Regular Contributor Brad Slager
Yes, the press is currently horrible. Cagey news consumers have become improved as a result.
For all the hand wringing and furrowed brows we see in the media over “fake news,” there was a lightly regarded article on the subject from April of last year that is deeply interesting. There are a couple of reasons it was bypassed by the talking heads in the press, first being it was from the BBC. Secondly, it was a true narrative-buster, in that the Brits dared to point out that on the faux reporting front there is plenty found of the anti-Trump variety.
Snopes, that favored debunker of media myths, announced then that they had actually been busied with exposing more fake stories about Republicans than those that were anti-Democrat. Further disrupting the notion that “stupid MAGA-hatters” are the ones duped by the fakery, one expert asked to study the issue of false reports on social media found the opposite in effect. “The stereotypes of it being simply right-wing and simply uneducated are 100% not true."
Their company conducted a social media experiment. It fed false news stories geared to towards left-wing and right-wing mindsets, and then studied the reactions on both sides. “On the left if you're consuming fake news you're 34 times more likely than the general population to be a college graduate,” said the director of the study. So fake stories about the president actually get traction with liberals? Huh, we were told that never happens.
Well, this would mean that the president’s accusations about the news networks could actually be correct! So of course that report needs to be driven out to the wilderness and left by the side of the road in unwanted-pet-fashion. And, of course, this avoidance actually proves things out in the process.
What has been curious/sad/hilarious (circle all that apply) is that almost any charge or accusation being made by the pundits on this particular matter is something they are actually guilty of themselves. They call the veracity of certain stories into question, while belching out fake content. They charge that certain outlets are unreliable, as they discredit themselves in the same breath. And while condescending that the audience does not always know better, they fall prey to the very gullibility they describe.
CNN - long a dubious source of veracity - has spiraled down to the level of self-parody in the brief Trump era. Recent weeks have seen the outlet proffering items intended as serious journalism that would embarrass a stringer from Grit. They have speculated on the “disappearance” of the First Lady (recovering from surgery, and spotted by other journalists in the White House), they claimed the president described immigrants in general as “animals” (he was specifically referring to gang members), and news “analyst” Brian Stelter just got stung repeating a charge from Rachel Maddow the White House manipulated transcripts of the press meeting with Vladamir Putin (this had quickly been corrected by The Washington Post, and amusingly by Stelter’s own network).
That there is a fair amount of projection in play is obvious. They rail against the specter of false stories, but feel perfectly justified in delivering any fake or unverified stories, so long as those are damaging to the president. As a prime example of how unconcerned they are with imaging, currently the network is blasting the story of Trump receiving a World Cup soccer ball from Putin that had a computer chip imbedded within. The manufacturer Adidas uses this technology for in-game metrics, but if they can make ANY tie to Russia and conspiracy, run with it!
As a conservative, and tangentially in the media industry, I am well attuned to the manipulations made by the news outlets in the name of The Narrative. It used to be the phrase “the newsmakers” was applied to those being reported upon, but as we now know today that accurately describes the journalists who create the talking points. As such I know that relying upon a lone source for details on a story is folly. I endeavor to flesh out more about a specific item in the cycle. This has become necessary, but it has also made me a better consumer, and better commentator.
Conditioned as we have become to protect our viewpoints by getting the complete picture ultimately leads to us being vastly better prepared as citizens. Wading into the sceptic minefield that is social media is easily survived as a result of this comprehensive consumption. And being a well-informed citizen brings about a curious irony; those delivering the news to us feel threatened that we dare seek out multiple outlets for perspective.
The biggest reason outlets like CNN recoil at “alternative” sources is that it dilutes their messaging. Becoming something other than the primary source for a story means they lose the power to craft it, and power is sapped. So attacking the alternatives becomes the norm, and working to have those varied sources degraded in quality and then expunged from social media is needed. And as the BBC study shows, the well-heeled on the left feel they possess the monopoly on proper political thought; our obtaining defined knowledge on issues threatens that stature.
