The Anti-Trump algorithim

Because I believe that Donald Trump is a terrible president and an even worse human being, several times a week I will ragegoogle something like 'Trump is a moron' or 'MAGA is code for Nazi'.  I say these things not because I have great confidence in the Democrats or that I am a liberal...but in the end the various algorithms out there regularly put things into my news feed that likely they think I want to hear.  If I was a climate change denier, they would fill my box with opinions that rising seas are good for real estate along the seashore ("It's a seller's market if there's a shrinking amount of oceanview property!")  If I lived my life thinking that all people are stupid and I'd rather hang out with horses, I'd get ads for T-shirts that have majestic horses on them.  But because my online profile is likely as filled with English soccer, 70s yacht rock backstories, technology gadgets and anti-Trump sentiment, I get offered a lot of anti-Trump news.  Lately I've noticed there are three primary avenues.

1)The "Here's how Trump is destroying America and the World!" stories.  I actually agree with many of these stories, even if not everything is as bad as they say.  Not everything depends upon Trump, but it's important to know how he and his minions are destroying efforts for clean energy, equality, and Ameica's place in the world, among a thousand other evil things he is doing.  

2)The "Trump's support is collapsing in the polls!" stories.  These bug me a bit more, because almost always the 38% floor for Trump never seems to get crashed through.  But continually we are told about polls that show that Trump's supporters are finally waking up (nope), that the GOP will lose Congress (not likely), that the Democrats are rallying around ___ (laughable).  Nothing is changing for his acolytes, even as Trump's stupidity is on daily display for anybody paying attention.  

3)In recent weeks I've started to see a handful of "Trump is dying!" stories.  Like the polling numbers, I think that this is mostly wishful thinking, because I don't really think that Trump will die within the next few years.  No matter how obese, frail, or demented he seems, he will receive the best care available within the medical world.  This weekend one of the things that popped up was a wondering header that said, "Trump has no public appearances this weekend!  Could he be receiving a life-saving treatment?"  Doubtful...likely he's playing golf or plotting with advisors about taking away rights from somebody or planning some grift for his sons to take advantage of.  I don't really buy that the bruises on his hands or his swollen ankles or his slurred speech really mean that death is immanent; such things are simply the way of life for many senior Americans who live for years like this.  Modern medicine (something that costs the government a LOT of money!) means that people will live a long time with all sorts of ailments.  Most seniors will spend the last decade of their life going from doctor to doctor as they seek to manage conditions that are products of genetics or age or lifestyle; the only difference with Trump is that he is in a position to have the best practitioners come to him.  Maybe we might get lucky and he'll do more listening to quacks like RFK Jr ("Hey Mr. President, drink this raw milk and don't pay attention to doctors!"), but I doubt it.  If anybody is going to hang on, it's him.  

Maybe I need to change what I google for so that I will have a more balanced newsfeed.  But maybe I'll be like most people today, blissfully believing whatever appears in front of me.  

Courage

Remember how dopey it was a generation ago when Dan Rather signed off his newscasts with 'Courage'.  What on earth was he talking about?  Nobody knows...but he took a word that at one time meant something real and honorably and noble and made it into a joke.

And a joke it has remained.  We praise athletes for making a 'courageous' play...we laud actresses for their courage in taking off their clothes for a movie role (see Bates, Kathy)...and we laud politicians for 'courageously' making a vote on an issue that goes against what a high-spending donor would have wanted them to do.  In truth, none of them act with anything like courage...we're just rather amazed that things have turned out the way that they did.  Maybe 'surprise!' would be more like it.

So yesterday a future likely NFL player named Michael Sam came out and said that he was gay.  The reaction?  Overwhelmingly positive.  We all knew that this was coming eventually, but in the past 24 hours we have seen countless stories praising him before he's played a single NFL down.  Michelle Obama calls him 'inspirational.'  His past success should be a 'guiding light' for all of us.  And most of all?  He's 'courageous'.  His 'courage is unmatched'.  And of course, he gets plenty of public support for all the courage he has shown and will show.

I've spent some time looking around the internet and have't seen a single negative story about Michael Sam. Yes, there is some thought that it will be a distraction, of course...but has there been a single story hating on him?  Anybody come right out and said that it won't work?  Any columnists demand that their teams not draft him because of his sexuality?  Nope, nope, and nope.

Where, then, is the courage in this?  Even as many Americans (including myself) still believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, there doesn't appear to be a single negative view of Sam portrayed in any legitimate media outlet.   Even Fox News has reported it positively (even if they buried it enough that it took some time to find the link to this story). Nobody's going to lynch the kid for being gay.  No fan will be allowed to scream something rude at him (like this idiot seems to have gotten away with).  No teammate will be commended for saying he doesn't want him on his team (in fact, even the hint of bullying a kid based on sexuality got Richie Incognito suspended last season and means he will likely not play again, even as it appears the story wasn't really true).

