As the stories pile in this month, it can be enough for any overwhelmed individual to unplug. Everywhere we look appears to be a bit more tragic than what could be defined as normal. Every dark tale seems to have an even darker storyteller focusing on key details, or completely omitting other more important ones.
Such storytellers can lead us to believe that an SUV could be capable of reckless murder in a public space. While the driver itself absolved of wrongdoing, by virtue of not being highlighted by the narrator. Or that an AR-15 crossed state lines to massacre innocent civilians protesting, without any investigation as to the carrier, the inferno surrounding him, or the malfeasance of the politicians leveraging his plight. We are at a time, where the reality that is presented, does not fully align with the story we are expected to believe.
Never before has proper Journalism been more important.
Of course, we all have someone in our family who complains about how the news has become biased nowadays. They will typically be quite proud to announce “Back in my day, we had Walter Cronkite and he gave us the news straight from the horse’s mouth!”
The man they refer to was certainly a memorable force in mainstream media. Having clawed his way from a small-time radio station in Kansas City, all the way to the United Press International, he was quite the powerhouse in story-telling. But then again, that was his role. To report the information that was most pertinent to the American people, without a perceived bias that could light a fire in a country that was already incredibly divided over many of the same issues we fight over today.
While it is easy to look at the past with rose-tinted glasses. We tend to ignore the reality of the way information is presented. Back then the average American received their information from one of only a handful of media sources. Ordinary working-class people didn’t tend to look into any of the information at more than face value, because why would anyone need to? Trusted sources were giving people critical information in a convenient manner to alleviate any anxiety of the social and cultural rumblings around them. There were little-to-no assumptions that corrupt politicians would have extended relationships with these outlets that could help sway votes towards certain policies. After all, how could the news be used to mislead people?
Fast forward to today. A much more tumultuous time for journalism. As a matter of fact, I have a difficult time referring to these same corporate outlets as “Journalists.” As I watch more and more information with my own eyes, I get to watch how these outlets twist the story just enough that the average person is left with a very grim outlook on the world around them. If anyone ever wonders why the previous administration coined the term “Fake News” it’s because of this very phenomenon. There is a reason why it worked. While I may not be the biggest fan of our last president’s methods, I will certainly agree that the corporate press does not feel like a uniting force for good. Or at least not the same “common good.”
It’s that difference in that “common good” that I make my case. It’s hard to fight anyone who believes they are doing the right thing. From my perspective, corporate journalism tends to present itself as a road to activism. I would like to try and present a strong-man case for this, as I don’t believe this is something you can fault those individuals themselves for.
One of the many stories that highlighted this to me was the Parkland School shooting back in 2018. I remember at the time thinking very distinctly, that this was an absolute tragedy. I also had the feeling that politicians were going to try and use this as a surefire reason to talk about gun control. However, what I saw baffled me. I watched quite a few interviews and conversations with the press. What I noticed were the journalists themselves had a hard time remaining unbiased about the tragedy they were reporting on.
Which I could relate to. If I was passionate about a topic, it’s often difficult to contain my own remorse and remain unbiased in the face of pressure. But these journalists weren’t focused as much on the tragedy, but on how we can enact change in our environment to prevent these things from happening in the future. A noble cause, but one that had me scratching my head. If the people reporting the story could influence political decisions, what would stop them from doing this for other events that the average person may not agree with? Something mundane, like the removal of statues of historical figures? What happens if the ones telling the story, disagreed with the opinions of those to whom they were reciting the story? It would be unimaginably simple to just highlight only the problems they disagreed with, and ignore any other details that worked against their case.
Do you see where I am going with this?
It seems quite apparent to me, that if your job is to highlight some of the darkest depravity of the human condition, it would become very easy to understand what values you may hold, and how you plan to hold them. Focusing on certain events more than others could lead one to fight for something more “just” than their very position. Despite the actual role of “reporting the truth.” It’s an idea that is very concerning to me because it can lead to a very strange world. One where only people who agree on a topic, have a voice, and those who disagree, or even just skeptics, are left as an oppositional force to the narrative at large.
