Public discourse and human nature can lead opposing sides both to believe in their own honesty and the other’s conspiracy of lies, but we can and should try to discern the truth.
Here’s a little story, from Brian Amaral in the Providence Journal, that oughtn’t be lost in the shuffle of day-to-day news:
A group of juveniles [apparently 15 years old and younger] holding “Trump flags” outside the Brown University bookstore on Thayer Street Friday told police a man accosted them and choked two of them.
According to a police report provided by Commander Thomas Verdi, the five juveniles flagged down police at about 8 p.m. to report the incident in front of the bookstore at 244 Thayer St. They told police they were holding the two flags when they were approached by the man, believed to be in his 20s. The man began to stare at them, then asked what they were doing, they told police.
This is a consequence of the prevalent attitude in much of the mainstream of the political and media classes that Americans with certain points of view are evil and therefore have no rights. When the narrative flows from “punch a Nazi” to “Trump is a Nazi,” a dangerous atmosphere develops. In this narrative, somebody “Trump flags” (whatever those might be) is trying to usher in a new fascism.
Sure, the 20-something guy walking down the street who decides to take it upon himself to do something violent about this incipient fascism probably has something wrong with him, but this isn’t an isolated incident. Let’s not forget the mass hysteria over the viral video of the Covington Catholic students in Washington, D.C., after the latest March for Life.
If the public is supposed to track the actions of our representative government using the news media’s reporting, why does it seem journalists’ phrase policy in the government’s preferred way?
Although it’s from Monday’s “Political Scene” in the Providence Journal the following paragraph is worth memorializing because it truly captures — media watchers will agree — a dominant perspective in the mainstream news media:
Last Thursday night at the Rhode Island State House, deeply-held religious beliefs collided with the anger and fervor of women’s rights activists in the Trump era; the dominant church in Rhode Island waged — and lost — a holy war against “the sin″ of abortion; and a House Speaker who promised to be “the firewall” against “ultra-left wing groups” felt compelled to let colleagues vote, for the first time in a quarter-century, on an abortion-rights bill.
Specifically, note that the reporters and/or editors put quotation marks around “the sin,” but not around “holy war.” In that small detail of copy editing, one sees precisely the angle from which the newspaper is reporting. Killing children in the womb up to the point of birth is only a sin in some people’s eyes, thus requiring quotation marks to prove that the journalists don’t necessarily subscribe to that view, but opposing the legality of such an act is literally a holy war.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, this week, was about the many new fees and taxes in the governor’s budget, a progressive’s alleged embezzlement, the significance of an abortion poll, and the multiple candidates for RIGOP chair.
Following RI politics in the news, one would think pro-choicers dominate and really care about abortion, but the opposite is the truth.
The emails that cover three-months — this past November through January — cover 55 pages and include a number of efforts by Raimondo staffers. In most cases, Raimondo’s office responded to emails in minutes and proactively sent materials and powerpoint presentations that were not requested by the New York Times.
So, Rhode Islanders paid the governor’s staff for three months of assistance on an explicitly political and partisan profile in the New York Times? GoLocal reports that “it was the New York Times photo desk that dictated Raimondo’s photo” (shown, in part, in the featured image of this post). That would be the image taken in her official office and positioned so as to make reflected lights look like a halo for Saint Gina.
Maybe it’s time we begin to ask where the boundary is beyond which these activities should be campaign expenses.
When it comes to articles on abortion, the Providence Journal helps advocates to distract from the substantive issues.
MLK Day is a good time to meditate on how people could get something so obvious so wrong, and Internet controversies give us real time lessons.
Decrying the “clickbait” promise of a nude photo of a progressive star, mainstream news sources are engaging in a clickbait of a more ideological sort.
I’m not sure I agree with Cal Newport’s description of the difference between blogs and social media (emphasis in original):
Blogs implement a capitalist attention market. If you want attention for your blog you have to earn it through a combination of quality, in the sense that you’re producing something valuable for your readers, and trust, in the sense that you’ve produced enough good stuff over time to establish a good reputation with the fellow bloggers whose links will help grow your audience. …
Social media, by contrast, implements a collectivist attention market, where the benefits of receiving attention are redistributed more uniformly to all users.
