The Power of the Media

The Power of the Media

We're told that "the pen is mightier than the sword." In this digital age, that has morphed into the news media in whatever form - written, audio, or video - and in whatever medium - TV, websites, radio, podcasts, online videos, blogs, social media, and even still some written and printed publications. We all operate on the assumption that we have freedom of choice, that we make our own decisions - but do we really?

Each of us is shaped by our environment. We all come to the table with our own biases, which spring from our upbringing and life experiences. When we're exposed to new information, we perceive it through that lens. How we react to it is determined by our own personal biases and our willingness to try new things, accept new ideas, and embrace or reject change. The news we receive also has bias in it, and we tend to seek news whose bias matches our own and reject news that doesn't, a phenomenon known as "confirmation bias."

We also learn through repetition, and this is something the news media do very well. With the advent of the 24-hour news networks on TV, we no longer had to wait for Walter Cronkite each evening to tell us what was going on in the world. In today's society, nobody has any patience; we want our news in sound bites, in tweets we can share with others we know. We're constantly seeking news, expecting that the news we hear is true (while only seeking news that confirms what we already believe). But I've explored, in previous posts, how news can be spun to feed a bigger narrative. Control the media, and you control the world.

A Look Back at Media Influence

This was perhaps never exhibited so obviously as during the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Remember all the "hanging chads?" The world's focus was on Florida, most specifically on three Florida counties: Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. As a native Floridian, I was probably more aware of some of the behind-the-scenes goings-on during that time than were most Americans.

But to set that all in perspective, think back to the Cold War era, that post-World War II time when the United States and the Soviet Union were vying for control of most of the world. Their ideologies were diametrically opposed: the Soviets in favor of a strong central government that owned and controlled everything (a government structure known as "statism"), while the Americans favored a weaker central power, a free society in which citizens owned everything and traded with each other, with more power given to state and local governments closer to the people (known as "federalism").

Now think about the colors that represented each of those ideals in our minds: red was the color of communism, the Bolsheviks, anger, hatred, blood. "Better dead than red," was the mantra of the McCarthy era, when communists were vilified in America and the slightest association with a communist could ruin a person. Blue was the color associated with fidelity, honesty, integrity: a "true blue" person was to be admired and emulated.

Jump to 2000: due to election process mismanagement in three south Florida counties, the world is in suspense for days, dragging into weeks, over who will be the next "leader of the free world," as the U.S. President is often deemed. We're all glued to our TV sets as the news media show us the map of how the Electoral College votes are distributed. But something's different: they've represented Republican states in red, and Democrat states in blue. Did you notice that? They just completely flipped the colors associated with the values of each party. That idea was repeated daily, hourly, minute-by-minute, drummed into our heads that red = Republican and blue = Democrat. And it wasn't just one network that did this. Every major news outlet was using the same color scheme. Every. Single. One. And ever since 2000, those have been the colors associated with the two major political parties in the United States.

Did you see how easy that was? All it took was one election cycle, prolonged by mishaps in three counties (all controlled by Democrats, incidentally) to completely flip the public's perception of political parties in the United States. Can you see the power the media have to completely control the population? They certainly could.

Today's Opportunity for Influence

We're seeing this happen again today, with public panic over the COVID-19 virus, AKA the coronavirus. It's a particularly virulent strain of a relatively common virus, one that has the power to fill your lungs with fibrous tissue so you can't breathe. Its mortality rate estimates are 3% to 6% (i.e., 3-6% of the people who contract the virus will likely die from it), compared to 0.1% in the United States for influenza (rising to 0.8% for the H1N1 "swine flu" strain). But the death rate of bubonic plague, the "Black Death" of the Middle Ages, even in modern times with the latest medical care, is around 11%.

Panic seems to be more around how quickly and easily the COVID-19 virus is spread. The R₀ ("R-naught") value is the one commonly used to express the reproduction rate of a pathogen. The R₀ value for COVID-19 has so far been 2.28, according to the National Institutes of Health. In other words, an infected person would likely pass the virus on to two to three other individuals. For comparison, the R₀ value for seasonal strains of influenza averages 1.3, for the H1N1 ("swine flu") strain of influenza it was 1.4-1.6, and for bubonic plague 3. (These figures are from PubMed.gov, the government's repository for medical research papers.)

