Not that you asked, but I have read a number of early Obits for the Clinton Campaign, a few hundred “how did she lose” stories, and a “who’s responsible” story. After spending the last hour breathing into a paper bag, I want to tell someone how I see it. And you DKos readers, are the target of my catharsis.
The lack of proportion, the lack of context and background, the lack of integrity that graces the front pages of our finest news print media is scary. There are a million examples, we all know them by heart now: the lopsided coverage of Hillary’s scandals vs. those of the GOP and Trump, Policy positions of the Dems vs. no policy at all for the GOP, congressional gridlock and flagrant power grabs made on the part of senate republicans, and the unusual lack of follow-on questions when the big lies are told (HB2 is about child safety, Kansas’ and Wisconsin’s job growth, duties of the congress to bring judges up for a vote). Indeed, many of the headlines we read, the stories we are fed, take an extraordinary amount of digging to get a look at the context in which they are offered.
This is not new. Some of the recent press may represent something the electorate might really want to know: is the Clinton Foundation really a pay to play organization? Did Clinton actually tell the military to stand down in Benghazi? Is Hillary healthy enough to be president? And we might want to know what impact this would have if the story were true. But, unfortunately, we will not be told this. We will have to dig to find out. The role of the media to inform, has been reduced to a “he said then she said” tabloid caricature of itself. No, the news isn’t liberal or conservative, it isn’t informative, it isn’t correct. In my view it isn’t meant to be. It is entertainment – a filler, like every other thing we do with our bored lives. The answers are there if one cares to look, but look you must, and without the aid of sources that can be trusted, or studies that can be believed. Our window to the world is composed of random thoughts and statements made by just about anyone – whether they are qualified to make such statements or not. To me, it would certainly seem as though the amount of knowledge about the world, necessary to unpack the enormous amount of misleading information, wrong information, and information taken out of context is more than any individual is likely to have on hand.
Like the Clinton email “controversy.” Were there classified documents? How were they marked classified? Is using a non-secured email server really that unusual in the government? Who suggested that this be done? How are things classified anyway? Was information lost to individuals working at odds to our own national interests? There are a few souls out there that have sought to answer these questions – but the answers do not fit well with the desire to achieve return viewers, or readers, or enough “clicks” on a website. So the “news” doesn't actually bother to answer questions within context – it is in their best interests to repeat talking points, many of which are made up by people not familiar with the way government works or by people trying to mislead. As such, the media doesn’t seem terribly concerned with the motivations of a Trey Gowdy (for example), who has repeatedly leaked inaccurate information but is still is able to garner front page headlines when ever he opens his mouth. Like Romans watching Christians being led into the arena with the lions, it is the spectacle that garners viewership.
So the media does have its role to play. Like the gladiators, the lions, and the arena itself, it can supply the entertainment to a bored and bewildered populace looking for a little action, a distraction, a demon. Now clearly I am on the “liberal’s side” in this horse race, (the Christian’s side to unmix my metaphors) and it should come as no surprise that I am dismayed that my side gets so much bad publicity while the other side receives relatively less (according to that Harvard study) from an “objective” media. But what should be clear is that there is an objectively different set of rules for which of the two parties shall play Caesar. This is what numbers of studies that examine the news cycles keep telling us. Ah, but, you say, those are done by universities and as we all know they are biased by liberals. Think for a moment though, what the news would have to say about a Dem engaged in the level of corruption and graft as a Scott Walker, a Sam Brownback, or a Rick Scott. Would they get away with it? Scandals have historically hurt Dems more than Repubs… cough* cough* Vitter, Sanders, cough*… There was a study done about this too, hopefully someone can dig that one out for me.
Yep, it takes very little to dislodge a Dem from a governor’s mansion, while next to nothing seems to be enough to challenge a republican. And the media surely provides a forum in this. Consider “Governor” Pat McCrory in NC. How exactly did this opportunist unseat Bev Perdue so that he could introduce legislation to build a toll road through land that he happened to own? Perdue saw NC through some very difficult economic times, but managed to keep the state at the forefront of biomedical research setting the foundations for growth. But McCrory’s campaign linked the economic situation to Purdue. By the end of the campaign even teachers in NC voted against Perdue. Odd, since it was the republican legislature that decimated their pay and destroyed the working conditions for teachers in the state. But in the state newspapers, the story was about what was said by the candidates, not the legitimacy of what was said. Ultimately this proved costly for the people for NC. Now I am not saying the newspapers should act like a “politifact.” But is it so hard to add context?