To not agree that this is leading to massive division, would be to ignore all of the past couples of years entirely. There has been an explosion in the way we receive our news these days, both good and bad. The amount of “independent journalists” is staggering. Everybody with a cellphone and a passion for change can become their own media entity. While it is true that we are heading to a more decentralized method of distributing information, we are also headed into a future where omitting any key details could lead to unspoken tragedy. It has never been more impactful to speak the truth wholeheartedly as a mission statement, rather than just a political strategy. This is a large part of the reason I have found it so necessary to explain my perspective in this blog.
The problem is, we tend to demonize information that does not line up with what we currently believe. Whether or not the journalists are telling the truth, the danger in the assumption of the lie leads to a complete and total disregard for normality. I may not be the biggest fan of the government, but I do dread the day where people stop listening to anyone with the title of expert, because of the ideology they may hold. It’s both a cultural war and a complete admonishment of ethics. Worse yet. I watch real local journalists on a daily basis that put themselves on the line to make sure the information portrayed is accurate, despite what that may mean for their social standing. It’s a scary future to think where people don’t trust their local news outlets, simply because they are split politically.
And instead of trying to support the honesty behind journalism, our biggest corporations are throwing fuel on a massive fire.
On Tuesday, Twitter decided to throw an absurd amount of fuel on the fire. Following the abdication of the former CEO Jack Dorsey. Twitter announced that along with their new CEO, they would ban sharing photos and videos of anyone without their permission. Given Twitter’s bias in how they ban across the platform, this does not sound very heartwarming, especially given the nature of our current media
Deciding to ban the distribution of information could be one of the most damaging moves in a world where people are struggling to find the truth in all of the lies. A lot of the reasons I was attached to the Rittenhouse case, was because of the footage I had witnessed shared through Twitter, as the corporate media told an entirely different story. In fact, the only information I had about any of the violent riots of last year, was because of independent journalists on Twitter and Twitch.
Don’t get me wrong. I do understand why these activists would omit key information to help what they believe is a noble cause. I also understand that there is a lot of money involved in making sure that only certain topics are discussed and to make sure that certain world-views are maintained by the few people who still rely on these outlets. I don’t refer to these media outlets as evil by any means, just tragically misguided. Their audience tends to be an echo chamber that does not dare to challenge the morality or the ideals of the individuals presenting the carefully curated story.
It takes a lot of work for a journalist to follow all of the individual pieces of information available in the digital world. When your job is to report the facts, it can be easy to miss key evidence that explains the story at large. The beauty of our system now is that the entire public can see the story presented through this massive information platform that is the internet. This allows the public to see where the activists lie and where they tell the truth
Spoiler alert, they tend to never tell the full truth. That could scare away way too much of their audience
But if we continue to let these corporations stop the distribution of information… Then how can anyone tell who is actually telling the truth? Real unbiased Journalism is nearly impossible to come by in a world that is quite literally filled to the brim with injustice. No matter what side you are on, you don’t have to look far to see the tragedy of life. Any decent human would want to shed light on the suffering even if only to illuminate the burden of humanity.
But when we leave journalism to the role of a privileged few, who is to decide what injustice is allowed to surface in the mind of the average person. This is quite literally my biggest fear, as I recognized early in my life, that no single person has the answer to any problem. It’s through collective understanding that we are able to navigate complex situations and moral panic.
“Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.” – Albert Camus
This is why I fully believe that the answer to this crazy situation is to focus our attention locally towards those we know who are objectively telling the truth, no matter what they have to risk. Only by following what is certain, can we decipher what is actually going on around us. This doesn’t mean that we should treat everyone who would disagree as a liar, because mistakes are natural and made often. We should hold the truth to the highest standing we can as a moral objective. We should aim for a culture where everyone is allowed to the table, even if just to say they wish to be excluded from the table. The more people who are allowed to present their stories, the better understanding we have of each other.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
– Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Thank you for reading
-The Young Fool