Conspiracy theorists can't help but connect a lot of dots around the COVID-19 virus: 

• It originated in China just after President Trump negotiated new trade agreements that were less favorable to them and more favorable to the United States. 
• It started in an area of China where there is a biological weapons laboratory. There is also a public meat market there selling all sorts of wild species of animals, some of which may carry who-knows-what diseases. It would be relatively easy to release a weaponized virus into such a place.
• The Chinese government is notorious for killing its own citizens when necessary for political gain. Here's a list that goes back to the triple-digit years.
• As the human population continues to grow, our impact on the planet's resources also grows and may become unsustainable. Some feel that population control of some type is necessary for the continued survival of the human race. The weakest among us consume the most resources and would be the most logical to "cull" from the human herd. (If this sounds cold, take a look at the Georgia Guidestones and their mysterious sponsors.)
• The United States is in the middle of an election year, and one in which not only the Presidency, but control of Congress based on the number of seats up for grabs, is to be decided. This puts two of the three branches of our federal government at stake in this election.
• President Trump has taken on the globalists who are pushing for one world government. They have been ineffective at stemming the wave of public support for his "America first" philosophy after 28 years of steadily advancing their agenda. He has scored victory after victory in international trade negotiations, taking down human trafficking organizations, and streamlining bloated federal bureaucracies. He challenges the power of the traditional political machine in Washington, jeopardizing the livelihood of the career politicians of both parties who have grown wealthy not from building businesses in the private sector, but from being perpetually re-elected to public office.
• Democrats, who favor the globalist agenda, failed at claiming Russian interference handed President Trump the White House in 2016, they failed at removing him from office through impeachment, and they've failed to find a viable candidate to prevent his re-election in 2020. With the nation's economy soaring, the stock market hitting record highs, and unemployment at its lowest rate in 50 years, a worldwide pandemic would be the answer to their prayers, crashing the world's economy and providing ample opportunities for them to place blame on the president's handling of the situation, no matter what he does. 

Could people be that diabolical? Some think so. Others think those are a lot of coincidences that may or may not have someone's controlling hand behind them. And you can't deny the media's role in shaping public perception of events happening around us. The 2000 election was a test-run of how effective they could be at completely transforming public opinion.

We're not facing a made-up crisis. Without drastic measures, COVID-19 could become the bubonic plague of our time. The Black Death killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population. In today's society, we travel freely around the world. An epidemic in one area of the world can easily become a pandemic, as this coronavirus outbreak has proven. Yes, we need to take precautions to prevent further spreading until a vaccine and effective treatments can be found. And the media play an important role in keeping the public informed. We must look somewhere for news about the virus and the measures we need to be taking to control it.

But be aware of the media's power to change our perception of things. There are people quick to politicize this pandemic and use it for their own gain. Some of them control certain media outlets because there is a lot of power there. While the media have a responsibility to keep the public informed about the pandemic, they also answer to their owners. Be aware of bias. Be aware of subtle attempts to influence your opinions on things. Question things and do your own research. Unplug from the Matrix every now and then to see the real world. Don't let the media dictate what you think about things.

A hashtag is currently popular on social media: #preparedontpanic. Prepare, don't panic. Heed that advice. Yes, watch the news, but do so with an open mind and an awareness that they are influencing how you think about things. Here's wishing you health and peace of mind in these trying times!

7 Ways to Slant the News

7 Ways to Slant the News

There's been much talk lately about "real" and "fake" news. Even social media sites are now censoring what some people post if they believe it to be from a "fake news site." Meanwhile, numerous spoof and parody news shows and sites written by comedians are perceived as reporting truth, while mainstream sites staffed by actual journalists are dismissed as biased or invalid. Who is the ultimate arbiter on which news sites are valid? And how do we, as news consumers, ever get to the "real" truth of an issue or story?