Think of NC, FL, Wis, Kansas. Think of the lies it took for us to swallow to put these people into power: “Perdue was responsible for the recession, a medicare fraudster would make a good chief executive, create a slush fund to funnel state money to your friends and call it economic development, and the trickle down experiment has never been tried before so lets have no taxes on the rich…” No one, not even a semi-comatose voter, would believe such lies stated outright – if anyone ever dared to state them. Yet to many voters, these lies very well could have been the story. And, by any objective sense, the subsequent accomplishments of the leaders in these states are what you would expect: poor to nonexistent. It doesn't take much to see that the seeds for future success in these “red” states haven’t been sowed; little in the way of “new economy” advancement, little in the way of wage growth or access to medical care, slashing of educational opportunities but relatively large advances in social engineering that no one seems to support – like unlimited growth in gun access and restrictions at the ballot box. (No one ever asks how so much gun ownership contributes to the betterment of life in these states or advances their economic situation). No matter how you look at it, the GOP has devastated red states economically and socially. You might say “well this is just opinion.” No it isn’t! Teen pregnancy is higher, per capita fire arm violence is higher, upward mobility reduced, life expectancy is lower, earnings are lower, educational levels are lower, capital growth is lower, quality of life and happiness metrics are all lower. Lets face it, nothing in these red state charity cases is better except the weather (if you like hot). To be fair, I suppose you might also say that if you are a white, male, church going Baptist, you have more freedom to impose your beliefs on others – but all that churching hasn't paid off now has it? Maybe they expect their rewards at judgment, but then again so do the Taliban.
So what gives? How is it that this population continues to vote against its own best interests – even in the short term? Uninformed? Surely the lack of information cant override the fact that you are doing worse if you live in the red – just look around. How do we get to this state of affairs? As an example consider Clinton. She should be the GOP’s wet dream; as a Dem she is a conservative as they get. She doesn't want to rewrite the rules of Wall Street, she doesn't want to slash military spending, she doesn't seek a single payer medical system, she doesn't even want to get rid of guns. As for abortion she is in the middle – abortion for some but not all. In fact, all of the GOPer’s money making schemes pretty much stay in place and no big changes for social structure generally. She even quotes the Bible! What more could they want? That is not to say she is a bad candidate for our side, but it does ask the question, “why the move to make the US a single party system by putting into place the one candidate that is likely to up end the economy and American leadership on the world stage, to an extent that it will take generations to repair?” Frankly it just doesn't take that much information to see this.
Well, like you dear reader, I don't know the answer. It is a puzzle. But I suspect it does have something to do with our “arena.” I do know that the clear and present danger of today’s GOP is not the story you are likely to see in the “news,” that instrument of education and information we all rely upon for our decisions – but shouldn't. Nope, everything is presented with some strange sense of equivalent balance.
But, how much can we really lay at the feet of main-stream media? I would start by saying that the “mood” of the electorate, their optimism, their ugliness, their economic situation, is set in large part by the psychology of the masses. I am sure there are many psychological principles at play. But, the economy is getting better when we are told repeatedly that it is. The economy is getting worse when we are told that it is. Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Carter never admitted to making a bad decision to the American people? I have. But once this was in the echo chamber it was over.
Case in point, the familiar refrain – “the world is going to H#%% in a hand basket.” This is usually said by religious sorts talking about how “signs are” that the end-of-times have arrived. (see: Michelle Bachmann). Seems a little odd from an objective point of view though. We live longer, there is less hunger and suffering, swarms of Mongols are not sweeping the plains lobbing folks heads off. I cant even remember the last swarm of locusts. From the perspective of eating, healing the sick, and prosperity, name a better time to be alive. We do still have poverty, but unlike bygone days, we can actually do something about it if we want today. I, for one, prefer now to say the 1700’s when poverty meant you would die at 25 and that was it. But if you ask people – pew poll style – a large number will say things are getting worse. Another large group (the uncommitteds) will say it is staying the same. Some number like 25% will suggest to you we are living in the end times. Maybe you are religious and say that we have gained this prosperity at the expense of our immortal souls. Again, I would say that what else were we commanded to do other than feed the hungry, heal the sick and injured, and give to the poor? It may not be paradise, but it is definitely better than it was - objectively.
So why isn’t the story, from those educated in the history of our planet, “Hey everybody; look liberalism is working – when we work together we can build a better world the way Christ told us…” (putting in that last part to appease the religious among us).
