To Tell the Truth

To Tell the Truth

Here is the latest bit of news: Americans over fifty are in a constant state of distress. They have witnessed the deterioration of a time worn tradition of believing what they consider to be the news. And, as the nation is confronted by new types of political challenges, older Americans are confronted with the challenges of what to believe or not believe as the truth. Older generations now select news channels in search of sources that they can trust or believe have some degree of honesty.

Surprisingly, this idea of truthfulness in news reporting is not having the same impact on younger Americans. In fact, studies reveal that many younger Americans do not read newspapers or watch the nightly news on broadcast or cable television. Recent events have highlighted that some younger citizens obtain information that they consider news from Internet based sources or shared mass-media. The idea of an unbiased truth has vanished.

How did this happen, and what are the consequences of this trend?  Let’s go back in time and review.

In the golden age of television there was a focus on honesty and integrity in reporting the news. The evening newscasters/journalists were familiar faces.  Indeed, they were not only the spokesmen for the American way, but also for specific American values. ABC, NBC and CBS crafted particular images of American males who served as knowledgeable “fathers of truth and justice.” They did not editorialize, but their tones created empathy or anger concerning specific topics.

By the mid-1960s, these champions of facts faced their greatest tests when questions of honesty and integrity were altered by the details surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and related violence and murders, the nature of urban riots, the Kennedy, Malcolm X, King and Kennedy assassinations, and the nation’s deepening involvement in Vietnam. Often, due to limited information and the need to provide immediate content, the delivery of the news was rendered incomplete-either not clear or entirely true, but yet it still maintained an air of truthfulness.  But as more and more of these incidents occurred, Americans were dazed and confused by the rise of violence and tragedy.  Television, in response, ushered in an “era of disbelief.”  The news was always bad and its content was questionable.  Suddenly everything-any type of incident or event was called into question from the assumption that the moon landings were faked to the idea that Tupac was alive and being hidden from his would-be assassins.  And on the small screen, a new generation of newscasters replaced the friendly faces-the fathers of honesty and straight facts.  The news slowly began to shift and journalists were replaced by pretty faces and opinionated versions of the truth.

This summary highlights two points-that there was gender bias in delivering the print and broadcast news, and the belief that events broadcasted were solely facts and not open to interpretation. However, contemporary news has moved beyond these points.  Not only has the actual news content has been distorted, but the news, whether print or broadcast, is now watered-down and can be delivered from less than reputable sources.  So it should not be surprising that that the numbers watching and/or reading the news is continually decreasing.

            The consequences are also obvious, Americans know less than ever before and are willing to believe things that are not true! However, to consider the idea that Americans know less about national and international events now than they did fifty or sixty years ago seems impossible. The Internet was supposed to make us smarter and provide instantaneous information.  Similarly, the development of continuous cable news was going to make us more informed about the entire world. Yet, there is more of a reliance on “fake news” or “no news” to develop opinions about world events.

The rise of “fake news,” “no news” or “alternative news” works hand in hand with the development of opinionated news. The reader/viewer is being told what to think, and in turn he or she picks the medium that will speak to his or her particular tastes. FaceBook, for example, will provide a person with information based on his/her preferences, just like the choice between televised news on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS or ABC.  Americans can actually tailor the news to match their social, political, economic and racial/ethnic viewpoints.

It is obvious that analytics, not common sense, is providing the context for the current transmission of information. And often the information that guides our decisions and knowledge is either faulty or simply false. But when is a “white lie” simply a lie?

The American politics highlights this situation whether discussing the supporters of particular candidates, the rationale in picking candidates, or our discussions on national health care. Studies, for example, have indicated that people like the Affordable Care Act, but they don’t like Obamacare. Is that a logical conclusion?

And we have seen how things can go wrong when a lie is publicized. The idea that a person would arm himself and travel hundreds of miles to go to a pizza shop in metropolitan Washington to rescue children held in bondage defies our imaginations, but yet it is true.  Edgar Maddison Welch believed that a “sex ring” was being operated from the rear of Comet Ping Pong.  The operators of the ring were alleged to be John Podesta and Hillary Clinton.

The idea that someone believed that two well respected political figures could be guilty of such a crime is upsetting but that’s compounded when we think that Welch thought that only he could save these children. If, in fact, Welch learned about this horrific crime, wouldn’t the authorities also know and wouldn’t they have already rescued the children? Did Welch believe that the police were protecting this “sex ring”?

To me, this story is illustrative of more than false news, but rather “confusing logic”. And it is the existence of such “confusing logic” that is exhibited by so many people, surrogates of the president and his opposition, that is frightening.  That the media hasn’t followed Welch’s story is also baffling, because we know he is not the only one who believed this story!

So let’s move on to a second example.  The hacking of the Republican and Democratic Parties by any entity is a scary event. Yet, the way that Americans have responded to the news of this action is clearly troubling.  Few, Americans are outraged. And, fewer still are demanding aggressive action to determine the source of the hacks.  In contrast, many Trump supporters are downplaying the insinuation that the Russians are involved. More are looking at this as a just punishment of Hillary Clinton for not using the government servers and being a criminal than a weakness in our national security.

