Media Stories

            News stories.

            These are the stories from real life... or are they?

            On social media and at social gatherings, you hear a lot of complaints about "the media."

            For example, I recently heard someone cheering the U.K. for "taking their country back" by leaving the European Union.  This particular framing of the issue was challenged by discussion of some of the concessions the U.K. had wrested from the E.U. in  its initial negotiations for entry way back when.

            In the wake of these points, someone observed: "The Media don't tell us these things! We don't know the realities."

Media's birth: Gutenberg printing

            It is true that the media in the U.S. tends to focus on the U.S., some outlets more than others. People who spend a lot of time with Fox News jabbering away in the background may not be getting the best information. Still, at least as the Brexit vote was approaching, CNN had fairly good coverage of both the campaign and concerns (if the archive listings can be believed), as did NBC news. The Public Broadcasting Service offered several discussions about it, though apparently not a lot before the vote.

            That's the passive side of it, what turns up if you just turn on the radio or T.V.

            But we live in a world where you can actually learn about something if you're curious about it. In the case of Brexit, if one were truly interested, there were ample discussions available from videos of debates on line, and from British newspapers. I was in the UK not long before the vote, and recall some exhaustive pro and con articles in British newspapers.  I suspect these articles were on line at the time, as well. The New Yorker did some first rate reporting on the issue, and so did (not surprisingly) The Economist.

            I'd have to say that the media did do its job.

"Gift Horse," Trafalgar Square, London, U.K.

            Did the voters do their job? There's some question about that in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.  Not a few voters reported their vote was meant as a protest; they didn't really think Britain would leave the E.U. In fact, they weren't sure that's what they wanted, really.

            Surprise!

            Here in the U.S., the current presidential campaign has several story lines running through it, but from what I've seen, the echo chamber is working overtime. That is, people seem to be listening only to those who agree with their preconceptions.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of thinking going on about substance.

            Some of the statements being made by candidates or surrogates don't sound quite right if you do think about it. I've started trying to find out what they might mean. Turns out there are web sites that let me do that! With a little typing, I can go to PolitiFact.com or FactCheck.org and look at what researchers have determined to be the truth or lack thereof. These are non-partisan sites; they've no ax they're grinding. (For a line-up of fact checkers, go to http://www.technorms.com/454/get-your-facts-right-6-fact-checking-websites-that-help-you-know-the-truth)

            If we want the media to do its job, we need to do ours: we need to support the fact checkers and the news organizations that do the hard work of reporting and telling the true stories, even if this reporting contradicts our preferred view of what is happening.  We need to listen to other voices. We need to listen with a critical ear.  We need to see memes as reflections, NOT as fact or news.

            We need, in short, to write our  own political story. Whether it's a farce or a tragedy is in our hands. There's no do-over.