I am not a journalist. I'm an every-day democratic party activist. I agree we need better. Here are some steps I am taking in my own social media sphere:
1. I am spending time liking, commenting, and sharing innocuous information. For example, I am trying to like people's photos (of their cats, dogs, etc). I like their "feel good" quotes. I am trying to show that I like the same things they like.
2. I am trying to become a trusted news source. I find stories from already recognized middle-of-the-road news outlets and I comment on them through the platform's sharing feature. I don't share either left or right leaning articles that are designed to inflame. If I find something interesting in one of those articles, I look for the information from another less polarizing source.
3. I never share right wing talking points or their "terminology." If the DNC or Biden, take the term (like Brandon or Bidenomics or Obamacare) and turn it into a positive, I will start using it.
4. I never engage directly. I either start my own post or screenshot their post and turn it positive. For example, my state continues to go after absentee voting. Instead of hollering at them (figuratively), I just post that democrats understand that voting is our most sacred right and that they will always work to ensure all eligible voters have easy access to the ballot.
I have found that by turning everything into a positive message, I am feeling better and yet still confronting the disinformation out in the world.
Yes!!! Thank you for this, Mark Jacob. I hope you keep speaking out. We need to hear this often.
Whether it's doing puff pieces or both-sides-ing or below the fold/back page placement in print newspapers, the media is partly culpable - in no small part - for why we're in this current nightmare. It's about maintaining accessibility to those that create drama (MTG, trump, etc.) and reporting on them to generate a buzz and draw clicks and ratings. With democracy hanging on by a thread, this is especially despicable.
It's happening before our eyes in interview after interview and story after story: various reporters are choosing not to describe House Speaker Mike Johnson in no uncertain terms as an insurrectionist-aiding, theocratic radical ultimately mainstreams him.
Imo, we all need to hold the media accountable to hold those they interview accountable. (At the very least, tag reporters and news outlets by name.) We can be #MediaCrusaders for the #FactCrusaders.
Turning important discussions on balancing various facts into a industry-spanning dogmatic religious war doesn't sound like a very journalistic thing to be doing.
But that betrays the entire point of the discussion, journalism is all about balancing those competing sets of facts & priorities to deliver "good" information to the public, and we can't have those discussions if we're on a "facts-crusade" where we simply resort to calling people "liars" in the headline and only presenting our side's "actual" (preferred) set of facts.
Moreover you seem to have rabid, zealous hatred of the right-wing in particular. I won't say you're unjustified in many cases you cite. It's entirely fair to call out the right-wing for the many various bad things it's done, but these journalistic issues apply to ALL newsrooms of ANY political bent and your obvious bias against the right-wing in particular completely blinds you (and many mainstream sources) into completely cutting out their perspective, which directly causes the very trust issues in media that you are talking about. Letting right-wing propagandists drive your standards only results in low standards for everyone, and nobody needs or wants the NY Times to become the Daily Beast.
Good journalists weigh all relevant facts. One of my points is that the right wing in general is not dealing in facts. Fox News is paying $787 million in a lawsuit settlement because it intentionally broadcast lies about the 2020 election. Should journalists include their “facts”?
The right-wing does not have a monopoly on lies, far from it. And your seeming inability to admit that lies come from all sides and that sometimes the right-wing is not entirely wrong in the facts they present prevents you (and any journalist following your advice) from seeing the glaring blind-spots you open yourselves up to. Those same blind-spots have led to the near complete collapse in the public's faith in journalism, and it's only going to get worse the more journalists insist on making journalistic "crusades" against their political enemies.
Sticking to an objective journalistic mindset would seem like a good start. Many activists have been advocating for journalists to disdain reporting in an objective or neutral manner, which seems like the absolute worst possible idea anyone has had on the subject.
Republicans and conservative "news" outlets lie constantly to the point of near monopoly. There is no symmetry with either Democratic politicians or "mainstream" news sources. Trump lied over 30,000 times in four years. If you can't acknowledge these facts, you have no business posting opinions about journalism and are just part of the problem.
"My side is objectively correct always and yours only tells lies"
If you can't acknowledge Democrats lie just as well as Republicans do then you have no business posting replies to people trying to have a serious conversation.
