One of my more conservative friends who received my post concerning the closed conservative mind replied nearly immediately; I apologize for not publishing and responding as quickly, and plead illness as my excuse.
I’d like to say beforehand that his definition of tribalism and mine are not congruent. I pointed this out and offered to await a revision of his response in light of my definition, but he declined and agreed his initial response could be published.
You may not be looking for a lengthy response, but I disagree with so much of what you say.
First, tribalism is not wrong. It is inevitable. It is even good. We all have some idea of who is “us” and who is “them”. These “tribes” overlap and come in many forms – engineers, Americans, tall people, men, christians, corvair lovers. Most tribes are trivial, some vital. One form of tribe is “family”. I don’t think that you can make a case that treating family better/differently than “outsiders” is “wrong”. Duty and responsibility to family holds society together. That tribalism gives us small groups that take care of each other, and provide a measure of discipline more than any government can do.
As mentioned, our definitions of tribalism are different. This I have no disagreement with, provided that leaders do not replace the functions of truth and honor. That is, they should be expected to measure up to the highest standards of truth and honor, not define the meanings of those words. This might be the central lesson of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The idea that the media is about “truth” is ridiculous. It has never been, and never will be. Throughout history there are numerous stories that have been pushed by “media” that were self serving, malevolent, or pure propaganda. Media in this country exists to make money. This is true even of “public” media, because they serve their donors, and their donors have opinions. It is the job of the citizen to sift through the chaff to get to the wheat. It has always been so, and will always be so.
If the media as truth seekers is silly, then why have a free press at all? Is it all so ridiculous to seek a media which transmits the full facts of a situation, and purveys clearly labeled editorial content as well? That stories are told is both undeniable and highly desirable, given how most human minds function, but the best are fully informed by all the facts, and if they suggest a certain point of view over another, they should do so in a manner testable by the common audience.
The identification of certain past stories as defective and even malevolent, whether they’re from the Fox News of today or by the yellow journalists of WR Hearst encouraging the Spanish-American War does nothing to evaluate the contention under examination; indeed, given human inclination towards errors in their endeavours, it can be seen as a sign that, per normal, we may fall short, but we should continue to strive for that perfection we so happily envision.
However, it’s critical to differentiate between defective and malevolent. The former, so long as it’s recognized as a problem and processes are developed to remediate and remove defective stories, are of limited concern – and if those responses are not undertaken, I should hope the publication is deserted by its readers and soon shutters its doors.
But I worry about the deliberately malevolent stories, as we often see them today. The specialized technician, by which I mean journalist, has the tools to recognize such stories for what they are. Organizations such as Media Matters are in fact specializing such work (although it’s a poor example, as they apparently only watch conservative media, rather than all media, which I would prefer).
But the general audience? I honestly belief that the average audience member does not have the capacity to search out and absorb the information necessary to form judgments about media stories. We are not rational creatures, after all, merely creatures capable of rationality; many of us are controlled by our emotions, which can be deliciously played on by stories in the media written by actors who want specific reactions. That these actors are not acting as ethical journalists is not and should not be expected by members of the free press.
The idea that the Russians did something bad and “interfered” in our election is just silly. Nations try to do “marketing” all the time. They always have, and always will. They often want to push an ideology, like the US did with Radio Free Europe and VOA. Are you going to tell me that VOA was improperly “meddling” in other nations? I thought we – as a nation – (tribe?) believed in free expression and free press. Are American’s prohibited from trying to influence people beyond our borders? Are foreigners prohibited from influencing us? It is illegal for Russian Jews to lobby for help to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Really?
Indeed. In the competition between nations / government systems, one must ask if the same ethical system applies as within each country. Perhaps the ethical system of the Soviet Union should have applied, rather than the United States? I do not see how to properly select one over the other; the fact of the matter is that there is often an existential war, declared or not, progressing between borders, and applying our intra-country ethical system to it seems like a fool’s task. We (for the most part) believe that our system is best, and so we broadcast it, clearly labeled, and we believe there’s is antithetical to ours. Since then we’ve seen the Soviet Union collapse, but now Russia attempts to meddle in our system without attribution.
Our notions of free press originated in a nation into which foreign information penetrated only after traveling an ocean in a dubious sailing ship; perhaps free press needs some change, although I’d indulge in such an exercise only after the consumption of alcohol :). I believe it was developed as a way to strengthen our nation and assumed the agencies would be American; nowadays, they are often international corporations, and sometimes I do actually wonder if that was a wise thing to do, although generally I dismiss those notions using arguments concerning the grave importance of having multiple sources of foreign information – for the same reason we have multiple press organizations.