Maybe the story tellers are just evil? Well, let’s for a moment assume that Schools of Journalism in the U.S. are producing graduates that are aware of principles of false equivalency, capable of estimating order of magnitudes of numbers, that have a basic working knowledge of some science and are somewhat grounded in U.S. and world history as well as U.S. civics. Now granted, we have no empirical evidence of this, or that such people are actually given the job of writing in today’s media circus. But we could take this as a working hypothesis: the people that write the stories we all read are not necessarily stupid, uninformed, or otherwise biased. (Disclaimer: Of course here, I am not talking about pundits (political or other). I think we can all agree that no qualifications are required for this job. Practically anything will do. For examine Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity display little in the way of intellect, training, track record for being correct, empathy; you know the common traits of anyone we might want to listen to.)
If you do allow me my hypothesis, it becomes only a short step to suggest that it isn’t the people, but the incentives that are a problem. Afterall, these people feed their families, and so are engaged in a job that requires them to get as much attention, clicks, return views as possible. This is where our arena returns. I doubt that very many gladiators said “hey Caesar, should we really be treating these Christians this way?” Such a statement was likely to have negative impacts on investments, retirement accounts, incentive packages, etc. And Ailes, I mean, Caesar wouldn't do it if it didn't appease the masses, he wanted an outcome that he got. Another way to say this is that greed, tribalism, pain and suffering, boredom, are all variables in a market, driven by the base instincts of animals that evolved from struggle. Such animals thrive under struggle, and they need enemies and devils as a part of their will to survive.
Our market, of course, is information sharing, our animals is obviously ourselves and we are willing to believe good and bad, god and devil, holy writ and sandstone sculpture, based upon what we want to believe, not what is true. What do we want to believe in? Not a world without war and strife. This is clear to anyone that has a fleeting knowledge of history. We want to bully the world – for whatever reason we make up, be it religious, economic, resources… Freedom, peace, Miss America contestants that say their dream is a world without hunger or conflict, all nice words: has nothing to do with us. The human genome supposedly has made ideas of race obsolete to many scientists, but the world-wide genome has between 4% and 10% Neanderthal in it, depending on which party you are affiliated with (that is science speaking folks). So the truth is that if we want to now WHY so many stories in our press are stacked against reality, we need only look in a mirror (from V).
The press, I maintain, is responding to a market. Its purpose is to make money – not to inform or educate. Of course this may not be said outright – we like to think of ourselves as thoughtful and righteous. So we must continue the lie. Sure, we can go beyond this lie, we can dig and understand. It is the great irony of our species; our ability to understand the beauty of truth without understanding ourselves. But the truth be told, many of us want Trump, and we know this will result in wars, economic disaster, and all the rest of it. In our headlong rush to gild the short swords and breast plates – as we did with Iraq – we fail to see the true impetus of our actions: ourselves.
Now you may think this is a rather long diary to reach a “duh – moment” and it is. But I cant help but think of all the empires that came before. The learning and technology, insight and philosophy that was lost each time one fell. By all accounts Egypt was a pretty good place to live for its time, so too were Greece and even Rome. Yes, each had its problems – slavery for instance. But as each progressed initially, civilization slowly began to take form. Very slowly rights were being achieved by greater numbers of the populace. We slowly awoke to the sanctity of human life. Somehow this was not enough. Each fell, taking with it a standard of living that was enviable in the ancient world. So too our modern world of wonders will fall I fear. It is, by our very nature, inevitable unless we become very wise, very fast. But, who is there to lead us? Who will teach us to overcome ourselves? Solomon, Christ, Ghandi, Buddha, Charlemagne, Mother Theresa, each has failed to impart such wisdom. Each message corrupted by our natures – yes corrupted unless you can come up with an alternative explanation for the prosperity gospel. Maybe it is that the Caesars, the Neros, the Trumps, etc, continue until each of us become our own Buddha, who knows – this is perhaps a philosophical point for another time, but not one that modern religion embraces because its none too good for Sunday collections.
What we can be assured of is this. If Clinton wins, it isn’t the end of our struggle to grow up. Our future history is there to face, replete with more dictators that we will have to overcome, with more promises of something we think we want if only we destroy someone else. Lets just say that it is in our blood. For us, the trick is to look deeply into that mirror and to choose. If she loses, well luckily the dark ages only lasted a few hundred years and then we can have another go at it – assuming the promised proliferation of nukes to Saudi Arabia or global climate change hasn't turned our planet into a cinder. Maybe our military will hide the button from our Dear Leader.
As for me, I have an Ox and a cart, and I am learning to farm. So when the world is ruled by “d%*m dirty apes,” you succas are on your own.
“Shun [man], for he makes a waste land of his home and yours.” – Planet of the Apes
