political conservatives work so hard to deny the facts of climate science. They know: The indefeasible right to your subjective feelings is no justification for foisting nonsense on other people. That’s why news reporting about flying saucer abductions are not good journalism.

Similarly, the reluctance to admit Hunter Biden’s laptop is not good evidence (see, chain of custody) in the first place but the fact is, the only reason to care is emails between father and son. Notions of objectivity as balance ignores the need for facts in judgment. At first blush, this may seem more contentious, but pretending facts don’t matter leads to somehow presuming the right to a moral panic—which is subjective—has to be indulged in the name of balance, hence Matt Taibbi abandoning all pretenses.

Yes, it is weird that conventional manners are entirely compatible with hysterical misjudgments. Lunacy uttered in an indoors voice is still nuts. Puffing up a balloon in defiance of relevant facts is a species of lying, despite being subjective. Turning “subjective” into a free pass is not helpful.

Baron actually implies that it is the Dem side that tries to force journalists to be partisan and therefore not objective, but then goes on with this narrative of journalists who go out of their way to find facts etc.

In some sense if Baron just said: “objectivity in journalism amounts exclusively to being in the middle of the road between D and R” it would make more sense. But he actively says that this is not the case, while implying that it is the anti-Trump side which is not objective.

So there is clearly a problem because, with Trump, as he is a very big bullshitter, and as a lot of people actually want to believe him, being middle of the road automatically means being not objective in the strict sense.

49 Pro-Trump and anti-anti-Trump commentators like the NYTimes version of objectivity. No surprises there.

First, is this true? I would think both “Pro-Trump” and “anti-anti-Trump” commentators would say that “the NYTimes version of objectivity” is far too biased against Trump.

Second, I hope this wasn’t directed at my comments – obviously I am 100% not “Pro-Trump” and if I understand the term correctly (a sort of Republican) I am 100% not “anti-anti-Trump” either. (I voted twice for Joe B. in 2020, if that helps).

If “anti-anti-Trump” simply means “disagrees at times or even largely with some anti-Trump people” then yes, that does describe me, but doesn’t that describe all anti-Trump people? There is after all a very wide range of views in the anti-Trump camp.

Anyway, my disagreement with JQ is entirely wrt how best and most effectively to be anti-Trump. The MSM is clearly an anti-Trump institution, as a whole, and in my views like all such institutions, the better it performs, the worse Trump performs.

Also I think that for the most part turning down the temperature is a good thing – the pugnacious response to Trump plays to his strengths. And again, the important point is that his statements contradict the evidence, not whether he believes them or not. I read the NYT and care what the NYT says about the former, I care not what the NYT thinks about the latter.

It makes a lot of difference because people do not automatically make the fact/value distinction.

So for example if I say the X movie is very stupid, you will generally take me at face value unless you have some reason to mistrust me.

If I say “I think that X is a stupid movie” or “critics say that X is a stupid movie” I’m already stressing the non objectivity of the argument.

I will generally take you at face value, will I? How can you know that? You can’t read my mind. I feel comfortable assuring you (and anybody else who is reading) that the way I would react to your saying ‘X is a stupid movie’ and the way I would react to your saying ‘I think that X is a stupid movie’ would be nearly if not totally indistinguishable.

If you were to tell me that in the reverse case, if I said ‘X is a stupid movie’ you would be discouraged from seeing it but if I said ‘I think is a stupid movie’ then you wouldn’t be, then I would have to accept what you tell me about your own reactions, but I would think them strange or maybe even bizarre.

a/p 35: “When Trump says something like “Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if I was still president,” is that a “lie?” Should the MSM emphasize to readers and viewers that it’s a “lie?””

The more relevant question here is whether such a statement is newsworthy at all. I don’t see how it is. Of course, that is in itself, as MisterMr 31 points out, a value judgment but it’s one that the news media are making all the time. If statements by Trump get more attention than those of other public figures (bearing in mind that he’s nothing but a private citizen with political ambitions), that might be an indication that something is wrong with their judgment calibration.

Leaving Trump aside. I think reporting about views and stataments of public figures as opposed to actual events that are newsworthy is a big part of the “view from nowhere” problem. As you say, the statement “A said X” can be objectively true even if X is false or irrelevant. The “view from nowhere” makes no distinction between “A said X” (where X is false) and “B said Y” (where Y is true). Logically, both statements have the same truth value.

But this is sophistry. It shouldn’t be necessary to explain to journalists that both statements are not equivalent, and that they as journalists have a duty to provide the factual context to such statements if they are relevant enough to be reported at all. Despite the proliferation of “fact checking”, a lot of reporting that happens these days, including in relatively high quality outlets, simply disregards the responsibility to provide this factual context (*). Part of the reason is that it’s cheaper, and high quality news reporting is expensive and requires time and effort by dedicated professionals, whereas quoting somebody’s statement is cheap and easy – and often helps keep the journalist in the good graces of their political “sources”. (Which brings us to the proliferation of “anonymous sources” quotes, another unjustifiable vice of today’s journalism).