Not knowing Newport’s politics, I can’t say for sure, but I’d wager he’s pretty libertarian. I say that because it would explain why he doesn’t see (in my opinion) that social media isn’t collectivist (in terms of distributing the currency of attention); it’s hyper-capitalist. The owners have found a way to break down barriers so that more people can participate in the market, but one of those barriers, as Newport notes, is the requirement for quality. A collectivist attention market would give the social media platforms’ managers the ability to distribute likes, follows, and replies as they thought justified, according to their own criteria.
This analogy actually raises important questions that conservatives strive to answer in contrast to more-thoroughgoing libertarians. The higher quality and other benefits of blogs over social media represent a cultural good that was possible partly because they had barriers (to entry, to production, to audience building) that social media swept away. The conservative question is: By what mechanisms we can balance those cultural goods against the also-good principle that everybody ought to have opportunities?
The (admittedly not very satisfying) answer seems to be the same for online content as for the economy and other broader social goods. Basically, we have to remind each other of the value derived from an older way of doing things and make a deliberate effort to put aside seeming conveniences. We should also develop tools that bridge some of the gap, like using RSS feeds for information rather than social media streams. And of course, we have to make what we offer off the beaten path even more attractive.
Mostly, though, we just have to pray, and hope that less-healthy developments are fads that our society will self-correct.
Katherine Gregg is becoming worried about the imbalance between government PR and journalists; maybe she should look to small-government advocates for allies.
Karen Lee Ziner’s interview at Sin bakery with the former Donald Anderson (now transgender) and the former Mrs. Anderson raises questions that radical advocates should have to answer but exhibits the groundwork to set the conversation we’re permitted to have.
The Providence Journal editorial board is (let’s just say) very forceful on the subject of Rhode Island students’ test results:
The weak and timid reforms he and Gov. Gina Raimondo have advanced, while soothing to special interests, have been plainly insufficient. It is time for a shakeup at the Rhode Island Department of Education and the state Board of Education. Will anyone have the decency to resign for having failed our young people?
Robert Walsh of the National Education Association and Francis Flynn of the American Federation of Teachers have, similarly, served Rhode Island students abysmally. Union leaders in civic-minded Massachusetts understand that an education system is about more than providing salaries and benefits for adults. We know there are many teachers who yearn for a sound, long-term plan to improve standards.
It is a shame Rhode Island cannot simply shutter its Department of Education and hire Massachusetts to run the Ocean State’s public schools as a subset of its own. It at least knows how to do the job.
I saw editorial page editor Ed Achorn pushing back on Facebook against those who respond to these sentiments by pointing out that the Providence Journal endorsed Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo. Part of the editor’s response was that the paper has also implored her to improve her record on education, which I’m not sure quite meets the challenge.
Some of the entities that should be a check on government, like the state’s major newspaper, have this problem: They formulate their solutions as if we had a properly functioning state. Under such circumstances, a governor who had received the endorsement might change out of concern that she would lose it. In Rhode Island, she knows that she has nothing to fear.
Nobody who has secured a role of significance wants to throw down a gauntlet to make any bold changes to the way decisions are made in the state.
It isn’t sufficient to suggest, in passing, that somebody should resign over abysmal test scores. That outcome has to be important enough that advocates will ensure that insiders cannot achieve their other goals unless they address education.
That, incidentally, is win-win, because the insiders’ other goals are, on the whole, corrupt and oughtn’t be achieved, anyway. They need to be made to understand, however, that their only hope of keeping any of their ill-gotten gains is by making improvements in this area.
Conservative writer Rod Dreher has an interesting post on the superficiality of news organizations’ obsession with “diversity,” but the most intriguing part might be something that he seems to miss entirely in these two paragraphs (emphasis in original):
To be fair, if news organizations made a concerted effort to recruit conservatives, they would have a hard time finding qualified candidates. That’s because journalism, for whatever reason, tends to disproportionately attract liberals. I wish that weren’t the case, but there it is. From what I’ve seen in nearly 30 years of working in professional journalism, conservatives who have an interest in the field are usually focused on opinion journalism. I’m generalizing here, and I haven’t been working in a newsroom in eight years, but I haven’t seen a lot of conservatives who are interested in journalism as journalism, journalism as a craft — this, as distinct from journalism as a vehicle for advancing their political interests.