And, yes, many nations prohibit private American citizens and public American servants from meddling in their politics, as I suspect do we. Whether it’s right or wrong is another question.
The goals of Russia and the United States are not congruent, they are in conflict, at least in my amateur’s view of the situation – which accords with many experts as well. Convincing enough Americans to vote against the hard-ass Clinton vs a Trump who appears to be quite concerned about keeping the Russians happy through subversive means is not a use of the free press (which will ideally try to deliver stories with correct and full facts), because these stories will generate certain emotions in the vulnerable reader while using false facts (a phrase I’ve always found uncomfortable) and omitting true facts, all in the search for turning a voter against the undesired candidate. The fact that the voter lacks the resources to check the facts of all stories makes them vulnerable. See below, also.
I think not. It is the duty of the citizen to sift through the propaganda and find the truth. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, and trying to stop ideas and information from crossing national borders is a fool’s errand. I go farther and suggest that information from “foreign sources” is necessary and valuable. For instance, Al Jazeera should have a place on cable, if it wants. How else do we get a window on the arab media?
But the reference to al-Jazeera is a red herring, is it not? In the ‘market’ of the free press, there is an assumption that each organization has a relatively limited funding source which will run dry, or be withheld, if they fail to attract an audience, and that the audience will demand high quality journalism. My understanding is that al-Jazeera is exactly that. But Russian meddling had no motivation for quality, because quality would ill-serve their goals; the audience merely had to be convinced that the “news” is true when it’s not. A malevolent agency backed by government funding is on a different playing field.
I covered the loss of Al-Jazeera America here. When I want news these days from the Middle East, long time readers know I go to AL Monitor. Back before the Internet, I read World Press Review avidly, but its website is not as interesting as the magazine, sad to say.
Byt the same token the Meuller “investigation” is misguided. Even if it were found that Trump had weekly meetings with Putin and talked over the Russian’s Facebook ads, I don’t think law enforcement should be involved. Next election, I would have some hard questions to ask the candidates, but it is not a legal issue. In this country we have freedom of expression, and the voters decide. That implies that we trust the electorate. That implies that the electorate carries a major burden – to be wise, and diligent. If wisdom and diligence fail, we are in a world of hurt.
Two points.
- The Mueller investigation should be digging for facts, the bedrock by which this all operates. These are facts that may not be available to even the most diligent news agency, because to acquire those facts requires legal capabilities reserved for Special Counsels. The free press becomes involved when those facts (or, perhaps, legal assertions) are made publicly available, for confirmation (if possible) and analysis (factual) and analysis (editorial). So, in fact the Mueller investigation serves the public and free press interests.
- As part of educating the voters and enhancing their diligence, the Mueller investigation is not mis-guided – it’s critical.
I do not believe that application of force, either via prosecutors, FBI agents, new laws, etc, will make up for a failure of the electorate. If we, as a nation (tribe?) fail to carry our burdens, and follow fashion and passion rather than wisdom and truth, it is the electorate that has failed. If the electorate rules, then we’re in trouble.
But the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are not foreign entities – they are tools of the American government and public for discerning what is happening. If law-breaking occurs, they must properly make the proper arrests and bring the proper information to the judiciary for final disposition. As cadres of specialized investigators, what is wrong with using them to check on the behavior of our proposed and current leaders? In fact, the suggestion that we not use the FBI leaves me a little chilled, as it suggests (although I doubt my reader meant to) that the President should not be constrained by the laws which constrain the rest of us.
I believe as Winston Churchill did. He once said (paraphrased) : America will always do the Right Thing, once they have tried everything else.
I’d love to join the reader in that belief, but old WC also responsible for the Gallipoli Campaign during World War I, an awful disaster for the Allies, so I try not to mistake WC for being particularly wise – just very quotable.
That said, the close reporting on the President, the investigations, the recognition of the closure of the conservative mind and its manipulation by malevolent actors and the attempts to break those closures, this is all part of the Americans trying to do the Right Thing. It’s what I worry about and gnaw on and worry the rest of us might also be attracted to such closed ways of thinking – in a world moving so fast that sometimes a single unfortunate error has no potential for recovery from.
And so I hope what I am doing helps us all do the Right Thing. By waking up minds to bad thinking, be they on the right or the left.
In a separate mail, the same reader sends:
Speaking of tribes….
I’ve glanced at the first couple of paragraphs, but haven’t time to read it now. It looks like another out-of-control college, maybe.
