Monthly Archives: November 2016

Trump and the American Media Landscape

New media cloud

There is a correlation between the American media landscape and the change in public discourse, especially presidential discourse. Trump represents a different type of person to occupy the office and that is especially true of his language, digital media use, and discursive practices. As more than a few people have noted, we are in a historical period were authority is disrespected and challenged on all sides. Facts just don’t seem to matter. And when we become disconnected from facts it is possible to believe anything. So science is rejected and challenged on the basis of arguments and reasons outside the boundaries of science. Global warming, climate change, the value of vaccinations, etc. are all subjected to a set of criteria and justifications incompatible with proper scientific standards of reasoning.

Trump is a frightening extreme when it comes to ignoring facts and simply making it up or saying whatever he pleases. And the situation is even more egregious when you combine his temperament with a personality disorder. That is, he is so incapable of accepting criticism or recognizing defeat that he digs in his heels and lashes back even more aggressively. The truth be damned. When you combine this disposition with the fact that he actually knows very little and is unschooled in diplomatic, political, and intellectual conversations you have a problem. The mix can be combustible. Remember he said most of his knowledge is based on the Sunday news shows so his political knowledge is about equivalent to whatever information comes in a headline service.

The Media and the Formation of Trump’s Consciousness

What kind of mediascape does Trump live in? His vocabulary, short assertions, egocentrism, and incomplete grasp of the issues have been fashioned as a result of his emergence from a network of communication patterns and exposure to issues situated within the particular media environment. In a word, Trump talks like and processes information like those in his dominant mediascape. Let me be more precise.

Rodney Benson in a paper for Goldsmiths describes “The New American Media Landscape.” Benson essentially posits three segments of the US journalism field. The first is a vast infotainment field that is populated by well-maintained websites such as Yahoo and the Huffington Post. Local commercial television and the innovative websites Vice and Vox are included in this category. These sites produce news in an appealing fashion intended to attract audiences; they do some interesting things but are designed more to attract attention then quality information. A second segment of the mediascape is the partisan media represented by Fox (conservative) and MSNBC (liberal). The political blogosphere is also pertinent here. This is the terrain of biases and shouting matches where slavishly clinging to a political perspective, even if it’s an indefensible perspective, in order to bring down the other side is the primary motivation. And the third territory is the mainstream quality media such as The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Specialty magazines and academic papers are also part of the quality media landscape.

Trump is always critical of the mainstream quality media because they are issue and data based in an effort to treat issues according to their quality and allowing good solutions to emerge rather than insisting on a political perspective that is forced on everyone else. The mainstream quality media is more critical and analytical and seeks to attract an audience on that basis. Trump’s discourse and primary influences clearly match the second level partisan terrain of the media characterized by distortions and misinformation. His name calling and bombastic style are contrary to what a functioning democracy requires which is a public narrative that recognizes differences.

The image of Trump as a populist nationalist (I will reserve judgment on using the word fascist for now) is increasingly defensible as he continues to appeal to an angry population by stoking the fires of their resentment. His 3 o’clock in the morning tweets make him an active participant in the partisan landscape. Apparently, a couple of nights ago Trump was watching a program on flag burning as symbolic speech. Consistent with his unreflective style he tweeted his immediate emotions which were to assert that burning the American flag should result in either jail time or loss of citizenship. He used new social media (Twitter) to blurt out an unconstitutional and indefensible gut reaction exerting a sense of power. His behavior from the partisan landscape was responded to by the quality media with a lecture for Mr. Trump on the Constitution and the extent to which it protects symbolic speech, of which the Supreme Court has established. This is one thing – maybe even to be expected – from a private citizen but a little scary and disappointing from the President of the United States. I suspect we will see more media territorial framework tensions as Trump’s partisan media style clashes with other segments of the media landscape.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Right Wing Media Bias

 

This video makes some very strong points and is worth watching. I suggest you click on it now and watch. The video is sponsored by “Media Matters” which is a liberal organization but one that has the interests of our democracy in mind. It is possible to make the case that systematic and consciously perpetrated bias by Fox News governs their organizational identity and has quantifiable effects on voting patterns and political knowledge. The claims of news bias are so pervasive and so self-contradictory that it’s damaging any remnants of news credibility. Everybody believes the news is biased right up until the point the news says something they agree with. And, moreover, people are absolutely convinced that their perceptions are correct and their understanding of the issues and whatever source they came from is accurate. The public is shockingly naive about the frequency and forms of information processing distortions.