So they work to change algorithms to marginalize certain outlets, and even go so far to ostracise others from the platforms. Again, the mentality here is that people on social media are too stupid to realize they are being duped. They need the leaders at FaceBook and Twitter, as well as the news “experts” at CNN, to guide them and coach their consumption.
Which makes it hilariously revealing when those same experts fall prey to the very scourge they warn about. It has been with great amusement that we have watched various members of the media get bent out of shape by a video from Allie Beth Stuckey, at CRTV. She posted a clearly satirical interview with Democrat “It Girl” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, using footage from her disastrous Frontline appearance. And the press lost their minds over it.
Tweets, articles, op-ed columns and other accusatory reports came from actual journalists who either claimed outrage at the temerity of her falsifying an “interview,” or better still, claimed they were fooled by the obvious gag. (Stuckey even designated she *grills* Ocasio-Cortez in her original post.) That they were so bothered speaks volumes.
If the best way to anger the Devil is to mock him, then this reaction in the press explains it all in waging the battle against their narrative. Using their style to ridicule a candidate they have warmly embraced is beyond the pale for them. That they resort to claiming this was a falsification, or intended to deceive viewers, is their wan attempt at “othering” Stuckey. She was effective, so she needs to be ostracized by their decree.
Our ability to gather information on our own these days is key to getting these results. As long as we continue to arm ourselves with the facts we are essentially using their own ammunition. That their professional sloth and social avarice drives us to other outlets to obtain those bullets is all the more hilarious.
In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt introduced the phrase and theory of the “banality of evil.” She didn’t mean there was anything banal about the horrors of the Holocaust, but rather that most of the perpetrators were...boring. Most of them weren’t sociopaths. They were average, middle-management types looking to ingratiate themselves to their bosses. The terrifying thing to take from this is that a much, much larger percentage of the population than we’d like to believe have it in them to act in exactly the way Eichmann did. The Milgram and Stanford experiments at least partially bear her out.
This idea, that there’s a potential Nazi in all of us, has certainly taken root in the West. Applying it to political opponents has also increased in frequency the further we move from the evils of the actual Nazis. The current president is mentioned in the same breath as Hitler so often that it barely registers anymore. There’s no question that it’s a phenomenon mainly of the political left (BusHitler, etc.) but it certainly can be bipartisan. (Remember why Hank Williams Jr. was dropped by Monday Night Football? Sure, they brought him back...after six years.)
It’s all become rather absurd. No person with a modicum of knowledge of the subject can possibly believe that any American politician of any import even comes close to Nazism. No adult in America today hasn’t been taught what the Holocaust entailed. Right? But what if they don’t know? What if we charitably assume that at least some of these people use “Hitler” and “Nazi” as pejoratives akin to the way many on the Right use the word “socialist.” The film and photos exist, but do they retain the emotive power they once held? At Nuremberg, everyone in attendance is visibly shaken when film footage is offered by prosecutors. Goering could not even look at the screen. But these were people who did not grow up with violent or gory images in movies and on television. Most of them, even hardened combat veterans, had never seen anything like it, real or fake.
The comparisons to Nazis that result from fairly mundane and middle-of-the-road political disagreements have led to an interesting phenomenon: people, especially young people, will avail themselves of Nazi comparisons while clearly lacking any grasp of why the comparison is vulgar and inappropriate. To them the Nazis were bad because….well, because they were racists and that’s the worst thing you can be. If you have no historical knowledge beyond “Hitler was bad” then it becomes much easier to call a political opponent Hitler: you actually think that your opponent is racist, so in a way you have to compare them to Hitler.