Conservatives love to bitch about media bias, but they are much more reluctant to become journalists. You might say that that’s because they anticipate that the deck will be stacked against them in newsrooms, and there’s something to that. Mostly, though, I think that it’s because the craft of journalism, for whatever reason, tends not to attract conservatives, but it does tend to attract crusading liberals who want to change the world, and are willing to work in a profession where they won’t make much money in order to do it.
So conservatives aren’t interested in the craft of journalism, but in “advancing their political interests,” while liberals want to “crusade” and “change the world.” What difference, I wonder, does Dreher see between advancing political interests and crusading to change the world? Maybe what he meant to write is that liberals tend to be attracted to the craft of journalism, and some of them happen to be crusaders. Even then, though, one might suggest that the distinction is only that liberals are more comfortable disguising their biases as they attempt to shape the world under the false pretense of objectivity.
Honestly, I’m not sure how one might estimate conservatives’ interest in journalism in a counterfactual reality in which they were able to present their own biases as objective truth through “the craft of journalism.” But in our actual reality one might observe this tendency to assume their beliefs as fact among liberals in every industry.
A line in an op-ed by former Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick has stuck in my head for the past few days:
There are near-daily additions to a dangerous “enemy-of-the-people” line of attack [against the mainstream media], which is chipping away at a cornerstone of our democracy.
“Chipping away at a cornerstone of our democracy.” I wonder what Fitzpatrick thinks of the press’s role in demonizing President George W. Bush (including Dan Rather’s infamous Memogate), fawning over President Barack Obama, belittling the Tea Party, demonizing Republican Presidential Candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney (but only when they were running against Obama), and playing their part in the ongoing effort to delegitimize the current (legitimately elected) president.
Another line ought to have stuck in Fitzpatrick’s head, but he seems not even to have picked up on its true import (emphasis added):
Here in the home of the First Amendment, the last thing we should ever see is a U.S. president praising a politician who was convicted of assaulting a reporter. But that’s exactly what happened on Oct. 18, when Trump praised Rep. Greg Gianforte, R-Montana, for body-slamming a reporter in 2017. Trump said anyone who did such a thing was “my kind of guy.” Worse yet, the crowd cheered.
Now, Gianforte’s actions were wrong, and Trump’s lauding of them was callous, but: “the crowd cheered.” I’d suggest that the crowd was primed to cheer long before President Trump began using their attitude toward the media for his own advantage. Those folks have long experience with the plain reality that, when it comes to any issue of importance to elite sensibilities or keeping liberal Democrats in power, the press is not above trying to use its cornerstone to shift democracy.
President Trump is too blunt and vehement in pushing back against the press, but a big contributor to his success has been the frustration of “the crowd” that nobody else would or could. Perhaps rather than presenting that crowd as mindless drones manipulated by the president, Fitzpatrick and his peers should ask why the mainstream media lost their trust and what journalists and their employers could do to earn it back.
Just for fun, I’ll be keeping an eye on the Sakonnet Times’ coverage of the local election results. Readers may recall that the paper decided that the first town budget fight that my friends and I lost after four straight victories was the only one worth reporting on the front page. Moreover, the headline seemed to present me (like my most-aggressive opponents do) as some interloping enemy of the community: “Voters favor Town vs. Katz.”
How will the paper cover our local electoral victory, which saw the Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) gain control over the town council and the budget committee and led a rejection of ballot questions that would have limited voter control over the budget? In Portsmouth, the Sakonnet Times‘ sister publication, the Portsmouth Times, proclaimed at the top: “A big night for Democrats.” Another East Bay RI paper, the Bristol Phoenix, went with, “Bristol voters choose new faces… and reward old favorites,” the majority of whom are Democrats. In East Providence, Democrat Mayor-Elect Bob DaSilva got a triumphant photo under the headline, “Victory!”
The Sakonnet Times? Well, nothing political. To be fair, even though the Tiverton paper has the same publication date as the others, it apparently goes to press on Tuesday, before election results would be available. Still, I haven’t heard from the paper, and neither has anybody else from TTA, to my knowledge. An online article is mainly a short recitation of the numbers as they were earlier reported, although it does state that TTA “appears to have captured a majority.”
We’ll see what we see with next week’s edition. Will the bold letters across the top of the paper read, “Tiverton Favors TTA”? Maybe, “A big night for TTA.” Or, “Taxpayers’ strong campaign pays off.”
