Topic 2: Fake News
When it comes to the question, "What do you think when President Trump labels particular news stories or news companies "Fake News"? -I am inclined to say that I don't have a stance on it one way or the other. I do speculate that it is irresponsible for anyone to say that "all media" is bad. I also think it is very irresponsible to exclude all the evidence for such a claim however there may be a philosophical answer to it. I will attempt to articulate why by answering this question and the subsequent questions in relation to it as a whole rather than parts because, in my opinion, all things are connected whether those connections are apparent or loose or strong like concrete.
So here I go. Every lie has a bit of truth in it and it is the president's right to say whatever he pleases. According to Lara Trump on Fox News on May 05, 2017, in and article named, "All mainstream TV networks block paid campaign ad setting a chilling precedent against free speech", "Apparently, the mainstream media are champions of the first amendment only when it serves their own political views."
First, I do not know what the president was trying to say and whether or not his words violated national security or the safety of the public, but assuming he was within the guidelines, It appears suspicious that he was censored and that gives him credibility. Some evidence of his claims are clearly visible however in an article published on June 29, 2017 by the New York Times (nytimes.com). "The President Versus 'Fake News,' Again" writer Bret Stephens wrote, "The story failed to undergo CNN's usual vetting procedures and was later retracted. For good measure, the three journalists behind the story resigned and the network apologized to Scaramucci, who was gracious in accepting it."
Although retracted, the story still has negative consequences. Tie the story with Wikileaks, and the public trust for media, "the instrument for delivering government news", will continue to decrease. I think we should all investigate the close relationship of government and media to begin with. One cannot help but wonder is the "latest" is an attempt to separate government from media- that is, is if the two are considered together.
Question 2
I do not think that President Trump is doing the American public a disservice at all. I think it is time for the people to take responsibility for what they believe to be true and that should not be hinged on what some "authority" says to begin with. Additionally, it was the media who censored trump, rather than responding with a rebuttal of sound factual evidence. The New York times in the aforementioned question response, cleverly used the retraction of the story as justification for their legitimacy. When we look a little closer, CNN made a mistake and did not acknowledge that mistake until they were called on it. I find it hard to believe that the editor in chief did not review what was to be published by the obvious credible journalist, especially since there were three of them.
I think it is important to note here that news companies survive because they make money and just as wealthy land owners made the laws in the past, today they own the conglomerates. That being said, I think that keeping the "powers that be" transparent and accountable is a great thing for the public which is just as vital as the first amendment.
All the above aside, I suspect that the agenda of both media and government is in delivering the message that the two are separate and I do not think this is the case.
Question 3
Use some examples that demonstrate that President Trump is just telling it like it is or where you think our democracy is strengthened or weakened by the current state of affairs regarding the media and journalism.
Disclaimer: First of all, I really like and respect journalism and I find the subject most fascinating. Secondly, I would not normally write my internal thoughts about the question to the public at large but in the interest of self-interest, by completing the assignment for this class, I exercise my first amendment rights.
Okay, first of all democracy, according to the Google dictionary, is, "Control of an organization or group by the majority of it's members." Capitalism, according to the same dictionary, is, "An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than the state."
It seems to be a conflict of interest when private owners become the elected officials or representatives. Anyone contrary to the agenda, "to make a profit", are, as seen through our history, controlled until they disappear. In chapter 3, pg. 92, 3rd edition of Media Essentials by Richard Campbell, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos, it is written that, "Responsible Capitalism, assumes that the purpose of business is not to maximize profits but to create increased prosperity for all."
That being said, there seems to be a contradiction in definitions. With so few owners of conglomerates and all the same corporations umbrella'd under them, I find it hard to not suspect that most, if not all, are members under the same club. For this reason, I think the bigger picture is cleverly hidden which is the idea of creating opposition which creates distraction. After all--prosperity for all- although idealistic, is not the reality of the world we live in day in and day out. We can see the "real world" by defining wealth inequality, also known as the wealth gap. According to Wikipedia, "Just prior to President Obama's 2014 state of the union address, media reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nations wealth: the bottom 80% own 7%: similarly, but later, the media reported, the "Richest one percent in the United States, now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent," More recently, in 2017, an Oxfam study found that eight rich people, six of them Americans, own as much combined wealth as "half the human race."
To sum this up, when the evidence of normal peoples lives or the 90% are measured against the democratic/capitalist model, it is not hard to imagine that public trust diminished long ago by the educated. Directly answering this question then required a small piece of background information. I do not think therefore that we should lose sight of the real reason in loss of trust in the media because we can readily see who owns it. In so far as President Trumps role as to whether democracy is strengthened or weakened by the current state of affairs regarding media and journalism, I cannot answer for I do not know his true agenda. I do feel that democracy will be strengthened by media and journalism when those things embrace and report the news void of advertisements disguised as political agendas which, at least no one I talk to on political science matters, trusts to begin with.
So here I go. Every lie has a bit of truth in it and it is the president's right to say whatever he pleases. According to Lara Trump on Fox News on May 05, 2017, in and article named, "All mainstream TV networks block paid campaign ad setting a chilling precedent against free speech", "Apparently, the mainstream media are champions of the first amendment only when it serves their own political views."
