Yesterday I was eating lunch at a local restaurant and caused the people seated in the booth next to me to pick up their food and move. My transgression? I was reading the New York Times.
They groaned and huffed as soon as I sat down and flipped open my laptop. I guess they could see the headline. It probably said something about Trump. I asked if there was a problem (worried perhaps that I forgot to brush my teeth or change my underwear). The man pointed to the NYT article on my screen: “how can you read that crap?”
I’d actually thought about that question a lot, especially after reading Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, so it was game on, and I responded to their query with a bit more enthusiasm then they expected:
“I read outlets like the NYTs because they use standards of professional journalism developed in the good-old-days of the 1940s and 50s.”
I could see their eyes dart around with a bit of uncertainty.
“Those were the days when news outlets corrected one another based on reality. Today there still exist a constellation of media outlets that police one another with reality-based fact-checking. They call out and chastise factual mistakes, reward and acknowledge scoops, and thus create a self-corrective system that helps readers and viewers understand the world. The New York Times is part of that system.”
“I assume you watch Fox News?,” I asked.
I paused to take a breath while they blinked at me, mouths agape. They cautiously nodded yes, not wanting to give me too much encouragement.
“Fox is part of the constellation of news and social media outlets that focus on ideology not reality. They correct one another based on inconsistency. They critique people who say or write anything that contradicts political dogma, such as worrying climate change, questioning Donald Trump, or recognizing that America’s growth and power depend upon immigrants and immigration.”
“You can recognize media captured by this propaganda loop because they don’t debate facts, they just dismiss facts as fake news. They attack the messenger instead of the message. They question the speaker’s credibility, patriotism, honesty and character. They are very, very tribal and use a lot of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ language. Rather than focus on reality and question the situation, they instead argue about supporting or not supporting the ideas that define group membership.”
“You can hear it if you just listen!”
Their mouths were now closed and expressions stern. They exchanged glances, quick nods, and were soon off to the other side of the restaurant. My food arrived and the omelet tasted great; I had worked up an appetite.