For years now, commentators have been begging the media to stop normalizing the emerging fascism of Trump and the Republicans, yet little or nothing changes. How likely is it that the media will change their approach and become defenders and advocates for democracy?
Journalists have yet to fully appreciate the digital tidal-wave that hit them; and continues to wash over them. While there are a number of root causes that unleashed these forces, chief among them is the lack of a settlement system in the internet which resulted in imbalanced risk. The key value of the business model isn't eyeballs, it's engagement which has been degrading for some time. There is a way to solve both problems at once.
Anthropologist Joe Henrich, in his great book "The Secret of Our Success", notes that language is a remarkable tool, but it only works if most people tell the truth most of the time. Trump and the Republicans' firehose of lies are, in effect, destroying language itself as a workable communications system (this is of course the goal, since language is the tool media use to report what's happening).
This makes it especially important to combat the lies. Nothing less than the usefulness of language is at stake.
There's something about the terminology here that strikes me as worrying. “Fact crusading”, “enemies of truth” read like something from a messianic game of thrones cult. Bordering on Manichaeism
What is society doing to teach how to fact check statements from political leaders (I am a retired one), or news coverage, if not friends? What do our educational institutions do to teach how to even distinguish news from editorial statements, especially with online news? What rules did we have in place on fact checking before our society went digital/wired?
The challenge with calling out enemies of truth is because each side of an argument is taught to believe and is reinforced to conclude that the ones who disagree with them are the enemies of truth. Now more than other. Try having a conversation with a friend with is on the other end of the political spectrum.
What is society and our education systems doing to train or teach future Americans on fact-checking the news they hear, the hyperbole spouted by too many politicos (I am a retired one, I admit), and how to differ with others in a civilized way. Too many people are so inundated with news, they take short-cuts to determining the truth by placing trust in one news source or another, or the membership in one particular party.
To me, a layman, modern journalism is all about covering the facts ... with a pillow ... until they suffocate.
You are so wrapped up in your little bubble you cant seem to see that outside a few small groups of the chattering classes, no one believes anything the press writes any more. "Fact checkers" exist to reinforce narratives.
People believe the economy is doing poorly because real incomes (adjusted for information) have fallen every year since 2019. You can cite "facts" like GDP growth and unemployment rates but thats meaningless if people cant pay their bills.
People believe crime is up because we saw a dramatic rise in all categories of crime between 2019 and 2022. Couple that with the unwillingness of prosecutors in large urban areas to prosecute and undercharge those arrested leaves people with an accurate impression that the streets are less safe.
The nice thing about this new information war we are in is, for a change, neither side has a monopoly on the megaphone and with places like substack and twitter we get to see what partisan hacks those who deliver our "news" really are.
"Homicide is down about 30% in the last 30 years. And it dropped 6% last year from the previous year. "
In our hometown, Chicago, murder rates went up significantly between 2019 and 2022. From 500 to 700 .. a 40% increase .. some might well be justified in labeling that rise as "skyrocketing".
I find it interesting that in a post on disinformation and fact checking you would lie like this.
The general public doesn't think on timescales of 30 years, it usually cares about the last 1-5 years, and in the last 5 years homicides spiked as high as 30% in 2020 (compared to 2019). Sure it may have gone down last year, which is good, but compared to 2021 we're actually just (nearly) back to where we were in 2020, with homicides still spiked above 30% compared to where we were before the pandemic:
Now is it fair for Fox News to claim "crime is skyrocketing" and leave it at that? Probably not, but it's worse to just outright deny problems where they absolutely and undeniably exist.
I am not a journalist. I'm an every-day democratic party activist. I agree we need better. Here are some steps I am taking in my own social media sphere:
1. I am spending time liking, commenting, and sharing innocuous information. For example, I am trying to like people's photos (of their cats, dogs, etc). I like their "feel good" quotes. I am trying to show that I like the same things they like.
2. I am trying to become a trusted news source. I find stories from already recognized middle-of-the-road news outlets and I comment on them through the platform's sharing feature. I don't share either left or right leaning articles that are designed to inflame. If I find something interesting in one of those articles, I look for the information from another less polarizing source.