It's true that bias exists in news reporting. It's not the journalistic ideal. But few things in life exist in an ideal state. Journalism is no exception to this. Opinion columns used to be separate from news stories, and are still printed on a different page of most newspapers. These columnists were syndicated and delivered to multiple newspapers around the world. Many stories now masquerade as news, however, that contain a high percentage of opinions.

My local daily newspaper has few local reporters these days. Most of their national and international stories come from the Associated Press, with the only editing done to trim them for length. Think about that for a moment: one news wire service is controlling the message sent out to thousands of daily newspapers across America.

An earlier blog post on this site explored why "pure" journalism has declined in recent years. To summarize, the competition for viewers or readers has become more intense. Every news organization wants to beat their competition to the draw on the most sensational stories of the day. News organizations depend on advertising to pay their bills and the salaries of their employees. Marketing techniques that help businesses succeed dictate that appealing to only a specific segment of society can yield greater readership or viewership. In order to survive, news organizations have chosen different segments of the population to target and must write their stories to appeal to that targeted population by agreeing with their audience's biases and supporting those biases.

Most people only glance at the news, never delving below the surface of what's presented to them. That can lead to a flawed interpretation of events. Such misperceptions have turned us into a highly divided population that can no longer engage in civil debate of issues, with any discussions of serious matters quickly escalating into emotion-driven arguments and name calling. "How did we get here?" we ask. I believe that lack of awareness of biased news reporting is one contributing factor.

All news media are biased, but the only time we news consumers perceive that bias is when it conflicts with our own. Read that sentence again. Understanding that basic concept will go a long way toward learning to read/view news with more open eyes and interpret it correctly. While Fox News receives the most scorn from those who disagree with its position on issues, those same people cannot see any bias in the sources they follow for news. Fans of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News point to Ted Turner's Cable News Network (CNN) as a biased news source, something they can clearly see, but CNN's fans cannot. Would fans of both channels benefit from seeking more diverse news sources to hear multiple sides of an issue? Absolutely.

News stories can be based on facts, while also being slanted to appeal to the news source's audience. To do so is not sloppy journalism; in fact, it requires some skill to slant a story so it's not obvious to the average reader or viewer. In this post, I explore some methods used every day by news outlets to skew news facts in one direction or another. With this understanding, you will be able to read or view news from any media outlet, regardless of its own bias, and pick out the seeds of truth included in those stories.

1. Slanting News by Selective Reporting

The first way news organizations slant their news is in choosing which stories they cover. Ignoring a story can make it seem as if that event never happened. If all news media ignored an event, history would have no record of its ever taking place, effectively erasing it from history. (Still think it's a bad thing that news media are slanted in different directions?) 

Similarly, choosing to cover a minor news story instead of one that actually has more significance can increase the public's perception of its importance, when it may actually have little impact on world events. 

This type of bias completely fails to mention a story if it doesn't back up their audience's opinions. Confirmation bias makes it comfortable and reassuring for people to watch this type of coverage, which explains the popularity of highly slanted news sources. This is also why it's a good idea to watch or read a good variety of news sources, to get a broader view.

Things that happen every day are not interesting, so news outlets don't tend to cover good news. A classic example of this is plane crashes. The odds of a person dying in a plane crash are about one in 11 million. But every time a plane crashes, the story receives so much coverage that every person who flies can't help but think of the possibility. Your odds of dying in a car crash are about one in 5,000. But even after seeing news coverage of a serious accident, most of us get behind the wheel of our cars and drive without a second thought. Far more planes land safely than crash, but you never hear about any of those on the news...that's because it's an everyday occurrence, not something out of the ordinary.

As you read or watch your primary sources of news, ask yourself what stories they're not covering, and why. You'll only know about those stories if you seek news from a variety of sources.

2. Slanting News by Inclusion or Omission of Details

Another method used to slant news is to pick and choose which aspects of a story receive coverage. Also known as "cherry picking," this is similar to the first one, in that it's slanting the story via omission. These stories receive some coverage, but only of certain aspects of the broader story are emphasized.