I’d settle for “Victory!,” but I expect something much different. Maybe the editors will go with the old standby of crediting “angry voters” for the results. Or maybe the paper will decide that the election is already old news and bury the brief article somewhere beyond the front page, as it has done with the taxpayer budget victories.
Watchers of local news and politics can place their bets.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, this week, was about Trillo’s latest issue statements and the Providence Journal’s endorsements.
A small note on a brief Providence Journal article about a panel discussion on journalism in the Trump Era, hosted by Rhode Island College. Reporter Mark Reynolds conveys some of the comments from the panelists, but the key detail, for my money, is the list of panelists:
Jill Agostino is Deputy Editor, Special Sections of the New York Times.
Jennifer Bendery is a Senior Politics Reporter for HuffPost.
Josh Israel has been the Senior Investigative Reporter for ThinkProgress since 2012.
Ron Nixon is The New York Times’s Homeland Security Correspondent.
Ashley Parker is a White House reporter for the Washington Post and winner of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for her coverage of Russian Interference.
Paul Singer became Investigations Editor at WGBH in Boston and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting in March 2018.
In other words, the panel ran the gamut from… err… Left to Far Left. Shouldn’t a college — especially a publicly funded college — make some effort to appear balanced? I mean, apart from wanting to offer students a thorough education and a lesson in weighing different perspectives, that is. A conservative journalist would have brought something completely different to the gathering, perhaps something surprising.
Some local color might have been helpful, too. Local reporters across the spectrum might have had something to say about the increased difficulty of getting information from government agencies during the Raimondo Era. When she came into office, the door closed quite a bit on our ability to get information directly from government employees without going through one of the many public relations specialists.
More layoffs at the Providence Journal bring into view two paths down which the local media could go… and they’ll probably choose the wrong one.
File this under “things you won’t hear proclaimed loudly in Rhode Island.” It appears that the United States is not the world leader in mass shootings:
[Criminologist Adam] Lankford’s study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases.
These omissions are important because Lankford’s entire conclusion would fall apart if he undercounted foreign cases due to lack of news coverage and language barriers.
When a researcher won’t provide the underlying data for his or her conclusions, that should be a major red flag. The new Crime Prevention Research Center report puts the U.S. as having the 61st most mass shootings, not the first, behind (among others, obviously) Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Russia.
But don’t expect reasonable doubts about Lankford’s assertions to gain much play. His “findings” support a certain ideological position too cleanly.
If anybody should not be skipping debates, it’s Democrat Lieutenant Governor Daniel McKee. Apart from his status as incumbent, he’s an experienced manager running against a far-left young guy who has just about no real-world experience. He ought to seek out opportunities to illustrate the contrast.
The example that brought this advice to mind was the RIPR interview/debate that I mentioned the other day. At one point, Regunberg responds to a question about the emigration of the PawSox to Worcester with this:
First of all, I just want to say that this is a really sad moment for our state. It’s a sad moment for Pawtucket. It’s a sad moment for families across Rhode Island to lose this icon from our state. I think there’s blame to go around at the state level. As you know, I supported the Senate proposal, which I think would have had a shot of keeping the team here, and the speaker did not. What I get the most frustrated with, however, is this idea of a small group of millionaires and billionaires who are making that choice to take this treasure out of our state for their own profit maximization. I don’t think that’s right.
Interviewers Ian Donnis and Scott MacKay didn’t follow up on this stunning statement, but McKee should have been there to do so. Sure, progressives can declare that the decisions of people who act in their own interests with their own property are “not right,” but when those progressives are trying to win government offices, the matter cannot stop there.
What exactly would Regunberg propose to do about? Effectively socialize the baseball team, with government taking it over? Increase the corporate welfare that the state might have offered the team to stay… helping those “millionaires and billionaires” even more?
I contacted the candidate for a response to these questions, but he has not replied. It’d be nice if journalists would pose such questions directly to young progressives while the microphone is already on, but in the absence of that, the duty falls to the opposing candidate.
As the election draws nearer, the news media is going farther and farther in its attempt to keep the Trump-Russia narrative alive in the minds of true believers.
We’d do well to develop social standards for how we handle indiscretions online and whether we help fights to deescalate or whip them up into a violent frenzy.