3. I never share right wing talking points or their "terminology." If the DNC or Biden, take the term (like Brandon or Bidenomics or Obamacare) and turn it into a positive, I will start using it.
4. I never engage directly. I either start my own post or screenshot their post and turn it positive. For example, my state continues to go after absentee voting. Instead of hollering at them (figuratively), I just post that democrats understand that voting is our most sacred right and that they will always work to ensure all eligible voters have easy access to the ballot.
I have found that by turning everything into a positive message, I am feeling better and yet still confronting the disinformation out in the world.
All the best, Tami
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I try to stay positive when I can.
Yes!!! Thank you for this, Mark Jacob. I hope you keep speaking out. We need to hear this often.
Whether it's doing puff pieces or both-sides-ing or below the fold/back page placement in print newspapers, the media is partly culpable - in no small part - for why we're in this current nightmare. It's about maintaining accessibility to those that create drama (MTG, trump, etc.) and reporting on them to generate a buzz and draw clicks and ratings. With democracy hanging on by a thread, this is especially despicable.
It's happening before our eyes in interview after interview and story after story: various reporters are choosing not to describe House Speaker Mike Johnson in no uncertain terms as an insurrectionist-aiding, theocratic radical ultimately mainstreams him.
Imo, we all need to hold the media accountable to hold those they interview accountable. (At the very least, tag reporters and news outlets by name.) We can be #MediaCrusaders for the #FactCrusaders.
#MediaAccountability
*soap box dismounted* ;-)
Well said.
Brilliant 👏👏👏👏
Thank you Mark for an incisive and very sharable post. Maybe we should repair our first amendment by adding “freedom from the press”.
I love this! Tell us how we can help the truth crusade.
Turning important discussions on balancing various facts into a industry-spanning dogmatic religious war doesn't sound like a very journalistic thing to be doing.
I'm in favor of important discussions on balancing various facts. I just want them to be actual facts.
But that betrays the entire point of the discussion, journalism is all about balancing those competing sets of facts & priorities to deliver "good" information to the public, and we can't have those discussions if we're on a "facts-crusade" where we simply resort to calling people "liars" in the headline and only presenting our side's "actual" (preferred) set of facts.
Moreover you seem to have rabid, zealous hatred of the right-wing in particular. I won't say you're unjustified in many cases you cite. It's entirely fair to call out the right-wing for the many various bad things it's done, but these journalistic issues apply to ALL newsrooms of ANY political bent and your obvious bias against the right-wing in particular completely blinds you (and many mainstream sources) into completely cutting out their perspective, which directly causes the very trust issues in media that you are talking about. Letting right-wing propagandists drive your standards only results in low standards for everyone, and nobody needs or wants the NY Times to become the Daily Beast.
Good journalists weigh all relevant facts. One of my points is that the right wing in general is not dealing in facts. Fox News is paying $787 million in a lawsuit settlement because it intentionally broadcast lies about the 2020 election. Should journalists include their “facts”?
The right-wing does not have a monopoly on lies, far from it. And your seeming inability to admit that lies come from all sides and that sometimes the right-wing is not entirely wrong in the facts they present prevents you (and any journalist following your advice) from seeing the glaring blind-spots you open yourselves up to. Those same blind-spots have led to the near complete collapse in the public's faith in journalism, and it's only going to get worse the more journalists insist on making journalistic "crusades" against their political enemies.
What plan of action would you lay out to work toward solving this problem, Zach?
Sticking to an objective journalistic mindset would seem like a good start. Many activists have been advocating for journalists to disdain reporting in an objective or neutral manner, which seems like the absolute worst possible idea anyone has had on the subject.
Republicans and conservative "news" outlets lie constantly to the point of near monopoly. There is no symmetry with either Democratic politicians or "mainstream" news sources. Trump lied over 30,000 times in four years. If you can't acknowledge these facts, you have no business posting opinions about journalism and are just part of the problem.
"My side is objectively correct always and yours only tells lies"
If you can't acknowledge Democrats lie just as well as Republicans do then you have no business posting replies to people trying to have a serious conversation.