Let’s pay attention for a moment to this issue of news bias and try for some rigor and conclusions that result from data and controlled studies. I’ve grown weary of everyone complaining about the news and biases especially when all the complaints are simply self-serving. It borders on fascinating how few people see their own distortions and biases. Every Trump supporter is convinced the New York Times and the television media – minus Fox News – favored the other side and was critical of Trump while being charitable toward Hillary. And Hillary supporters (although in much smaller numbers) lamented the fascination with Trump that brought him so much free media time.

I would call your attention to a study directly confronting this issue of Fox News and its impact in the news sphere. The authors examine the impact of media bias, the persuasiveness of a particular media, the likelihood of voting, and mobility rates. Moreover, and something most citizens don’t think about, the review of the studies includes conditions of the receivers. In other words, the same news programming does not have the same effect on everyone. So, on the basis of survey research the authors found that 22% of the population believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but 33% of Fox News viewers believed he had weapons of mass destruction. The findings hold even after controlling for party identification.

Additionally, exposure to conservative media has an effect on voter choice including being responsible for switching some Republicans to Democratic voters. The results are slightly conditioned by the psychological state of receivers. Those watching Fox news for the first time were more persuadable than viewers who watched consistently. This particular study focused on Fox News and conservative media but I would presume that the pattern of results apply to liberal media as well even if the effects are stronger or weaker.

My concern here is not to repeat the pernicious effects of Fox News or biased media but to sound the alarm for increasing pressure to both find quality outlets of information, as well as “educate” the public a little more about the nature and exposure to bias and what to do with it. Fox News is responsible for taking partisan positions and making some extreme even outrageous claims; these then get repeated and spread throughout the population thus multiplying the distorted effects.

Turning more toward public media rather than commercial media is one response to this situation. Public media presents more in-depth and critical news about domestic and international affairs and is capable of increasing citizen engagement as well as quality information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump and Israel – He’s Confused

trump-and-israel

The problem with trying to understand Trump’s relationship to Israel and the Middle East in general is that he knows nothing about either, and has no foreign policy record. His positions are confused and contradictory especially with respect to Iran and Saudi Arabia. He seems to care very little about most places except Iran in which he has threatened to pull out of the US-Iran nuclear agreement. And this is particularly dangerous if Trump surrounds himself with a Secretary of State such as Bolton or Giuliani both of whom are bellicose and more capable of inflaming differences then cooling them. Trump is sufficiently confused such that he is publicly critical of Iran but supportive of Bashar al Assad in Syria. Soon it should occur to him or his advisors that supporting the Syrian governing regime bolsters Iran, not to mention being on the wrong side of the ideological spectrum.

Israel primarily wants two things from the United States – its regular military aid, and the support and recognition that comes with our cultural and democratic affinities. Both of these can be in potential danger depending on which planks of Trump’s tangled platform end up emerging as the strongest. Trump has, on the one hand, signaled a lack of interest in the Middle East and an almost isolationist sensibility. In his businessman’s language, he does not see it as a “good investment.” On the other hand, Trump is committed to defeating ISIS and does not seem to fully realize the central role Israel must play with respect to intelligence and support. Moreover, continuing his confusion, he has taken highly inflammatory and unrealistic positions by expressing support for the settlements and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. At other times he just wants to remain distant from the issues. The Forward has suggested that Trump will probably reduce America’s involvement in the Middle East. This is generally not good news.

His conservatism is not yet fully honed because Trump sometimes appears to be the isolationist who does not want to be the world’s policeman, and at other times he seems to resonate with neoconservatives who want to assert American political and military power. Trump has a lot to learn and it is the type of learning that requires some development and maturation. He cannot see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as just one negotiation trick away from resolution. He is more comfortable with business deals and negotiations which are subject to more rational marketplace considerations. “The art of the deal” is governed by a logic that requires one to maximize benefits and minimize losses and the deal is done when both sides can accept their gains and losses. This is not the governing logic of asymmetrical ethnopolitical conflicts that are intractable; in other words, the issues of sanctity, identity, fractured history, violence, and deep emotions are not part of the rational model of the “art of the deal.”

