Paper Lies

It's a sign of the times
We believe anything and nothing

Paper lies

When you kill the truth
You can make a killing
You might just make losing look like winning - Marillion (1994)

Despite Trump's assertion that he invented the word fake, it actually has been in use a long time (since at least the 18 century).  And the idea of fiction, falsity and bias in news reporting has been around for a long while as well (someone even mentioned it in a song in 1994). Trump's statement is a fascinating example of irony that displays what it is attacking.  We used to even have a more-than-one-syllable word for it: propaganda.  As such, propaganda attempts to close any open, unresolved elements to ensure a complete, monologic transmission of thought.  That is, to force a conclusion without question.  It is a mode of ideology in operation.

The problem isn't news that's fake, it's use of the term itself.  Fake news is a term that is used to shut down a debate and enforce ideology over facts. And it's used by, and to describe, people who don't want to think for themselves.  Other than the noise created by negative chaos of social media and deliberate lying manipulation by memes, and organizations so deprived, evil and so ridiculously stupid that only a true moron would follow them [1], which aren't news at all, but lies meant to incite: psychological warfare, there isn't much fakeness.  The news reported is based on real events, it's the presented fields of interpretation that add There is a responsibility on the part of the receiver to understand these fields and discern some levels of relevancy and accuracy.  In this information age, it is easier than ever to fact check on one's own an d to stay current.

As American landscape has changed over the last 10 years, there has been a lot of blame put onto the  media, lamenting the loss of objective reporting and accusing the of inserting bias.  But this is just a surface reaction.  To understand the real issue requires a look at the subject of what is being reported.  It isn't the media that has changed -fundamentally - but the political landscape itself.  Changes in the media are only a response, a a reaction to that.

As Fareed Zakaria has noted "Politics is about tribal affiliation. It's not about issues anymore. In the old days is was about issues, it was really about economic issues, and economic issues you can comprise on . . . When you get into these cultural,social issues which are really more about core identity, how do you compromise? . . . These have become issues on which people see the world differently. we have become Sunnis and Shiites . . . for the last ten years there has been no compromise"

The culture has become so split that no news report could be completely objective in the perspective of both parallax views.  But, that does not mean both sides are equivalent.  Not all forces of persuasive discourse are equal.  Power systems must be factored in and the existing dominant structures recognized.  Reporting that challenges the power structure is not the inverse of reporting that promotes it.  Challenges still leave an open space for understanding.  But, reports that mimic what leadership wants one to believe closes space for debate and argumentation.  

In the case of Fox vs CNN there is a difference. First Fox is very monologic, with talking heads spouting ideology to force conclusions inline with their desired power structure.  When the head of power is on the left, they attach to figures on the right that form an opposition.  In the case of CNN, first there is active debate.  Panels made up of three to three on the left/right are common, sometimes 2 on the left against 3 on the right . The balance of left/right on CNN is even more distorted to the right  than it was to the left during Obama's term, with the placement of panelists who have been paid members of the Trump team.  With panelists like Lewandowski, Jeffrey Lord, Kayleigh, Ed Martin, Andre Bauer, there is a direct defense of Trump's establishment and hence, CNN cannot be monologic. The debate raises issues that the viewer can contemplate.  Secondly, while the channel does challenge  Republican administrations, it also heavily criticizes Democratic ones as well.  For instance, Erin Burnett would at times lead with three stories attacking the Obama administration.

With each swing of the pendulum, the challengers in the social discussion adopt tactics that the former side used and there is further escalation.  What is needed is not a draining of the swamp, but a return to the establishment, when policy makers were professionals and worked in terms of policy primarily rather than cultural ideology.  When the debates become once again anchored on facts and not judgment, then the competing arguments can be presented and evaluated in objective and comparable terms.

[1] Pure non-sense like Info-wars and Alex Jones which de-evolve any view into childish fantasy and result in evil, rather than misinformed bad arguments.