A Sound-Bite Society

“Fake news!”

“Fact-check false!”

“Post truth!”

“Alternative facts!”

It doesn’t seem to matter the label, there is a war on what is considered real news. There have been cries that such false news even swayed the election. Facebook and Twitter are making claims of new methods to curb the onslaught. And the bastions of legacy media are madly wringing their hands over threats to their position of being the “Fourth Estate” - a.k.a. “The Protector of the People from Government Overreach”.

Even President Trump recently called CNN “fake news”.

Are we living in an “alternate-truth universe”? Maybe. But I’ll tell you this: this whole thing is the MSM’s (so-called MainStream Media’s) fault. They have performed a Deputy Barney Fife and shot themselves in the foot. Only difference between them and Sheriff Andy Taylor’s number one deputy, was that Barney only had ONE BULLET!

Let me explain.

When you turn on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, or one of the other initialed news networks; or when you see an article from the New York Times, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, or one of the other print news organizations, you will find yourself exposed to one of two things: news or opinions.

There is a big difference between news and opinions. For starters, when I hear “news” I think that it comes from a journalist, the information and sources have been painstakingly vetted, and that the information being presented consists of facts containing as little bias as humanly possible. Opinion is everything else.

Let’s say you turn on CNN. The person on the screen gives you a headline of something happening in the world. That could very much qualify as news. THEN that person turns to a panel of three guests (a.k.a. “experts”) to discuss that headline. THAT, my dear readers, is NOT news, but opinion. If you add up the amount of broadcast time devoted to providing news versus the amount of time devoted to discussions of the news, you will see that calling the network a news network is very misleading. Actually, there is more time devoted to advertisements than to news.

Now let’s say you open your browser to a news feed, or even go directly to the website of a print news organization. Unless that particular news feed groups the various articles into a section specifically called “Opinion”, you have nothing telling you that what you are reading is actually news or opinion. Oh, you can click on the article, and maybe at the very end of the article it might state that this was an opinion piece, but the majority of people do not read every article they encounter all the way through. Some will read the headline and the small blurb underneath, but most won’t even go that far.

When I see an article that comes from the New York Times, should I automatically assume that what I am being exposed to is legitimate news? The New York Times has both legitimate news AND opinion pieces in the same issue.

We can look at this two ways: either the MSM is incompetent (there is so much content out there that the news and opinion pieces are getting globbed together), or they are intentionally misleading.

Have you ever watched a crime drama where the story goes to trial? Ever hear one of the attorneys make a statement where the other attorney yells, “Objection!” and the judge either says, “Over ruled” or “Sustained”? Sometimes the judge will even say, “Strike that from the record.” Why does this happen? Because that first attorney KNOWS that once that statement is out there, and the jury hears it, it can never be retracted. True or false, they have planted the seed that they hope will produce a crop in their favor.

I think the MSM does the same thing. They bombard us with opinion pieces, with usually a lot of repetition, and when challenged (like President Trump did to CNN) they cry foul: “We are legitimate news organizations and demand said respect.”

As I write this, there is a big brouhaha in my Twitter feed of President Trump initializing a “Muslim Ban”. I turned to a couple of my different news feeds and see more of the same from LEGITIMATE NEWS AGENCIES. Truth? President Trump did NOT initialize a “Muslim Ban”. He initialized a ban on travel to and from seven specific countries. This is for a limited amount of time. JUST LIKE President Obama did in 2011 when he initialized a ban on travel to and from Iraq for a period of six month. No one cried “Muslim Ban” when President Obama did it. There has been so much vitriol from the MSM over President Trump (since even before he was President-Elect Trump) that the sound bites rule the day.

Is there a solution to this? Sure: they could label print articles with “news” or “opinion” at the TOP, and the televised media could display the word “news” or “opinion” during the broadcasts. IF they produce something labeled “news” that turns out to be “opinion”, they should be punished accordingly (for instance, libel and slander laws would apply instead of hiding behind a blanket of “freedom of the press” - just like the rest of us).

Or they could simply change their name to something more appropriate, like “My Humble But Accurate Opinion”.

©Emittravel 2017

What Are You Afraid Of?

God, I hate being right all the time. Well, to be perfectly honest, as a married man, I'm just happy to be right once in a while. And in this instance, I can say I nailed it!

What am I talking about? The Democrats and Republicans got their way: The first Presidential debate will not include anyone else outside of the Democrat and Republican candidates. If you read my last blog, “Repeat After Me", you'd know I predicted this.

(If you haven't read my last blog, please take a moment and do just that. This one is kind of a continuation of that one.)

The Presidential Debate Commission (run by the RNC and DNC) concluded that since no other candidates running for President reached 15% in an average of five polls, only Trump and Clinton would be on the debate stage.

Those five polls were “ABC-Washington Post", “CBS-New York Times", “CNN-Opinion Research Corporation", “Fox News", and “NBC-Wall Street Journal".

Instead of repeating myself concerning “polligana", I thought I'd give you a brief education on how polls are conducted. By the way, isn't it funny that the five polls were conducted by the very news organizations that have been trumpeting "bacon" over and over?

Have you ever heard, in reference to a poll, things like “likely female voters aged 22 – 34”? When you do, pay attention. What that means is that the poll information is skewed towards a certain outcome.

When doing a poll, you first come up with a list of numbers to call. You then take that list and “scrub" it to show only those individuals most likely to respond in a certain way. For instance, “people in voting blocks that previously were heavily Democrat or Republican; voter registrations that are either Democrat or Republican – NOT Independent; within a certain age group – like college students or senior citizens; and subscribe to either cable or satellite television".

And yes, that type of information on you is tracked!

The questions asked during a poll are designed to draw a certain response. “Are you a registered voter?” “How likely are you to vote in this election?” “Do you watch CNN, Fox, or MSNBC news?” “Are you more likely to vote for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or a third-party (unnamed) candidate?”

(I'm almost sure that the five polls listed above by the Presidential Debate Commission mentioned Johnson and Stein by name, but again, when the choice is bacon or some other breakfast meat . . . I say "almost sure" because I never seem to be one of those called!)

After the polls, the results are also scrubbed to present the results desired.

By the way, this happens all the time. Do you know why there are scientists that either agree or disagree with man-made climate change? Because they look either at the same data differently, or they look at data that is ignored by the other scientists.

So, because no other candidate was “bacon", and didn't get to 15% averaged in five specific polls, only the Republican and Democrat candidates' views on issues will be heard at the debate. Does that make sense?

Here's a better criteria: A candidate needs to be on the ballot in ALL 50 states. That means a candidate must meet the specific criteria each state determines in order to be on that state's ballot. That means dedicated staff and VOLUNTEERS that can get that done. But that wouldn't work, because the RNC and DNC can't control the outcome. And it's all about control.

I'm a registered Independent voter. I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, or any other designation. And I'm not alone. Over 50% of registered voters are Independent. Think about that. If Independents were ONLY 50% of registered voters, that would mean that LESS THAN 50% are either Republicans or Democrats – COMBINED! Does it make sense to you that the MINORITY parties should be in control of the conversation (the debates)?

To quote Gary Johnson: “We're on the ballot in all 50 states. We're polling higher than Perot did in '92. We're breaking 3rd party fundraising records.”

I say that candidates like Johnson DESERVE to have their opinions heard.

To you Republicans and Democrats I ask, concerning the Presidential debates, "What are you afraid of?"

©Emittravel 2016