Thoughts: Fake News

If there is a catch phrase to sum up the appearance of Donald Trump on the national political stage, it has to be the phrase "Fake News".

It makes me cringe. Though perhaps not the way it does for most. I do not out of hand reject the assertion that there is such a thing as a biased media agenda that runs counter to the reality of the Trump administration. Nor do I accept it. When you get down to it I firmly believe The Washington Post or New York times, despite their easily shown slants,  are far better source on average for "truth" than Breitbart and Fox regardless of what side you are on. I will stick to that so long as they continue how they presently do business for their more serious journalistic endeavors. This is not to say they are perfect. Far from it. Nor is it to say there is no content of merit posted to Brietbart or Fox.... though that is a heck of a lot easier to show with Fox. I routinely peruse through all four these days. All must be read critically. All have faults... some more than others. Take the Brietbart Lead Story while I am writing this. Taking it at face value that story is basically flipping the whole Trump Collusion accusations around and pointing the finger at what it claims are equally culpable acts by other government agencies or democratic figures. What neither narratives seem to be able to contemplate is that perhaps elements of both sides view are true... and it ALL needs to be addressed.

They, along with ALL legacy media and news establishments are not what they once were in terms of founts of truth. The world of the internet and clicks is far different from the days of the newspaper, radio, or the evening broadcast news. The thing is... the world as we knew it prior to the internet wasn't great on a 'truth' front either. We just had a more widely held common delusion that there were better objective sources of truth to trust. This societal delusion has (had?) its uses... much like the one that upholds money. But it is most certainly a delusion. The phrase "Knowledge is power" didn't arise without reason... and control of media represents a control over an awful lot of public knowledge. Often times the truth is less important than belief. IE your story can be true whether or not people believe it. But stories that impact MUST be believed.... because it is that belief that drives the impact. Unfortunately, it is often far easier to tell someone something they want to believe than it is to inform them of an objective truth if that truth contradicts that persons world view. This makes for a devilish temptation to elicit the former rather than adhere to the latter when how many clicks you get impacts whether or not you have a job.

Truth is a difficult a thing to pin down as the exact location of an electron. Well.... perhaps I should state that a bit differently. I do hold there is unquestionably truth. But... being able to prove what is true is another story altogether. By far the most useful mechanism for provable truth has been the scientific method. But science has a serious problem when we enter the realm of subjective topics. The truth of right and wrong, of morality... is not fundamental. Or perhaps I should say... not provable. At its heart, morality is culturally subjective.

Star Wars allegory. "Ben... why didn't you tell me the truth?". "Luke, what I told you was the truth.... from a certain point of view".

I think many Journalists are doing the same as Obi Wan. Telling the truth from their point of view that best suites the circumstances. The problem is that more are saying what they need to draw viewers to a story or worse, to actively forward an agenda independent of, or consciously avoiding, the truth. Those doing the former are valuable. Those doing the latter are the "Fake News" problem. The really crappy thing is.... who is who often depends on your point of view. As a generic statement I think many would agree with the above statement regarding many journalists doing a good job but that they are being drowned out in a sea of unscrupulous hacks. However, once you start naming names and saying that one is "Trustworthy News" and that one is "Fake News" you quickly find a distinct lack of consensus. And that is the problem. I don't think there is a single publication without blame at this time. Some have great journalism going on... and at the side or the bottom of the page you find the click bait dreck tailored to draw whoever is reading deeper in. As this has become a systemic reality for almost all news publications in an attempt to survive the transition to the digital age it is causing a crisis. Not a crisis in the the daily lead headline use of the word. This is a slow moving, hard to see, very large shift in how information works in our society crisis. A Gutenberg press level event that we are in the midst of akin to the shifting of tectonic plates. They rumble for a long time until a critical level of pressure is built up... and then a huge chunk of California falls into the sea. Or in the case of Gutenberg, Monarchy turns into Democracy. Catholicism (universal) shatters and gives way to Protestant schisms. The internet age has put the reins of knowledge up for grabs... and the world has not figured out who is going to hold them.... and we don't know how it is going to end.