A classic example of this is a video of an altercation that conveniently omits the event prompting the altercation. It may make one person look guilty of attacking another, when that person was only defending him/herself from an attack by the other. Without the full story, viewers may draw incorrect conclusions about the event.

3. Slanting News by Positioning

Placement: where in the publication (or program, or site) a story is placed, is another way for news organizations to slant their coverage. Everybody wants to be the lead story, or "above the fold," to borrow an old newspaper term that's also used for websites today. If people have to scroll down, turn a page, or watch other stories to get to a particular story, that makes it less important.

When a publication is opposed to an elected official, featuring stories about that administration's failures above the fold on the front page, while burying its successes on page 8 of that section, can give the public an idea that the official and his/her administration are a failure. Interestingly, this can work even if the failures were minor and the successes were things that had a major impact on world affairs. The reverse is also true: playing up an official's successes while burying failures presents a more positive view of that administration to the general public.

4. Slanting News by Language and Context

This is a method that requires some good writing skills. English is a rich language. There are many words that technically mean the same thing, but may have additional implications beyond that meaning. And their meaning may change when they are put into a different context.

To better illustrate this point, let's look at another language. I studied French for many years and often watch French movies. But I still read the subtitles. In one film, the character said, "Il ne travaille pas," which translates literally to, "He doesn't work." Ah, but the subtitle said, "He's kept." A very different meaning was intended by those seemingly innocuous words!

Similar words can similarly cause very different pictures in a person's mind. Think about the term "nuclear accident" as opposed to "nuclear incident." Does one make you more fearful than another? Which would more readily capture your attention if you saw it in a headline? Would it make you more in favor of, or opposed to, nuclear power plants?

Calling up historical events and implying similarity between those and current events is one way in which context can influence readers' opinions. Both sides of the political aisle are quick to draw comparisons to Nazi Germany when their opponents are in power. Every little thing becomes another "sign" that America is heading in the same direction. And yet, the nation continues on, with daily life not all that much different than it was before and no trains carrying people to death camps.

5. Slanting News by Headline

The authors of newspaper stories don't write the headlines for those stories. They may suggest one, but the ultimate decision on what appears as the headline in the published article lies with the editor. Editors are well-versed in the preferences of their publication's main audience and cater to those biases.

There was a meme circulating for a while on social media showing two identical stories and photos, but the headlines for them were quite different. These were written by editors of different editions of a newspaper circulated to areas where the majority of subscribers had political opinions significantly to the left or right of the other. The publication was playing to its paying audience - its subscribers and advertisers - because their money funds the publication's continued existence and the salaries of all its staff.

6. Slanting News by Delivery

Broadcast news includes slant from:

• the producers who decide which stories to cover and where in the broadcast they are positioned
• the writers who write the words of the stories
• the on-air personalities who read those stories to the viewers 

That additional level added by the live news reader can enhance the bias built by the other two levels through voice inflection, facial expression, and body language. This makes TV news and online video the strongest medium of all when it comes to delivering bias in the news.

The British refer to on-air news personalities as "news readers," in other words, people who merely read the words written for them by others. They read the facts, not react to them. But as news has turned into infotainment, the format has grown popular of having a cast of news personalities on-air together, like a group of friends sitting around chatting. They are all trying to appear more human, more relatable, in order to get and keep more viewers. To do that, they must react in a human way to the stories they are covering, meaning they must express opinions about them. Merely reading raw facts on the air is boring and will quickly lose people's interest. News shows, especially those on 24-hour news networks, need the sensational stories and the ones where they can emote the most in order to keep their viewing audiences happy.

"If it bleeds, it leads," did not become a well-known saying in the news business for nothing! Advertising dollars keep news organizations in business. A greater number of viewers means they can charge more for those ads. Keeping you glued to their channels, or their websites, and sharing their content online, drives value for them. Whether or not the news you're sharing is true or complete? Not nearly as important to them.

7. Slanting News for Humor

I would not have included this section were it not for the popularity of parody news shows such as Comedy Central's The Daily Show and HBO's This Week Tonight. These shows take actual news stories and fictionalize or provide heavy commentary on them with a snarky, sarcastic tone for comedic effect. While their early versions were viewed as the comedy shows they are (Jon Stewart himself used to regularly refer to The Daily Show as a "fake news show" that shouldn't be taken seriously), many viewers today now cite these shows as their main source of news. That's a little troubling.