In fact, this kid is now going to become a cultural icon.  He may never be a great NFL player but he will always be the first openly gay NFL player, the Jackie Robinson of his time. I'd be certain that he will get at least a few select endorsements out of this, many more than a normal projected third-round pick might get.  If nothing else he will continually be on the cover of SI, on given primary coverage by SportsCenter, and even make the front page of the New York Times?

Courage...it's really to throw that word out there, but where will the real courage be found?  By somebody who still says that homosexual behavior is wrong, and endures the wrath of all those who will call him a bigot, a homophobe, or repressed.  To speak what they believe to be God's will in this day and age...now that takes real courage.

Fox News Bias, A Brief Viewers' Guide

Recently I was speaking with an older gentleman whom I otherwise hold in high regard.  Somehow we started talking about Fox News...he's an avid viewer and I think he was trying to relate a segment he had seen.  I mentioned how I had no trust in Fox News, as it's is slanted so far towards a Tea Party/neoConservative point of view that it's hard to believe anything one sees on there.  "Oh no, it's true.  It's fair and balanced.  It says that it is."

I didn't really have a good response to his, because when you're so totally believing that your own truth is infallible, how can you even imagine it to be otherwise?  How can I point out the inherent bias on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" or "Fox and Friends" when it seems so benign to those who take it in everyday?  It's not like they come out and admit any form of bias, or disclose to their viewers that they hold to a certain ideology. So how can we tell that this bias exists without driving ourselves crazy by having to watch this crap and point it out each time it happens?

I don't watch Fox News intentionally, but it seems to be on everywhere you go.  I'll notice it is on the TV at the rec center, or be at somebody's house where it is has been left on, and so sometimes it will present itself to me even though I don't care for it.  But I've noticed a few things that show its bias for anybody who is willing to see it.

(Necessary admission: Yes, every newschannel has their own bias.  MSNBC tilts liberal in particular.  I get it.  But I live in a red state where far too many people assume Fox News is gospel truth.  Where I live I don't have to deal with people regularly who think that because Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow said something that it must necessarily be true.  If I did, I'd probably be just as annoyed with them and be writing about them.  But I don't, so I won't.)

-1. What are the 10-word talking points up on screen during a segment?  Because we live in such a distracted culture where we can't sit for even five minutes to listen to a segment, the producers of these news shows sum it up in 10 words or less in the bottom third of the screen (just above the 'crawl' section that makes people think they know what's going on in the world because they see a two-line summary of some huge event).  For example, here's are some current headlines on FoxNews.com as I write on Friday afternoon (likely very similar to the on-screen points): "Dems reveal 2014 strategy to be smash and grab."  "Under attack on all sides, Obama Democrats return to ramming speed."  "Cost of offering health care might make some small businesses opt for fine."  Three headlines, all painting democrats with a negative spin: they engage in smash and grab and ramming and their policies hurt business.  What other takeaways can you get if you have the attention span of a moth?  These expression are never overtly slanted...but the way they use words (and they are experts at this, I'll give them that) can shape the opinions their viewer form in very subtle ways.

-2. What kind of pictures do they put up of liberals?  I've noticed this a lot more lately in social media and elsewhere.  You can change perception by still pictures without even having to resort to photoshop.  Most of the time when Fox News uses still images, Obama looks like he's about ready to puke, Hillary Clinton looks like a shrew, and Harry Reid looks like a wimp.  No strong, positive pictures are available, I assume.

-3. At any given time, what are the other networks talking about?  Here's a fun game (for sadists): at any given time, compare what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are talking about.  What they talk about during their 'in-depth' segments tell you about the narrative that they are trying to push.  Today most channels are talking about the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination.  But as I was working out today the guy next to me who was watching Fox News on his machine was paying attention to the ways democrats are changing filibuster rules (unfair!) and more on the failures of Obamacare (incompetence!).  Tell somebody in so many ways so many times and people will believe that this is the only way to tell the story.

-4.  Who are the representative opponents who allow them to say see, we are fair and balanced because we let them talk?  Yes, Fox News occasionally have liberals, but usually it's just a beaten-down Alan Colmes .  Ever see a lumberjack match on pro wrestling, in which one guy is technically facing only one other guy but has a ton of people outside the ring knocking them around as well?  That's what Fox News must be like for a liberal.  In addition, most of the representative liberals I've noticed on there are not well-spoken; it's like they have taken the time to find the cheapest talking heads they can.  Put them up against an expert from your side, and of course it will seem like that one point of view is markedly better.  It's like comparing the Red Sox with the Wichita Wingnuts: don't be surprised if the Wingnuts aren't going to win a lot of games in a head-to-head competition.

The reality is that most people don't want to believe that their favorite point of view is a product of bias.  We don't listen to what others have to say, and with the fractured 'narrowcasting' of news programs this separation only gets larger.  But the first step of healing is the acknowledgment of the problem.