If you follow or read conservatives online, you’ve probably heard, over the past week, of strange goings on with Facebook. Apparently, my friend and former Anchor Rising co-contributor Don Hawthorne was caught up in it:
Yesterday morning, Facebook took down all five of my posts, declaring each time that “We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn’t follow our Community Standards.” …
Many Facebook friends have had the same experience yesterday, with no explanations.
Each time I got the message, I clicked on the “This Isn’t Spam” response option. Facebook replied, saying they needed to review the article to confirm it met Facebook Community Standards. They then came back and, each time, said it did meet standards and would be reposted.
After which, Facebook deleted several of my newly-reposted articles.
Don puts this in the context of the increasingly apparent online censorship of conservatives across platforms, noting:
There are escalating information asymmetries, enabled by technology companies.
Indeed, we have justification for worrying that the “personal social score” that China has begun applying to its people is something of a model. However, while I agree with Don that “our culture war is now fully out in the open,” crossing “the line from a voluntary civil society to a coercive political society,” I’m not so sure about this part:
The Left’s outsourcing of censorship to Silicon Valley technology companies leaves only one imperfect, time-sensitive solution—government-enforced deregulation—until there are more responsible leaders.
That “de” is probably not justifiably inserted in front of “regulation,” because regulation is what Don is after. He’s not alone in thinking maybe the tech giants should face something resembling the breakup of a cartel, but I’m skeptical. Ultimately, the solution is to get off of these platforms. Put your genuine content somewhere else — on some conservative site or on your own site — and use social media only to draw people away from social media.
The tech giants are selling us an addiction to little fixes of attention and affirmation. If we lower our doses just a little and use technology to build stronger, less manipulated relationships that require minimally more engagement with the actual world, we’ll find ourselves healthier for it, and freer.
Somehow, the Providence Journal transforms an environment proposal of the Trump administration from a reduction in emissions to a massive increase.
Mainstream journalists can denigrate alternate business models as “infomercials,” but that doesn’t give them any less standing as free speech under the Constitution.
Tom Mooney presents this with negative language, but it takes a bit of squinting to see the down side:
The state’s improving employment picture may cost more than 1,000 people their food assistance benefits later this year, says the state Department of Human Services.
Since 1996, federal rules have limited “able-bodied adults without dependents” to three months of food assistance within a three-year period. But those rules also exempted people living in communities whose unemployment rates were higher than the average national unemployment rate. …
Able-bodied adults without dependents who are working or enrolled in a work-training program may continue receiving benefits beyond three months, Pina said.
Let’s restate the facts. “Able-bodied adults” — people who should be able to work — who do not have children and who do not have a job and refuse to enter work-training programs now can only receive food welfare for three months because the economy is doing well enough that jobs should be available. Perhaps Mr. Mooney should explain to readers why such people should have an entitlement to unlimited benefits.
Of course, this is par for the course of all reporting on welfare. The unstated presumption is that there is never any reason not to give people anything… presumably until they enter the upper middle class.
Twitter targeting conservatives is only a small problem compared with the mainstream Left’s decision that they’ve had enough of the rest of us.
Maybe it’s a small thing… maybe a mere oversight in the rush to keep up with breaking news, but I find this Providence Journal staff article on fraud and tax evasion charges brought against former Pawtucket Senator James Doyle head-shaking.
Over the course of four paragraphs, the article tells readers about the charges and when he was elected, as well as his reference to issues with alcohol. It also mentions that Doyle is “the son of a longtime Pawtucket mayor.” The staff writer doesn’t tell us, however, that both the ex-senator and his father were Democrats.
What makes that weird is the final paragraph:
In April, Democrat Sandra C. Cano won a special election to fill Doyle’s former seat.
So why is the party of the woman who replaced the alleged malefactor noteworthy, but the party of the alleged malefactor himself is not? Forgive my cynicism, but I can’t discount the possibility that the conscious or subconscious reason is to put the labeled Democrat, who is currently running for reelection against a Republican challenger, in contrast with the unlabeled Democrat.
Or maybe it’s just in the Projo’s style guide that misbehaving Democrats should only be labeled when it’s absolutely critical to the story, while Democrats running for office must always be labeled so voters know where to look for their names.
ADDENDUM (9:18 p.m. 8/16/18):