I suspect Trump’s limited experience in international affairs blinds him to the type of communication necessary to solve problems such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which does not profit much by seeing it only through a prism of rational exchange. I fear that when he becomes fiercely entangled with the knotty issues that characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict he will see it through a narrow American prism rather than a broader global and cultural one. And the tools that enabled him to succeed in business will not serve him so well in the arena of international conflict.

The Republican Party is generally more blindly supportive of Israel but for now all we know about Trump is the blind part.

 

 

The Right Is the New Left

gop-breakdown

Have you noticed that it’s the left end of the political spectrum that is now defending the status quo. Obama and Hillary supporters are the establishment and described as a continuation of the past and the mainstream of politics. It’s the Trump supporters and those on the right who are the critical outsiders. They are the ones who want to take down the “establishment” and remove the government. It used to be that the left had an oppositional relationship with society, and the right was mainstream conservatism and the defender of national values; it used to be the left that engaged in cultural terrorism, and the right was associated with maintaining American values and traditions. So, what happened?

I will tell you what happened. The left has made serious progress on its goal of creating the “culturally correct” man. This was accomplished methodologically by the process of criticism of society with the goal of transforming the historical power structure of American society. The angry, violent, and revolutionary voices come more from the Trump camp than the Hillary camp. Even Bernie Sanders’ liberal constituencies quietly and obediently returned to their lives rather than organize and revolutionize. What is this methodological process that creates the “culturally correct” man? It is commonly known as political correctness. The angry American (of which angry white males are the most typical) feels oppressed by political correctness such that he or she is now in a more radicalized oppositional relationship with the political process. It’s the right that is intensely and more violently critical of American society.

Political correctness has its roots in Marxist social theory and the goal of revolutionary transformation. Detailed examination of Marxist criticism is beyond our concerns here but suffice it to say that a whole line of destructive criticism – emanating mainly from the Frankfurt School – challenged the fundamental elements of American society such as patriarchy, capitalism, patriotism, morality, family, gender, and religion. The transformations of the economy and the changing nature of work and manufacturing have combined with cultural criticisms to position a significant segment of the right into a revolutionary stance.

Working class white males, exemplified by what has become known as the typical Trump supporter, have suffered the most from pressures to upset the patriarchal order (e.g. intense demands to change gender reference language; acceptance of same-sex marriage), change the Christianity-capitalism authoritarian structure (ordination of women; the misguided belief in the efficacy of their own individualism), and the steady substitution of white males by women, immigrants, and the government.

The pressure on middle-class white males has been relentless. The culture increasingly speaks a new language that has been stripped of its traditional power and substituted by a neutral and more inclusive vocabulary that clearly does serve the goal of diversity but at the expense of the traditional institutions of authority.

Even though more inclusive culturally sensitive language is a laudable goal, it resonates more with the cosmopolitan liberal than the traditional conservative. Multiculturalism is the true enemy of this group on the right and can be seen as breaking up traditional cultural values, taking jobs, and dismantling American society. Interestingly, this group values rugged individualism and small government but still expect government to provide social safety nets. Many of these working-class white males have roots in the Democratic Party and still retain some party identification but most of them fit into the Pew Research Center political identity category termed “hard-pressed skeptics.” They are low income and express negative attitudes toward immigrants and are distrustful of government. The combination of factors has resulted in a communal rather than ascribed identity makes them a politically critical outside group.

 

 

 

One Final Attempt at Quality Information before Voting

Dear blog follower:

During this election, more than any other,  trying to get some facts right is difficult. The below is from ProCon.org a nonpartisan educational organization, that helps everyone to make informed decisions regardless of how or for whom you vote. The degradation of the political process, the volume of ignorance floating around, polarization, and the incivility and impertinence of the candidates is of historic proportions. Most of us never imagined Trump as a Republican candidate and we certainly didn’t imagine the debates – which were supposed to be an informed and intelligent portrayal of the candidates – as a showcase for marital and sexual indiscretions paraded in front of the opponent and the world.

So, I offer the below as the clearest and most objective side-by-side comparison of the candidates and their stance on issues. You may have made up your mind already but at least check your thinking against the information presented.

Presidential Election

1. Compare 2016 Presidential Candidate Positions: A Side-by-Side Comparison Between Candidates on Key Issues

2. 2016 Presidential Election Candidate Quiz – Find Your Match!

Abortion

3. Should Abortion Be Legal?

4. Top Pro & Con Quotes on Abortion

Felon Voting
5. Should Felons Who Have Completed Their Sentence (Incarceration, Probation, and Parole) Be Allowed to Vote?