Great topic! This series (currently 4 parts, links provided following each post) by Teri Kanefield may also provide insight into the discussion: https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-work-in-america-part-1-there-are-no-yankees-here/
For years now, commentators have been begging the media to stop normalizing the emerging fascism of Trump and the Republicans, yet little or nothing changes. How likely is it that the media will change their approach and become defenders and advocates for democracy?
I wouldn't want to bet on the mainstream media waking up. But there are elements within that seem to be getting it.
What I've noticed is more regular news consumers beginning to get more educated about normalization, both-sidesing, etc.
Journalists have yet to fully appreciate the digital tidal-wave that hit them; and continues to wash over them. While there are a number of root causes that unleashed these forces, chief among them is the lack of a settlement system in the internet which resulted in imbalanced risk. The key value of the business model isn't eyeballs, it's engagement which has been degrading for some time. There is a way to solve both problems at once.
Anthropologist Joe Henrich, in his great book "The Secret of Our Success", notes that language is a remarkable tool, but it only works if most people tell the truth most of the time. Trump and the Republicans' firehose of lies are, in effect, destroying language itself as a workable communications system (this is of course the goal, since language is the tool media use to report what's happening).
This makes it especially important to combat the lies. Nothing less than the usefulness of language is at stake.
There's something about the terminology here that strikes me as worrying. “Fact crusading”, “enemies of truth” read like something from a messianic game of thrones cult. Bordering on Manichaeism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Manichaeism
What is society doing to teach how to fact check statements from political leaders (I am a retired one), or news coverage, if not friends? What do our educational institutions do to teach how to even distinguish news from editorial statements, especially with online news? What rules did we have in place on fact checking before our society went digital/wired?
The challenge with calling out enemies of truth is because each side of an argument is taught to believe and is reinforced to conclude that the ones who disagree with them are the enemies of truth. Now more than other. Try having a conversation with a friend with is on the other end of the political spectrum.
What is society and our education systems doing to train or teach future Americans on fact-checking the news they hear, the hyperbole spouted by too many politicos (I am a retired one, I admit), and how to differ with others in a civilized way. Too many people are so inundated with news, they take short-cuts to determining the truth by placing trust in one news source or another, or the membership in one particular party.
To me, a layman, modern journalism is all about covering the facts ... with a pillow ... until they suffocate.
You are so wrapped up in your little bubble you cant seem to see that outside a few small groups of the chattering classes, no one believes anything the press writes any more. "Fact checkers" exist to reinforce narratives.
People believe the economy is doing poorly because real incomes (adjusted for information) have fallen every year since 2019. You can cite "facts" like GDP growth and unemployment rates but thats meaningless if people cant pay their bills.
People believe crime is up because we saw a dramatic rise in all categories of crime between 2019 and 2022. Couple that with the unwillingness of prosecutors in large urban areas to prosecute and undercharge those arrested leaves people with an accurate impression that the streets are less safe.
The nice thing about this new information war we are in is, for a change, neither side has a monopoly on the megaphone and with places like substack and twitter we get to see what partisan hacks those who deliver our "news" really are.
Homicide is down about 30% in the last 30 years. And it dropped 6% last year from the previous year. People believe crime is "skyrocketing" because Fox News tells them so. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2022-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
"Homicide is down about 30% in the last 30 years. And it dropped 6% last year from the previous year. "
In our hometown, Chicago, murder rates went up significantly between 2019 and 2022. From 500 to 700 .. a 40% increase .. some might well be justified in labeling that rise as "skyrocketing".
I find it interesting that in a post on disinformation and fact checking you would lie like this.
The general public doesn't think on timescales of 30 years, it usually cares about the last 1-5 years, and in the last 5 years homicides spiked as high as 30% in 2020 (compared to 2019). Sure it may have gone down last year, which is good, but compared to 2021 we're actually just (nearly) back to where we were in 2020, with homicides still spiked above 30% compared to where we were before the pandemic:
https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend (in "Crime Select" pick "Homicide")
Now is it fair for Fox News to claim "crime is skyrocketing" and leave it at that? Probably not, but it's worse to just outright deny problems where they absolutely and undeniably exist.