I've been trying to trace my disillusionment with conservative media, because I know it's been going on a while. Tellingly, it probably began when I started writing a weekly column for our local paper back in 2003, much of which is the basis for what can be found here. Early on, it's easy to note the typical conservative talking points. But after being called out for factual errors a few times, I began researching for myself, rather than relying upon received wisdom from the media gods. I soon learned what was delivered as "fact" wasn't always so. Eye-opener #1.
Jump ahead to 2008, when a local talk show host named Bill "Willie" Cunningham gained national notoriety for being among the first and most visible to use Barack Obama's middle name while introducing John McCain at a rally. This took place the day after William F. Buckley died and Cunningham's feigned shock at the uproar showed he was all about attention rather than principle. Eye-opener #2.
In 2011, after we had taken out Osama bin Laden, I had some surprising disagreements with fellow conservatives who felt we shouldn't trust our president on the matter (I was told to be wary of something sinister in the President's act). Ok, partisan whack jobs, maybe. But then I heard similar questions being raised on talk radio. That was probably the Eureka! moment when I realized these guys were driven by ratings and therefore dependent upon maintaining a riled up audience. Eye-opener #3 (and channel changer).
Finally, the echo chamber that is conservative media became crystal clear just last month, following the Khizr Khan speech at the DNC. I saw the interviews with the Khans and with Trump where he questioned why the mother remained silent and how he'd sacrificed similarly by running a business. The next day I had a six hour drive and heard Rush, Hannity and especially, Michael Savage accuse the father of being an immigration lawyer, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and of using the U.S. Constitution as a cheap prop, while the mother was accused of having appeared in western garb at a Clinton gala years before - indicating the hijab she wore during the speech was an effect and that they were in the Clinton's pocket from the start.
Except that none of it was true. The woman in the photo was someone else with the same last name, the father had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, worked as a commercial attorney specializing in electronic discovery, and was known to keep copies of the Constitution at his home, which he handed out to military cadets who visited.
But that's not what was all over social media the next day. Instead, Facebook and Twitter were full of the misinformation spewed by conservative media. I found trying to correct it like trying to stop a flood with a fishing net. Frustrating and futile. But we must find a way to stop it, for we are seeing the damage that can be done to our democracy when a few selfish folks put personal profit ahead of principle and sway a nation with lies. An ignorant, ill-informed electorate is fertile ground for despots and demagogues.
9/16/2016
Hillary, Trump & the Deplorables
Much has been made of Hillary's basket of deplorables comment regarding Trump supporters. I immediately thought of Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012 - one of those things that probably shouldn't have been said, regardless that there is more than a hint of truth behind both statements.
Regarding Hillary's, there is little doubt that Trump has been appealing to an ugly underbelly, but the size of that underbelly is surely not half of his support. However, if one makes one small change to Hillary's statement, exchanging the term "one group" where the word "half" appears, it becomes far harder to take issue with. Here is her entire statement with the proposed change in place. Read it and decide for yourself if it might have been more representative of what's going on than has been reported:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could puthalf one group of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Note that she points out they are a small, but thanks to Trump, growing part of the American electorate. Note that she qualifies that she is being "grossly generalistic," indicating the statement is not meant to be considered precise. She also points out these deplorables are not reflective of America. She then goes on to empathize with the core of Trump's support in a way that I doubt even Trump could, explaining their concerns, fears and anxieties. This is hardly the damning statement it's been made out to be - just as Mitt Romney's shouldn't have been four years ago.
Regarding Hillary's, there is little doubt that Trump has been appealing to an ugly underbelly, but the size of that underbelly is surely not half of his support. However, if one makes one small change to Hillary's statement, exchanging the term "one group" where the word "half" appears, it becomes far harder to take issue with. Here is her entire statement with the proposed change in place. Read it and decide for yourself if it might have been more representative of what's going on than has been reported:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put
“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Note that she points out they are a small, but thanks to Trump, growing part of the American electorate. Note that she qualifies that she is being "grossly generalistic," indicating the statement is not meant to be considered precise. She also points out these deplorables are not reflective of America. She then goes on to empathize with the core of Trump's support in a way that I doubt even Trump could, explaining their concerns, fears and anxieties. This is hardly the damning statement it's been made out to be - just as Mitt Romney's shouldn't have been four years ago.
9/14/2016
The Ugly Underbelly and the Right Side of History
Every society and every segment within a society has its ugly underbelly, Fortunately, most remain rightfully alienated and ostracized. But occasionally some, like the Nazis in 1930's Germany or radical Islamists in recent years, gain ascendancy. They don't arise fully formed, they gain legitimacy slowly. There is nothing genetic that makes any one group or society more immune or more susceptible to their allure. We, as Americans, have no special protection. They are there, we know they are there and we are rightfully repulsed - not just at the thought of their gaining ascendancy, but by the insult that we could somehow be associated with them.
But occasionally, circumstances raise our current anger to a point where it blends with such groups’ constant anger. Lines blur, ideas cross. Along comes someone who stirs the pot in order to exploit that anger. The vast majority still reject the ideals of the ugly underside, but their ugly fight is now somewhat aligned with our righteous fight. The reason for my opposition to immigration may be different from the reason for their opposition to immigration, the reason for my opposition to racial preferences may be different from the reason for their opposition to racial preferences, but…is it more important that I reject their alliance or is it more important that my side win? Sound a little bit familiar?
For me, it is an easy question to answer. Someone must stand up and say, "No! Enough!" It is why I say this is a “right side of history” election. Donald Trump has given tacit approval to the underbelly. Rather than clearly rejecting them, as Bob Dole did when he said the arena exits were clearly marked for anyone who did not ascribe to the ideals of the party of Lincoln during his 1996 GOP acceptance speech, Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to be so clear. Whether that’s because he agrees with those ugly elements, doesn’t understand the threat they present, doesn’t care that they exist or doesn’t realize it’s happening doesn’t matter. It is happening on his watch and he is both responsible for and representative of the problem. And with the hiring of Steve Bannon as his campaign CEO, he is providing them a possible conduit to the most powerful office on earth.
I, for one, reject it. Proudly. Loudly.
But occasionally, circumstances raise our current anger to a point where it blends with such groups’ constant anger. Lines blur, ideas cross. Along comes someone who stirs the pot in order to exploit that anger. The vast majority still reject the ideals of the ugly underside, but their ugly fight is now somewhat aligned with our righteous fight. The reason for my opposition to immigration may be different from the reason for their opposition to immigration, the reason for my opposition to racial preferences may be different from the reason for their opposition to racial preferences, but…is it more important that I reject their alliance or is it more important that my side win? Sound a little bit familiar?
For me, it is an easy question to answer. Someone must stand up and say, "No! Enough!" It is why I say this is a “right side of history” election. Donald Trump has given tacit approval to the underbelly. Rather than clearly rejecting them, as Bob Dole did when he said the arena exits were clearly marked for anyone who did not ascribe to the ideals of the party of Lincoln during his 1996 GOP acceptance speech, Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to be so clear. Whether that’s because he agrees with those ugly elements, doesn’t understand the threat they present, doesn’t care that they exist or doesn’t realize it’s happening doesn’t matter. It is happening on his watch and he is both responsible for and representative of the problem. And with the hiring of Steve Bannon as his campaign CEO, he is providing them a possible conduit to the most powerful office on earth.
I, for one, reject it. Proudly. Loudly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)