You, dear reader, are obviously worldly and erudite. But ask yourself this: if you weren’t, how much would you really know about Nazis and the Holocaust? What if all you had was the knowledge you gained in the American public education system? Perhaps if people had a better grasp of the atrocities committed by the Nazis to their fellow human beings they wouldn’t feel so eager to toss the comparison around. There really is just no apples-to-apples analogy to be made for the dehumanization that occurred in the concentration camps, either in kind or in scale. Sometimes it’s best to go back to the accounts of people who were there, who saw the end results of Nazism with their own eyes:
We continue to uncover German concentration camps for political prisoners in which conditions of indescribable horror prevail. I have visited one of these myself and I assure you that whatever has been printed on them to date has been understatement. If you would see any advantage in asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to make a short visit to this theater in a couple C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. - Eisenhower cable to G. Marshall 4-19-45
The things I saw beggar description...the visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty, and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where were piled up 20 or 30 naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.” - Eisenhower letter to Marshall April 1945
When I found the first camp like that I think I was never so angry in my life. The bestiality displayed there was not merely piled up bodies of people that had starved to death, but to follow out the road and see where they tried to evaluate them so they could still work, you could see where they sprawled on the road. You could go to their burial pits and see horrors that I really wouldn’t even want to begin to describe. I think people ought to know about such things. It explains something of my attitude toward the German war criminal. I believe he must be punished, and I will hold out for that forever. - Eisenhower press conference 6-18-45
I was there when we opened the gates. Some of these poor wretches running out were so emaciated they actually died from the excitement of being liberated. I saw it happen several times. These people in the camps --they were like walking skeletons. You could see all their bones. The gates opened and these people ran out yelling, “I’m free! I’m free!” And some of them died right there. I was horrified to see what the SS had done to these people.-- Roy Gates, from We Who are Alive and Remain: Untold Stories from the Band of Brothers by Marcus Brotherton
The following lengthy excerpt is taken from a letter dated May 7, 1945. The author was a young medic with the 116th Evacuation Hospital, Pfc. Harold Porter. It was addressed to his parents in Michigan. It was written on the letterhead of the former commandant of the camp, a place called Dachau. Pfc. Porter begins by noting that the Army has not yet decided if letters will be censored for content as far as the conditions of the camp are concerned, but he will write as if it will be allowed and mail it later if he can. (Full text of the letter, and others, available in pdf form on the website of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library.)
It is difficult to know how to begin...I know you will hesitate to believe me no matter how objective and focused I try to be. I even find myself trying to deny what I am looking at with my own eyes. Certainly, what I have seen in the past few days will affect my personality for the rest of my life.
…. But as we came to the center of the city (Dachau) we met a train with a wrecked engine--about 50 cars long. Every car was loaded with bodies. There must have been thousands of them, all obviously starved to death. This was a shock of the first order, and the odor can best be immagined [sic]. But neither the sight nor the odor were anything when compared with what we were still to see.Their faces purple ,their eyes popping, and with a hideous grin on each one. They were nothing but skin and bones. Coyle had assisted on 10 autopsies the day before (wearing a gas mask) on ten bodies selected at random. Eight of them had advanced T.B., all had typhus and extreme malnutrition symptoms. There were both women and children in the stack in addition to the men.
...Behind the furnaces was the execution chamber, a windowless cell twenty feet square with gas nozzles every few feet across the ceiling. Outside, in addition to a huge mound of charred bone fragments, were the carefully sorted and stacked clothes of the victims, which obviously numbered in the thousands. Although I stood there looking at it, I could not believe it. The realness of the whole mess is just gradually dawning on me, and I doubt if it ever will on you.
The Pacific Theater will not come immediately for this unit; we have around 36,000 potential and eventual patients here. The end of the work for everyone else is going to be just the beginning for us.
….Today was a scorching hot day after several raining cold ones. The result of the heat on the corpses is impossible to describe, and the situation will probably get worse because their disposal will certainly take time. Love, Harold
In all likelihood, the tactic of calling people Nazis as a knee-jerk response in our political discourse isn't going to abate anytime soon. The Nazi/Hitler comparisons are almost always used when a racial issue is involved, and we aren’t going to become less obsessed with race anytime soon, either. If, God forbid, another Hitleresque leader rises to power somewhere, hopefully we won’t have hyperbolized to extinction our most evocative analogies. We already scrub the worst of the images and make sure the viewer is warned that they may be “disturbing.” Of course they’re disturbing. Being disturbed by them is the whole point of seeing them in the first place, isn’t it? Being disturbed is how we ensure “Never Again.”
