There is a tendency to believe that if the media is biased against conservatives, it can’t also be biased against progressives. This is clearly false, as bias is anchored on difference, and the media has its own political culture to defend.
The media is biased against conservatives in some ways, and some of those biases are reasonable; for example, being pro-environment and therefore biased against those who are indifferent, at best, to the environment. But the media is also biased against progressives, seeming to believe that math works differently when it applies to money, and therefore that a universal healthcare system is rainbows on roses and whiskey-toting kittens.
The right-wing uses this effect as a handy political signal. They made hay of the IRS looking for political groups in social welfare clothing. They made hay of (anti-)social media having a bias. But we know in both cases that the IRS also targeted progressive groups and that Facebook has a bias against progressive criticism.
The constancy of the “Democrats in Disarray” narrative is such that you could set your watch, if you still wore one. The media dutifully revives the notion of the “fiscal conservative” like it’s a civilian costume on a superhero. Poof! Where did the tax-slashing big-spending party go? Nobody here but us arch-penny-pinching conservatives.
We saw the ultimate absurdity of this media tendency on several occasions in Trump’s first year or so. He would read a speech, and the media actually thought it was worth pretending he was presidential. They still give enough gravitas to him, merely for occupying the oval office, that they’ll print his lies as headlines.
Media bias is a thing. It comes in many forms. Not all of them are unreasonable, but every one of them is acknowledgable, and those that aren’t reasonable should be discarded.
Whether it’s Sinclair’s five minutes of hate, Alex Jones’ rants, Russian Federation bots’ tweets, Assange’s leaks, or Fox News’ commentators’ lies, one of the biggest problems today is bad information, media pollution.
And there’s an open question of how to deal with it all. Well, to deal with some of it. Really, it depends whom you ask.
But the best solution is to empower people by giving them greater control over what they read and watch, how they read and watch it, and how they share content with others. That’s a heavy lift, as the same lack of control that empowers the bad actors helps the media conglomerates to exert influences that pad their own pockets.
Copyright law badly needs an update for the modern world, where it’s easy and useful to share content beyond what the strictures of existing law allow. Having greater control over hardware and software that enables media access would shake up the marketplace while letting users spend their finite time more wisely. There is much work needed here, and there is little impetus for the incumbents to roll up their sleeves.
This past week on at least one cable provider The View and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert had their listing data screwed up. That meant that at least some users’ DVRs failed to record James Comey’s book promotions. It’s almost certain to be a screw up in the listing distribution chain, but it is an example of media pollution that people who have paid for the privilege may have missed content they wanted to see. They could jump through hoops to see the interviews, but it’s not in their preferred format or at their preferred time.
The technology industry could have a hand in empowering viewers, but the FCC blocked a proposal to force cable companies to grant access to third party hardware. For whatever reason, the Apples and Googles of the world did not lobby hard enough to make it happen. Missed opportunity. These talking-listening hubs they sell for homes would be much more useful if they allowed for interaction with the real main home hub: the television.
On websites like Twitter and Facebook, the limited access they give their users to filter and augment the feed means that people are forced to dig, scrounge, or put up with so many bad behaviors. Every single time I search on Twitter, I’m bound to find at least one tweet with every hashtag under the sun trying to advertise some stupid thing (or porn).
Now, you say, back when newspapers were the thing, people didn’t have control. But newspapers, I say, weren’t endless streams of data. Paracelsus says the dose makes the poison, and high-volume media vehicles like Twitter increase the dose considerably.
The media companies that aren’t thrilled about the likes of Trump, Fascism, and the Anti-American Way should give more power to the viewer. Make it happen. It’ll make you more money in the long run, and it will help to thwart bad actors like Sinclair in the meantime.
The Republicans took the US Senate, but what will they give back to the country?
You may have heard, the United States Senate will be in Republican hands until at least 2016. You may have heard, it was a bloodbath, a slaughter. One of the two is true, the other is silly.
In 1972 or 1980 the presidential elections could arguably be called slaughters. Republican presidents elected by huge margins (Nixon by about 23 points and Reagan by about ten). But in the 2014 midterms, although the Republicans picked up a number of seats, the spreads were not at levels to be called pummelings.
The media, for their part, don’t care. If a boyscout helps an old lady cross the street, the media would call it a mugging for the ratings. The media is a waste of our time. The result, predicted in advance, was acted as a surprise by the media. There were a few surprises, but all within the margins of prediction.
And now the media trots out their analyses of “what went wrong” or “what went right.” Tries to distill some lasting wisdom from what amounts to business as usual.
In the nine closest races for the United States Senate, the average margin was 4 to 4.5 points. With a turnout likely in the mid-30s, that means if we ever get people to actually vote the results could be wildly different. But it also means that among the close races, where the balance of seats actually changed hands, there was no overwhelming preference.
In other words, the media interprets local elections as though voters have national intentions. They try to pack into the voting public ideas of intention that do not fit there. They harm voter motivation by making it seem like the people who voted against the winners of various races might as well have gone out and flown kites all day.
But that’s not how our country functions. A close race means no mandate. It means that while the balance of power might have swung in the smaller body, all the people continue to be represented. Republicans and Democrats with slim margins, should represent their constituents. Those with big margins should, too. But the media won’t say that.
Even in no-contest states, where the margin might be 20 or even 30 points, where the mandate is clear, there are still a lot of people that voted against the winner. And they should still be represented. The media conflates popular choice of representation with a parlor game where the winner is endowed with only the power of her winnings and not responsibility to use them wisely.
Not so. The duty is to govern, the oath is to do so. The media needs to get its head on straight. They have a bizarre split narrative chalking up the ballot initiatives to being a consolation prize, while painting the elections as a drastic repudiation. People just want a functional government, and the ballot initiatives that passed in most states make that clear.
Let’s just hope the Republicans are smarter than the media. If they are, they may actually prove themselves worthy of their victories.
What should they do? Tax reform. Clear the code out, fund the IRS properly and modernize it. Why they won’t: most of their biggest donors reap huge rewards from the arcane code and broken bureaucracy of the IRS. They want reform (to them meaning tax cuts), but it’s unlikely they want real reform enough to forgo a rate cut to get it.
Financial regulations. Protect the economy from the offenses that caused the recession. Why they won’t: the Democrats barely tried, the Republicans won’t even make an attempt. If they did, they wouldn’t know where to start.
Immigration reform. Build some good-will with hispanics while making for a more robust worker visa program that strengthens the economy. Why they won’t: their base might vote for them less enthusiastically.
Health care reform. The ACA could use some improvements, not abolishment. Why they won’t: they aren’t interested in issues that affect the average citizen, and their base hates the ACA for no good reason.
Climate change. They could introduce some modest legislation that would not be what’s needed but would be a first step. Why they won’t: their party’s position is that it doesn’t exist.
Bolster women. They could strengthen laws protecting women against violence and improving wage-parity. Why they won’t: their base is the employer class, and stronger women means stronger workers, which is seen as dangerous to employers.
Bolster education. Reduce the cost of college, improve the quality of primary schools. Why they won’t: modern businesses think education grows on trees, they don’t train their workforce like they used to, and they certainly don’t want to pay to educate competitors’ workers through public education.
What, oh what, will the Republicans do? This is their chance to step away from the ledge. To actually accomplish something. Even something modest would be a welcome change. The next two years will either be their comeback or their epitaph. Ball is in their court.