(*) What about hypotheticals, like with the Ukraine example, how do you provide factual context? I don’t think that’s hard at all. You ask Trump what he would have done to prevent the war and check the plausibility of his answer, if necessary by asking experts, or you emphasize that he didn’t provide an answer. The first step however would still be to question whether this is newsworthy at all.

The view from nowhere, 2023 edition:

“During the segment filmed prior to Trump’s indictment, Lesley Stahl’s mostly softball interview discussed Greene’s rise in the Republican Party and what 60 Minutes described as her “America First, populist views,” including her assertion that Democrats are a party of “pedophiles.” She doubled-down on Sunday: “I would definitely say so they support grooming children,” she claimed, conflating Democrats’ support of trans rights to pedophilia.

“Democrats support, even Joe Biden, the president himself, supports children being sexualized and having transgender surgeries,” Greene said. “Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do to children.””

I’m afraid we are still in denial about where we are. The reality is that in US political discourse, fascism has been thoroughly mainstreamed. It is difficult nowadays to imagine any fascist propaganda narrative that the media would not play willing enablers for.

I think the “view from nowhere” is quite selective. I regularly see articles that attribute beliefs to Republicans that make their votes look better. In stead of reporting what people say — e.g., “Republican say they believe in small government” — I regularly see phrasing that takes what is said at face value — e.g., “Republicans believe in small government.”

I also regularly see editorializing in “news” stories about economic and political issues. For example, I often see the federal budget deficit described as a big problem, or the costs of certain (usually safety net) programs as “huge,” or the social security situation described as a “crisis” — but these are judgments, not facts.

I also see huge absences in the “view” — for example, in reports about patent and copyright abuse and what to do about it, I have never seen any indication that our copyright and patent laws could be changed. Even though there are many people who make this case (convincingly, in my view-from-somewhere).

I could go on. But why bother.

@J-D 54

“I will generally take you at face value, will I? How can you know that? You can’t read my mind. I feel comfortable assuring you (and anybody else who is reading) that the way I would react to your saying ‘X is a stupid movie’ and the way I would react to your saying ‘I think that X is a stupid movie’ would be nearly if not totally indistinguishable.”

If this was the case, advertisement would not work, and there would be no difference between the NYT saying “Trump says that he won the elections” and the NYT saying “Trump won the elections”.

You are certainly correct when we speak of stuff we hear we consciously give attention to, but in many (most) situations we do not give much conscious attention to stuff, unless we have a specific reason to distrust the speaker.

If this was the case, advertisement would not work, and there would be no difference between the NYT saying “Trump says that he won the elections” and the NYT saying “Trump won the elections”.

That’s a distortion of my point.

If X is ‘Trump won the elections’, then ‘I think that X’ is not ‘Trump says that he won the elections’ but rather ‘I think that Trump won the elections’. The relationship between saying X and saying ‘I think that X’ exists between (A1) Donald Trump saying ‘I won the elections’ and (A2) Donald Trump saying ‘I think that I won the elections’; it also exists between (B1) the New York Times saying ‘Donald Trump won the elections’ and (B2) the New York Times saying ‘the New York Times thinks that Donald Trump won the elections’.

The relationship is a different one between (C1) the New York Times saying ‘Donald Trump won the elections’ and (C2) the New York Times saying ‘Donald Trump thinks that Donald Trump won the elections’.

If this was the case, advertisement would not work

I don’t understand how you get to this conclusion.

… but in many (most) situations we do not give much conscious attention to stuff …

I am sure this is true, but I don’t understand how it’s supposed to be relevant to the foregoing discussion.

at 44, you said “If ‘This book is interesting to me’ is an objective statement of fact while ‘This book is interesting’ is a subjective statement of value, how important is the distinction?”

The distinction is important because if you say “This book is interesting to me” you are stressing that the interestingness of the book is subjective to you, so this makes me realize that what is interesting to you might not be interesting to me.
You take for granted that people normally make this distinction but my point is that people don’t, or do it only when they are giving attention to it (conscious attention).

If you say to me, ‘This book is interesting’, or if you say to me, ‘This book is interesting to me’, the likely effect on me is much the same in either case. In both cases, the effect on me will depend on the context. For example, if my attention has been seized by something else, I might be aware of what you’re saying only as background sounds. Or, if I regard you as a fool and a boare who’s been rambling on pointlessly for ages, my reaction might be something like, ‘What makes you think I care? Why can’t you just be quiet?’ If I have read the book myself and have just expressed to you my opinion of it, that will affect how I react to your response. However, if I’m unfamiliar with the book, my most likely reaction to both statements is to think something like ‘I don’t know, but maybe it is interesting, and it might be worth finding out more about it’, and then I might ask you to tell me more.

If you can describe the reaction you would be likely to have if I said to you ‘This book is interesting’ and the reaction you would be likely to have if I said to you ‘This book is interesting to me’, then perhaps I would have some basis for judging whether there’s a significant difference, but so far you haven’t done this.