And that brings me to my final point. Why is President Donald Trump the least concerned person about the proliferation of “fake news”?  Why doesn’t he see it as a national crisis that needs to be addressed? Perhaps, because he is equally using it to bolster his own causes!  Trump has already demonstrated that he is a master of “confusing logic”.  Over the past weeks, for example, he has shocked the left leaning media with comments concerning his statements and actions.  For example, President-Elect Trump claimed that he was going to the national African American museum in Washington, but was deterred due to his developing feud with Georgia Congressman John Lewis. So instead Trump remained in New York and met with Martin Luther King III on the King Birthday holiday.  Similarly, the night before his inauguration, President-Elect Trump predicted he would have the largest public audience for his inauguration easily surpassing the numbers that witnessed Barack Obama’s 2009 ceremony.  And then on Saturday when the Park Service showed pictures and the media announced that the numbers were not as large, he took the opportunity to denounce the press while speaking to members of the CIA at their headquarters. Doubling down, Trump also denied that he never made negative comments against the intelligence agencies even though there are videotapes of his public comments belittling the various spy agencies. What made the incident seem worse was Trump’s statements were made in front of the wall of honor in the lobby of the Langley headquarters and opposite the quotation “the the truth will set you free”!

Was the president lying, telling a white lie, or telling the truth? By Sunday his handlers had adjusted the comments, but not changed his words by referring the statement as “an alternate truth”!

Throughout the week leading up to the inauguration, President-Elect Trump continued blasting Congressman Lewis for contesting his legitimacy to be president, re-branded Chuck Schumer a “head clown,” and threatened the press for indirectly challenging his presidency with stories of hacking and alleged Russian connections, and for seemingly being sympathetic to the departing President Obama. But, was this because Lewis, Schumer, or the press hated Trump? Was it because they said something dishonest or untrue about him or his character?

In reality, it was Trump who spent years challenging President Obama’s citizenship hence contesting Obama’s claim to the presidency. It was Trump who called Lewis “all talk and no action” suggesting that Lewis had not done anything since the 1960s. And it was Trump who attacked Schumer for his criticism of abandoning the Affordable (Health) Care Act without a replacement.

Was Trump using an alternate truth, spreading false news, or using confusing logic? Is there a difference between Trump’s pronouncements and real facts?  I think that there is a difference, and I think it is not because the president is confused, crazy or egotistical.  It is because Trump is developing a tactical tool.  He is hoping to win the sympathy of his supporters and others to insist that Lewis, Schumer and the press are wrong.  In response to Trump’s constant production of “fake news” and random and awkward statements, all sides of the traditional media are misconstruing these incidents as major events. In the Lewis case, the left thinks that Trump has attacked an icon, and the right thinks that Lewis is not respecting the presidency. Yet, what is lost in the “confusing logic” is the real news, the Congressional hearings on Trump’s cabinet picks.  Trump has picked a handful of contradictory figures to assist him in running the government.  A businessman who doesn’t believe in climate change, a general whose thoughts are not in line with current military thinking, a banker who was responsible for hundreds of foreclosures, a doctor who will be in charge of public housing but lacks the credentials for the position, a doctor/congressman who wants to end Obamacare, a businessman who doesn’t believe in creating a livable minimum wage, a socialite who wants to destroy public education, and a former presidential candidate who wanted to eliminate the department he is going to head. Trump is simply defecting criticism of his choices to rally the troops to his side to defend his picks when some are clearly lacking the honesty and integrity that we hope they will have.

To gain additional support, Trump has to increase the tentacles of confusing logic.  This trend continues as Trump decries Lewis’ legacy in the House and additionally describes his district as poor and crime infested. And although the Atlanta Constitution attempted to correct Trump, the president continued to hammer away.

Rather than retreat, Trump expanded the argument by bringing other issues into the discussion. And he has made it racial. First, by continually describing the black community as poor and crime infested.  Yes, it is a generalization, but it is also an example of fake news. Although there are poor African Americans, there are millions of working class, middle class and wealthy African Americans who do not live in crime infested neighborhoods.  And second, by continuing to meet with African Americans of lessor importance every time he gets into a “racial mess.”  Meeting with Dr. King’s son did not resolve his fight with John Lewis, and meetings with Don King, Kanye West, and Steve Harvey does not make blacks decide to think Trump is a “good guy”.  

This pattern of making a false or contradictory statement is clearly causing the media to use fact checkers to focus on every statement uttered by President Trump. And in the process it is hard to keep pace with what he is saying as well as what he is doing.  For those over 50, the news has lost its value as Trump’s “Trumpisms” are far worse than Dan Quayle’s mistaken statements, Gerald Ford’s clumsiness or Nixon’s enemies list.  The daily news is full of lies, irrelevant comments, and broad denials and attacks. It is simply an alternative truth.

If America is going to subjected to a daily dose of “Trumpisms” and “confusing logic” to correct or justify these statements, the nation, particularly the older groups, are going to be exhausted. To characterize the press as evil, vilify illegals for voter fraud and crime, place all Muslims and blacks under the same microscopes promotes not only more of this “confusing logic,” but a nation that will develop a profound distrust of others who don’t share the same religious, racial, cultural or political views. Instead of uniting Americans this administration will systematically divide them.  And, then it will be free to conduct sweeping and wholesale political changes.  

Just think, it all started when someone didn’t tell the truth, the whole truth so help me God!