Online versions of these shows include The Onion and Babylon Bee, which slant in different directions themselves, each parodying the other side of the political aisle. Far too many will look at links to stories on these parody sites as truth when they are shared on social media and allow them to feed their hatred of the other side. Even worse, people start to believe and repeat the stories written as humor as though they are facts.

How many people believe that 2008 VP candidate Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house."? In actuality, the line was uttered by actress Tina Fey when she was parodying Palin on a sketch on Saturday Night Live. Political party officials are aware of instance like this and exploit it for their own gain.

My own sense of humor is as twisted as anybody's and I love to laugh. The temptation is high to watch these shows and let them shape your own biases. They are designed to appeal to a younger demographic, and younger adults are much more impressionable than their more seasoned counterparts. Are you one of those who mainly get your "facts" from these sources? If so, consider broadening your horizons and seeking opposing opinions for balance.

Summary

Do you now have a different view of news outlets? I hope so. Yes, there are people who plant false news stories in hope of their gaining traction and being perceived as fact. And yes, there are people poking fun at public figures with satirical or comedy news stories that can then be picked up and reported as true. Today's highly active social media communities make these things inevitable. The best defense against such things is a heightened awareness that enables you to recognize them. It almost becomes like a game to try and spot the way a news story has been slanted toward one opinion or another.

My hope is that by making you aware of how every legitimate news outlet slants its stories to appeal to its primary audience, I've opened your eyes a little so that you won't automatically dismiss stories from a source identified by some as "fake news" and can find value in any news story, with a heightened awareness of how that story has been slanted.

On Gaslighting

On Gaslighting

I've heard the term "gaslighting" used a lot in the past year, usually to refer to anyone who expresses a point of view alternative to the mainstream media's narrative. Let's explore a little bit about the term: its origins, meaning, and implications for civil discussion of issues in our society.

What is Gaslighting?

Gaslighting is defined as psychologically manipulating someone by convincing them that what they are observing with their own senses is not true. Using the technique on someone causes them to doubt and second-guess everything.

The term originated with 1938 British play Gas Light by Patrick Hamilton. In the play, the villain drove his wife insane by convincing her the gas-powered lighting in their home was at the usual brightness, when it was actually growing dimmer while he was using lights in the attic to search for jewels hidden there.

As used in today's heavily divided society, gaslighting means to try and convince people that what they are observing is not true. The technique is often used by the media and those in political office to sway voters and the general public. The term can also be used to discredit someone's argument, even if that argument may have validity. And that's where it grows even more troubling. When you hear someone accused of gaslighting, how do you know the accuser is not also using the same technique to dismiss a valid argument that contradicts their own?

Why is Gaslighting a Problem?

There was a time when journalism students were taught to "triangulate" their sources. In other words, to confirm a fact by consulting three separate sources before using it in a news story. But the news world has grown more competitive than ever, with multiple outlets on a 24/7 news cycle. Each is rushing to beat all the others to air with a story. Those stories must also be as sensational as possible to draw more views, which means the news outlet can sell more advertising, which keeps them in business and pays their staff's salaries. With media companies trimming their staffs to the bare bones, the competition is fierce to be the first to break a news story. Few journalists working for major news outlets today have the time to find three corroborating sources for any big story.

News outlets also have bias, as I've discussed in previous blog posts. This is true for all of them, regardless of their past reputation as an institution of reliable news. Reporters are encouraged to write from a particular viewpoint, and typically add their own personal biases to stories. Their editors or producers further skew the viewpoints of those stories to fit the outlet's editorial stance. Those unaware this is happening may think they are receiving unbiased news, when it's anything but. Once we develop an opinion on an issue or a political candidate, we seek news that reinforces our own position, bringing our own biases into the equation. You can see how it's easy for people to become entrenched in one position and unable to debate it with anyone whose opinion may differ from theirs.