Nobody is a Nazi if everyone is a Nazi. Suggesting that someone is analogous to the perpetrators of the most beastly acts in human history because they don’t think a universal basic income is a good idea is a game with diminishing returns. Eventually your protestations will all fall on deaf ears. You debase the sufferings of the victims of actual Nazism and cheapen the sacrifices of those who fought, and died, to end it. You betray your own ignorance of history and shallow understanding of contemporary politics. You should save the hyperbole for when you really need it.
Recently, the Democrats accused the GOP of “weaponizing the First Amendment” based on The Supreme Court ruling (Janus v. AFSCME) that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions. This act by SCOTUS threw the entire left into a frenzy. True to form, they promised the middle class would “suffer” from this decision. Funny statement from the party that touts “freedom of choice” as one of its fundamental platforms. (Can you feel my eyes roll?)
As I often do, I contemplated the phrase “weaponizing the First Amendment” for several days. Now, I know exactly what they meant by that accusation. They are upset because a major source of the Democratic Party funding has just become optional for anyone tired of having their hard-earned pay taken against their will and given to a political party that may not represent their values. It surely is no secret that unions overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and use union dues to fund Democrat candidates, who often end up kicking these same union members in the teeth by supporting ideas like open borders, hiring illegal aliens at lower wages, and raising taxes on corporations, which effectively chokes off their ability to grow and create jobs.
But set that aside for a moment and let us look at the idea of weaponizing free speech. The first fallacy of these moronic malcontents is the idea that speech can be chained. Our great nation came to exist through “weaponized speech”. Our forefather’s speech was by no means legal, but it was by no means chained. Oh sure, King George banned words, forbade content, created social taboos to shame undesirable facets of colonial society (sound familiar?), but did he really bury the idea of a free nation? By no means. In fact, history is replete with examples of radical concepts that were outlawed, yet somehow spread like wildfire to inflame the population into actions based on those same banned concepts. The Declaration of Independence is simply another manifestation of repressed speech that is pushed underground like a seed, only to take root and grow like a wild grape vine, entangling its tyrannical repressers in the process. In short, these “educated elites” who believe the First Amendment should be updated to ban words, ideas, and philosophies that offend the hyper-sensitive are ignorant to the fact that repressed speech inevitably turns into hushed whispers behind closed doors and will most assuredly become even more weaponized.
Finally, let’s pause to reflect on the idea of “weaponizing the First Amendment." Those that have studied the documents behind The Document (Constitution), know our forefathers realized that it is the inevitable fate of any government to eventually become corrupt and self-serving. Thus, they implemented a system of hurdles to limit the power of government (Bill of Rights), a warning system (First Amendment), a built-in revolution to oust undesirable leaders (elections), and a nuclear option in case tyranny prevailed (Second Amendment).
Many of those in power, some even professing to be “Constitutional Conservatives”, cringe at the idea that our system of government was set up to allow the people to wield ultimate power over the government, and not the opposite. Over the years, our leaders have done an exemplary job of convincing “We the People” that they are in control. However, I remember a few short years ago when the concept of voting every incumbent out of office to shake the power-mongers out of the D.C. bubble started gaining steam, and it made a LOT of the elected very nervous. As I recall, there were several statements made by life-long politicians condemning, almost pleading with voters to ignore that concept. At that moment, Americans came very close to waking up and realizing the true power of elections. At the very least, We the People should have realized that the mere mention of a peaceful and absolute government overthrow via elections created panic in the ranks of the D.C. elite. This little episode in our history should solidify the notion that our right to peaceably petition the government with our grievances, even when THEY are the subject of that grievance, is one of the most powerful weapons an American citizen has in their arsenal.
So, in answer to these disgruntled Democrats crying foul, you are absolutely correct that the First Amendment is a weapon. It is a very powerful weapon that you yourselves have been using for years against anyone that opposes you. You should be thankful it exists, because it protects you as much as it protects those that you wish to silence. That is simply how freedom works.
God Bless America!
Just a gaggle of people from all over who have similar interests and loud opinions mixed with a dose of humor. We met on Twitter.