Glen -
I appreciate the very clear and positive (albeit blunt) way you framed
Dave's post, hopefully allowing the rest of us (including Dave) to
continue the conversations implied in a positive and coherence-seeking
manner. I think Dave's rant referenced a number of important issues
worth discussing.
Dave -
I appreciate your checking in and letting us know you had arrived safe
and sound and now "settled". There was plenty in your trip-report that
resonated with me, even if your conclusions left me somewhat baffled or
in direct opposition. I'd like to be able to discuss those topics
openly and not risk A) telling you that you are patently wrong(-headed)
in your observations and opinions; nor B) risk appearing to accept some
of the assertions which I patently do not.
All -
Here is my best shot at outlining (succinctly?) the issues I think Dave
raised that I'd like to see discussed further:
1. I believe there is a value to the amateur-ethnographic approach to
taking the pulse of the people anywhere we might travel. I also
prefer to travel by secondary highways, listen to local radio, read
local dailies/weeklies, and listen in on local cafe and tavern
conversations along the way. I am not a trained ethnographer nor
anthropologist. I believe the more familiar the ethnographic
landscape, the easier the work. The more unfamiliar, the more
opportunity there may be to learning something new. In both cases,
there is a big risk of confirmation bias.
2. I think "the fourth estate" is an important part of society IMO...
Tom and others can probably speak more eloquently and elaborately to
this, but it is worth noting that it was our very first Amendment to
the Constitution... what it takes to keep such *healthy* is
another question. Shrieking "fake news!" back and forth across the
aisle is either a symptom or a cause of what seems to be an ailing
if not failing 4th estate.
3. I have some experience (working in local Radio in the early 70's and
investigative journalism in the late 70's) and basis to believe that
Local Media is no less biased nor more given to reporting facts than
the National Media. At *best*, a local bias (aligned with local
ownership and/or local advertisers, real or aspirational) replaces
the national bias. I believe bias is always nearly invisible to
those who share the bias in place. At *worst* the local bias is in
lock-step with the national bias which is often not just handed down
from the affiliated network/syndication but in fact through a media
conglomerate consolidation which has gobbled up a huge portion of
the local print and broadcast media. This often comes without the
change of ownership being made strongly evident to the consumers of
that media. My personal bias/opinion is that the Right has done a
bang-up job of gathering up local media around the country in the
last decade or three to the purpose of subtly influencing public
opinion, in a similar way to the way they have tried to hijack
social media.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/media-consolidation-means-less-local-news-more-right-wing-slant
4. Cable News' greatest aspiration leads to what might be their deepest
flaw which is that they are a 24/7 operation with what appears to be
a huge budget. Whether Fox or CNN or MSNBC/CBSN/ABC?? they have
lots of time and lots of budget to fill in between what conventional
commercial TV spills out for us in roughly 3 1 hour time slots
(Breakfast, Dinner, Bedtime?). So they repeat the same reporting
over and over (in case you missed something) and lace in a LOT of
commentary.
5. Alternative Media has grown as we have lowered the bar to entry.
What used to be the province of pamphleteers, limited distribution
periodicals and pirate radio has exploded with the internet. For
better and worse. For any opinion you might choose to hold, I
believe you can find an "authoritative" source to back it up
somewhere on the internet.
6. Civil War. Dave was astute or lucky or cynical enough to predict
Trump's ascendancy while many of us were rolling our eyes and trying
to imagine "really?" as "the Clown" (as Dave now calls Trump) rolled
over the top of the rest of the Republican field of presidential
hopefuls, and then blustered his way nose to nose with "the
Hillary", ultimately pulling the electoral college rug out from
under her. Trump's divisive style and his opposition's
polarization away from his ideas/opinions/policies has only
polarized us more (IMO). Some (including Dave I think) would
suggest that the popular media is amplifying that polarization. I
am left wondering how real and how necessary this divide is, and how
much of it can/could be healed with a serious and applied effort?
Or is Dave's prediction of a continued polarization unto breakdown
inevitable?
- Steve
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