First, I do not know what the president was trying to say and whether or not his words violated national security or the safety of the public, but assuming he was within the guidelines, It appears suspicious that he was censored and that gives him credibility. Some evidence of his claims are clearly visible however in an article published on June 29, 2017 by the New York Times (nytimes.com). "The President Versus 'Fake News,' Again" writer Bret Stephens wrote, "The story failed to undergo CNN's usual vetting procedures and was later retracted. For good measure, the three journalists behind the story resigned and the network apologized to Scaramucci, who was gracious in accepting it."
Although retracted, the story still has negative consequences. Tie the story with Wikileaks, and the public trust for media, "the instrument for delivering government news", will continue to decrease. I think we should all investigate the close relationship of government and media to begin with. One cannot help but wonder is the "latest" is an attempt to separate government from media- that is, is if the two are considered together.
Question 2
I do not think that President Trump is doing the American public a disservice at all. I think it is time for the people to take responsibility for what they believe to be true and that should not be hinged on what some "authority" says to begin with. Additionally, it was the media who censored trump, rather than responding with a rebuttal of sound factual evidence. The New York times in the aforementioned question response, cleverly used the retraction of the story as justification for their legitimacy. When we look a little closer, CNN made a mistake and did not acknowledge that mistake until they were called on it. I find it hard to believe that the editor in chief did not review what was to be published by the obvious credible journalist, especially since there were three of them.
I think it is important to note here that news companies survive because they make money and just as wealthy land owners made the laws in the past, today they own the conglomerates. That being said, I think that keeping the "powers that be" transparent and accountable is a great thing for the public which is just as vital as the first amendment.
All the above aside, I suspect that the agenda of both media and government is in delivering the message that the two are separate and I do not think this is the case.
Question 3
Use some examples that demonstrate that President Trump is just telling it like it is or where you think our democracy is strengthened or weakened by the current state of affairs regarding the media and journalism.
Disclaimer: First of all, I really like and respect journalism and I find the subject most fascinating. Secondly, I would not normally write my internal thoughts about the question to the public at large but in the interest of self-interest, by completing the assignment for this class, I exercise my first amendment rights.
Okay, first of all democracy, according to the Google dictionary, is, "Control of an organization or group by the majority of it's members." Capitalism, according to the same dictionary, is, "An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than the state."
It seems to be a conflict of interest when private owners become the elected officials or representatives. Anyone contrary to the agenda, "to make a profit", are, as seen through our history, controlled until they disappear. In chapter 3, pg. 92, 3rd edition of Media Essentials by Richard Campbell, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos, it is written that, "Responsible Capitalism, assumes that the purpose of business is not to maximize profits but to create increased prosperity for all."
That being said, there seems to be a contradiction in definitions. With so few owners of conglomerates and all the same corporations umbrella'd under them, I find it hard to not suspect that most, if not all, are members under the same club. For this reason, I think the bigger picture is cleverly hidden which is the idea of creating opposition which creates distraction. After all--prosperity for all- although idealistic, is not the reality of the world we live in day in and day out. We can see the "real world" by defining wealth inequality, also known as the wealth gap. According to Wikipedia, "Just prior to President Obama's 2014 state of the union address, media reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nations wealth: the bottom 80% own 7%: similarly, but later, the media reported, the "Richest one percent in the United States, now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent," More recently, in 2017, an Oxfam study found that eight rich people, six of them Americans, own as much combined wealth as "half the human race."
To sum this up, when the evidence of normal peoples lives or the 90% are measured against the democratic/capitalist model, it is not hard to imagine that public trust diminished long ago by the educated. Directly answering this question then required a small piece of background information. I do not think therefore that we should lose sight of the real reason in loss of trust in the media because we can readily see who owns it. In so far as President Trumps role as to whether democracy is strengthened or weakened by the current state of affairs regarding media and journalism, I cannot answer for I do not know his true agenda. I do feel that democracy will be strengthened by media and journalism when those things embrace and report the news void of advertisements disguised as political agendas which, at least no one I talk to on political science matters, trusts to begin with.
Rusty,
ReplyDeleteI like how you started out your post with the intro mentioning that all things are connected, whether it is realized or not. I think a lot of people, including Trump, doesn't see his connections with the issues he is causing with all of the fake news attacks. I do disagree with you that Trump isn't doing the public a disservice. Although freedom of speech is important, Trump takes advantage of that and blurts out whatever comes to mind. A lot of people to take advantage and wrongly use the First Amendment rights, but Trump, being the president, definitely does not set a good example for this. I think your opinions and statements are all backed up by evidence which is good, it shows you did your research, we just have a difference of opinions. Great detailed post though!
Thank you Kendra, maybe we actually agree if you consider the context. When people, whether in power or not, reveal themselves, it helps the public. We certainly understand that we may not agree with what people say but they have the right to say it- good or bad. I am not sure their should be a limit in which people can take advantage of the First Amendment right with the exception of endangering people or breaching confidential information. Again though, notice that I did say people need to inform themselves and not just believe everything they hear from someone in power or influence. I do appreciate the dialectic however very much. Some people have mentioned to me that I am anti-government so I suppose that I should clarify that I am only anti-corruption no matter what the form of government is present. Lastly, since there is no up without a down and no inside without an outside, you are right in saying that he has done a disservice. There are always two sides of the coin. Thanks again.
ReplyDelete