Unfortunately, we rely on news outlets to tell us what's going on. They are closer to the sources of news stories; few of us personally know any politicians or others directly involved in major news stories. Many political issues are complicated and can have backstories and context essential to a complete understanding of them. And who has time to spend all day tracking down original sources when we all have careers and lives? Isn't that the job of professional journalists?

The water has been further muddied since the rise of the internet, making it possible for anyone to become an amateur journalist, presenting news to the world from their own point of view. Those posting stories and videos, some looking quite professional, may have no journalistic training at all, or they may be a journalist who has been pushed out of the mainstream media, trying to build their own media empire.

Given all these factors, it would not be at all difficult for someone to successfully gaslight an audience, detracting their attention from the facts by spinning things a certain way. Talk-radio hosts are often accused of it, especially those espousing conservative views. But who's to say that their opinions are not getting closer to the actual truth, and those accusing them of gaslighting are engaging in it themselves? Presenting an opinion contrary to the mainstream often opens one up to ridicule or alienation. But consider the man who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Presenting an opinion different from the mainstream does not make that dissenting opinion invalid. And calling that dissenting opinion "gaslighting" can discredit a point of view that may have been the closest to reality.

How Can I Fight Being Gaslighted?

Be aware of your sources. By that, I don't mean to automatically write off some sources as untruthful, while upholding others as gospel truth. That's the opposite of what you should do!

What I mean is that you should be aware of the editorial slant of all the news sources you consult. Who owns them? Who funds them? What are their overreaching motives for putting forth one particular point of view or another?

Try to put news stories into context. In a more multicultural world, it's easy to dismiss behaviors as wrong or immoral because they differ from your own. Examine the backstories of the people involved in things, their cultures, and their biases that are reflected in their behavior and their speech. Most people are doing the best they can with what they know and understand. Hold off on formulating an opinion until you have enough facts to decide.

Next, you should seek news on sources offering a variety of viewpoints. If you have only relied on only one or two in the past, this may shake you a bit when you first try it. A lot of what you're hearing may sound like it's untrue. This is where you need to keep an open mind: being exposed to new ideas is healthy. It helps you broaden your thinking and develop a greater understanding of the world.

With every additional viewpoint, you gain a more complete picture of the truth. It's like the story about the blind men who encountered an elephant. When asked to describe the elephant, the blind man who felt its trunk said, "An elephant is like a snake." The blind man who felt the elephant's leg said, "An elephant is like a tree." The blind man who felt its tail said, "An elephant is like a rope." All were reporting facts from their own perspective, but each of those perspectives was limited. Only when examined from a variety of viewpoints can you begin to fathom what an elephant is like. There are some completely crazy theories on things floating around out there, and there are also some quite plausible ones that reach completely different conclusions after examining the same facts. Somewhere in between all those stories is the actual truth behind them.

Don't seize upon some story merely because it backs up your own opinion and run with it. Do a little investigation work to see if there are other viewpoints on the same story. It's fairly easy to do this online; Google the essential idea of the story and see what comes up. Can you find other sources that verify the story? What sources contradict it; are they sources you trust?  Do they present any new facts you hadn't heard before?

As you read news from more viewpoints, you also improve your ability to spot the bias inherent in each of them. You'll become familiar with some, and yes, you'll gravitate toward those that back up your own biases. It's human nature. But try to understand that you're doing that. It will help you to debate issues with greater civility rather than getting into a name-calling shouting match with people who disagree with you.

On most major news stories, the world may never know all the actual facts that were the seed of the story. All we can do is try to gain enough variety of perspectives on important issues that we can start to gain a glimpse of the underlying truth.

I challenge you to read, watch, or listen to something today that disagrees with your own political point of view. Get out of your comfort zone, out of your hall of mirrors always reflecting back your own viewpoint. Don't let what you discover trigger your automatic defense mechanism. Try to see the story from the other person's perspective. Who are they? What is their background? Why do they perceive the facts differently from you? I promise you that if you do this, and start doing it before formulating your own opinions on things, you'll have a broader view of the world and be able to discuss volatile issues without losing your mind and getting angry. Try it and see!