6. State Felon Voting Laws
7. Number of People by State Who Cannot Vote Due to a Felony Conviction

Gun Control
8. Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

9. Top Pro & Con Quotes on Gun Control

10. US Gun Deaths, 1999-2014

Immigration
11. Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?

12. Illegal Immigration, Population Estimates in the United States, 1969-2014

13. Demographics of Immigrants in the United States Illegally
Marijuana
14. Should Marijuana Be a Medical Option?

15. 25 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC

16. Ranking 20 Drugs and Alcohol by Overall Harm
Minimum Wage
17. Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?

18. Top Pro & Con Quotes on the Federal Minimum Wage

19. State-by-State Minimum Wage Levels

20. And, just for fun, Top 10 Most Surprising Things in the 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Online Stores

The Problem of False Equivalencies

One of the most egregious reasoning fallacies is false equivalencies; that is, the claim the two things are equal when they are not. All those who claim there’s nobody to vote for or these are two pathetic candidates for the presidency have fallen into the trap of false equivalencies. By any sensible measure Hillary Clinton is far superior to Donald Trump. That does not mean she’s a perfect candidate but clearly the better of the two choices. In fact, one may disagree with Hillary on political grounds but Trump is just plain dangerous. The below is reprinted from the Forward-Progressive website.
There’s this notion concerning the 2016 presidential election that both choices are terrible and that we’re all simply trying to choose “between the lesser of two evils.” While I know that’s a popular belief among many, the reality of that couldn’t be further from the truth. Look, I’m not here to claim that Hillary Clinton is a flawless candidate. Just because I proudly support her campaign doesn’t mean that I’m not realistic about the fact that she has flaws like any other human being — especially politicians.
That being said, to claim her flaws are on the same level of Trump’s is not only completely inaccurate, but it’s absolutely ridiculous. To prove my point, I thought I’d compare some of the top “controversial scandals” surrounding the two candidates. Let’s start with Hillary Clinton:
Her emails: While her use of a private server was definitely a bad idea, she’s admitted to that fact and has apologized for it, repeatedly. Furthermore, the FBI carried out an extensive investigation that ultimately concluded that she did nothing illegal. The only reason this became a “story” again is because while looking into the Anthony Wiener sexting allegations, the FBI found emails that may (keyword: may) need to be reviewed to determine whether or not they contain classified material. Though at the end of the day, not only was Clinton not charged with a crime, but there’s been absolutely no evidence where her use of this private server led to any sort of national security issues.
The Clinton Foundation: While many have tried to make the foundation seem like some international crime syndicate linked to a pay-for-play criminal empire, ultimately, the foundation has an A-rating from a respected charity watchdog group and spends 88 percent of all the money it raises on charitable causes. Oh, and the Clintons don’t actually make any money from the foundation — as they don’t receive a salary.
Paid speeches: Considering it’s not remotely uncommon for former presidents or politicians to give paid speeches, I’m not sure why this is a big deal. Again, there’s been absolutely no credible evidence that any paid speech her husband gave was linked to any sort of “pay-for-play” scheme while she was Secretary of State.
“She gleefully helped a child rapist go free”: Nope, she sure didn’t. Not only was she ordered by a judge to defend him (she tried getting out of it), but the guy actually went to prison on a plea deal the victim’s mother pushed prosecutors to offer of 5 years — only to have the judge reduce it to one. The audio of Clinton laughing about the case actually came years later when she was discussing how, even though the guy was guilty, he passed a polygraph — and that forever ruined her faith in the test. She was not mocking or laughing at the victim.
Benghazi: Here’s another “scandal” that numerous investigations have ultimately concluded wasn’t her fault. Though if you don’t believe me (or the investigations), then ask the family of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, who’ve publicly said that it’s unfair to blame her for the attack.
She called “half” of Donald Trump’s supporters “deplorable”: Not only did she immediately apologize for saying this, but she wasn’t really wrong. In fact, “half” is probably underselling how many of his supporters fit into the “basket of deplorables” she mentioned (racists, bigots, sexists, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic). Now if you think I’m going to entertain the absurd conspiracies about her having multiple people killed, or that I’m going to hold her husband’s issues against her, you’re sadly mistaken. If you’re someone who actually believes that insanity, then you’re clearly someone who can’t be reasoned with. But those are the main attacks I’ve seen Republicans and the media obsess about throughout her campaign.
