There were no signs of a slowdown in the number of inaccurate, incomplete, or just outright false stories published by the major news media in 2018. They ranged from silly things like the New York Times claiming UN Ambassador Nikki Haley outfitted her official residence with $52,000 curtains (those curtains were purchased in 2016 under the Obama Administration) to Time Magazine claiming a young Honduran girl pictured on their cover had been separated from her parents at the border (she was never actually apart from her mother). However, the most egregious false and inaccurate stories of the year accompanied the Bret Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Even House and Senate members participated in this pathetic misinformation campaign. News organizations acted almost as if they received “permission” from politicians to publish any unverified and/or uncorroborated stories they could come up with that would help destroy the professional reputation and personal life of a Federal Judge whose judicial philosophy they didn’t like.
In addition to the above obvious attempts to try and influence public opinion, the news media has also taken self-aggrandizement to a new level. Two examples:
1. Reporters making over-the-top provocative and often-fabricated statements prior to or as part of a “question” during White House press briefings. This behavior is best exemplified by CNN’s Jim Acosta. It has gotten so out of control that the President recently advised his press secretary “not to bother” with any more White House press briefings.
2. Reporters and pundits casting themselves as intellectually superior “protectors of our democracy” as justification for their clear bias against the President. This is a theme borrowed from former FBI Director James Comey who used it after being fired to defend his own inappropriate behavior. It is now also being brandished by those with Presidential aspirations for 2020. It gives off a kind of intellectual flavor to eradicating President Trump, as opposed to the usual mindless vitriol, and allows for retreat to a safe patriotic position when challenged in a debate (“it’s for the good of the country”).
To a large number of people, these tactics are not only compelling but also serve as a call-to-action. The problem is that it’s all fabricated and convincingly dressed up as “fact”. So how do you know when a news story is truly informing you versus trying to capture your attention for some other purpose? The real goal of the story may simply be to have you see an advertisement on the same page/screen. What gets us is how many people in the country seem unable to take a step back and view the whole news media tableau for what it is today, a money-making venture. There are so many “free” news services on the Internet, on broadcast TV, and included with basic cable that fewer and fewer people are willing to pay a subscription fee to get their news. Without any money from subscription fees, the “free” services are entirely dependent on advertising dollars to survive. And what advertisers care about is how many eyeballs from a targeted demographic will see their ad. In most cases it doesn’t matter if the news being reported is true, false or somewhere in between as long as it captures and retains viewers. MSNBC and FOX have proven that big money can be made this way by favoring each side of the political spectrum. From an accountant’s point of view, retaining a loyal audience and thus steady advertising income is paramount to the business. If political bias in a company’s news reporting serves to retain a loyal audience (because customers are hearing what they want to hear) it’s good business. If provocative but dubious headlines feed that bias and draw in new customers and thus more advertising dollars, all the better. The only discordant aspect of this is that the major news services continue to push the false pretext that the primary motive for their content is altruistic and non-financial (e.g. “The Most Trusted Name in News” – CNN, “Fair and Balanced” – FOX, “This is Who We Are” – MSNBC). Understanding the money-making aspect of today’s news services adds a critical perspective in evaluating the relevance and validity of their content.
If a news media company couldn’t pay their bills and earn a profit from what they produce, they would cease to exist. At the very least, a shrinking customer base would result in fewer advertising dollars and cause the overall operation to contract and be less significant in shaping public opinion. The best example of this is CNN. Once the undisputed leader in cable news, CNN came in a distant 3rd in the 2018 viewership rankings for cable news networks and was down to 11th place in overall cable programming. Their bark is currently much louder than their bite, and not worth getting too excited or discouraged over.
News media services are also now much more actively and visibly “assisting” political party’s and/or government leaders that share their ideology. This assistance is nothing new as many of them have supported the ideology of one party or another since the founding of our country. At times throughout history, the collaboration between the news media and politicians has been so pervasive it has swayed public opinion and affected the outcome of elections. Could that still happen today? One theory says probably not since even the largest news media services today are no longer the dominant factor in shaping public opinion.
For instance, a relatively new source of news relied on by many voters, especially younger voters, is social media. This news is not “curated” in any way and for the most part not motivated by profit. It is more an outpouring of thought and/or emotion whose ultimate influence is related to the conviction and writing style of the participants and their standing in one’s peer group. That peer group could be as distant as a throng of unknown but like-minded Internet personas, or as close as a family or church group. The number of participants today in social media services like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. far exceeds the number of people who watch/listen to the major news networks. This raises the obvious question of whether social media currently has a greater effect on public opinion and voting preferences than traditional news sources.
Interestingly, the influencing power of social media is exactly what President Trump’s opponents are claiming the Russians were able to successfully bring to bear in order to get him elected. For that to have happened, one must conclude that the major news media outlets who gave consistent negative coverage to Trump in 2016 (like CNN and MSNBC) were not as influential as social media. Further, it must be concluded that the large anti-Trump component of social media was not nearly as influential within that medium as the Russians were. Once hidden inside the vast social media population, the Russians supposedly boosted Trump’s appeal to just the right people in certain states. They did this with such accuracy they were able to swing enough states electoral votes to win the election for Trump but limit their influence on voters nationwide so as not bring undo attention to their actions (thus allowing Hillary Clinton to win the popular vote). Amazingly, the very news services that to this day stand by this elaborate election scenario are tacitly admitting that they themselves are rank amateurs in the high precision influence game compared to the Russians. We suppose if the Russians decide to “meddle” in the next election, the overmatched U.S. news media services may as well just put away their marbles and go home.
Common sense remains the best tool for determining what and what not to believe in the news these days. Some news items are easily verifiable (Supreme Court decisions, legislative actions, space craft launches, etc.). For those items that aren’t, a second or third corroborating report, preferably from a differently-biased source, is a must. This is particularly true if the news item is sensational or unexpected. The very recent example of the BuzzFeed article “confirming” that the President told his former attorney to lie to Congress is a perfect example of a sensational story, having no other corroborating sources, that was then proven to be untrue. As the time gets closer to the 2020 presidential election, the frequency and audacity of false news stories will likely increase with attempts to capture more viewers by tearing down or boosting up certain candidates. Also, there are a few potential news “bombs” that are sure to be riddled with inaccuracies and clever “spin” if the following events occur – a) the completion/release of the Mueller Report, b) the retirement or incapacity of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, c) the arrival and border clash of the next migrant caravan. 2019 will not be boring on the news front and may well be the most challenging year yet for those determined to discover the truth.
2 Responses
I really wonder and worry where this false reporting and tainted left social media will take us.
While it would seem that now vogue programs of the far ‘left of liberal’ are paving our path to socialism. These suggested programs should be neutralized by news of the damage these same programs caused in countries like Venezuela, but, but, but, then I pause and listen to the deafening silence of the Democrats and the main stream media that will not acknowledge or mention the devastation it’s caused to that country in less than 20 years. Unfortunately, free things from government will expand and it will be our country’s demise.
Great article and I’m so sorry to be a such a downer, but this week brought new pessimism of liberal thinking with New York and now Virginia working on abortion legislation up to the point of birth. Yup, dialating and minutes from birth – into the disposal – real legislation into law and happening right here in China – oops correction, right here in the United States of America. Oh and this is not mentioned by main strem media as appalling. Next step is… nah, I don’t like this kid and we should pass the child lemon law – 90 days extension to abort.
Johnny so disappointed with where we are heading.
Can’t argue with anything you say. I’m an optimist by nature and still believe very strongly that underneath it all, we are actually retreating from the tipping point of socialism. People like Ocasio-Cortez and now Kamala Harris are actually helping with that retreat by highlighting the lunacy. So far this week, Harris has twice gotten a glimpse of just how quick and widespread the pushback will be if she keeps heading her campaign toward the big “S”.
One thing we didn’t mention too much in the article was how much purposeful inattention there is to many legitimate news stories. I was also appalled by the new New York abortion law and was amazed that a state like Virginia would try to copy it (I expected California to be next). What went under-reported last week was the new Governor of Ohio saying he will sign the “Heartbeat” law for that state that John Kasich refused to do before his term ended. That makes Ohio the 2nd state (Iowa was 1st) to pass a law banning abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Both these laws are under appeal with the Ohio version more likely to get to the Supreme Court. Be prepared for a “Weekend at Bernie’s” scene featuring RGB when SCOTUS gets this one.