Now let’s move on to Donald Trump: Mocked a man with disabilities. Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero. Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain. Lied about how much money he raised for veterans. Called a former Miss Universe “disgusting” and fat, telling his Twitter followers to find her non-existent sex tape. Accused an American-born federal judge of being unfit to do his job because of his Mexican heritage. Likely avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades. Called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, even though that’s not remotely factual. Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. Lied about getting a letter from the NFL complaining about the debate schedule. Tried to exploit the death of an African American woman in Chicago to say that’s why black voters will support him. Found the “bright side” to tragedies because his poll numbers tend to go up. Settled with the Department of Justice after his company was found guilty of racially discriminating against minorities. Has cheated on at least one wife. Was discovered on video admitting that he not only tried to cheat on his current wife, but he attempted to do so with another married woman. Had his first wife publicly say that he did nothing when it came to raising their children until they were old enough to talk business. Tweeted that women should have expected to be sexually assaulted when they mixed males and females together in the military. Said he wants to target the families of terrorists. Stated that he wants to ban an entire religion. Praised a Russian president who obviously hates the U.S. and Americans. Encouraged the Russian government to commit espionage against Americans. Insinuated that another Republican’s wife was ugly. Tried to implicate another Republican’s father in JFK’s assassination. Sought out the help of former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes after he was fired following multiple allegations that he had sexually harassed women for years. Made Breitbart’s Steve Bannon one of his top campaign people. Had a former campaign manager abruptly resign after a report came out linking him to pro-Russian groups that were directly trying to undermine U.S. policy in eastern Europe. Called Carly Fiorina ugly. Has said climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese — then denied saying it. Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama. Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the president of not being an American with a less than 30-second statement where he didn’t apologize for any of it. Re-tweeted anti-African American propaganda created by a white supremacy group. Played dumb about knowing who former Grand Wizard of the KKK David Duke was. Skipped a presidential debate because he was scared of a moderator. Called a husband doing things like changing diapers and helping with the children, a man “trying to be the wife.” Has said he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons. Said he can’t release his tax returns because they’re currently being audited — even though the IRS said that’s a lie. Feels he has the right to sexually assault women. Is currently battling a fraud lawsuit where victims allege he created Trump University to scam them out of tens of thousands of dollars. Used funds raised by his charity foundation to pay his personal legal fees. Said that one of the women accusing him of sexual harassment wasn’t attractive enough for him to have assaulted. Has a long history of not paying contractors for doing work they had already completed. His bankruptcies benefited him, while ultimately leaving many people to which he owed money out to dry. Outsources most of his company’s manufacturing jobs to other countries. Has said that all the women accusing him of sexual assault are liars. Refused to say if he would concede the election if he loses on November 8th. Allegedly asked military advisers why we can’t use nukes since we have them. After being told that our security experts know that Russia is behind the hack of the DNC and American citizens, continued to deny that they knew anything, effectively defending and taking the word of Russia over believing and trusting our own intelligence agencies. Once said that women who have abortions should be “punished.” Alluded to the size of his penis during a presidential debate. Mocked the looks of Ted Cruz’s wife. Was accused of planting a fake story in the National Enquirer concerning Ted Cruz having multiple affairs. Currently has a court date set for allegations he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old. Claims he’s donated millions to charity but refuses to prove it. Called Hillary Clinton a “nasty women” when she factually called him out for tax evasion. Evidence seems to indicate that he bribed the Florida attorney general to avoid the state joining the fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Has admitted to trying to buy off politicians. Following his meeting with the Mexican president, he lied about being told that there was no way Mexico would pay for his wall. Has repeatedly advocated for committing war crimes. Said he knows more about terrorism and the Middle East than our generals. Has repeatedly said that our NATO allies are going to have to “pay up” for our protection. Said more countries should have nuclear weapons — then denied saying it. Has, on several occasions, suggested he finds his daughter attractive. Tried to blame Hillary Clinton for his racist birther propaganda. Said, with a straight face, that nobody has more respect for women than he does. During an interview said that “a flat-chested woman can never be a 10.” Asked how stupid the people of Iowa could be for supporting Ted Cruz.

But, please, tell me again how “both candidates are the same” and they’re “equally as flawed.” Because if that’s what you really believe, then you’re choosing to ignore reality and believing whatever the hell you want to believe.

Read more here

%d bloggers like this: