Focused Read in 3-4 minutes
Personal Commentary ~ Be in Charge of Your News
& Always Ask Yourself: Is it True?
...and is
that truth demonstrated by legitimate sourcing and accurate language?
If the
answer is no, then it is not credible reporting, it is imagination.
As participants in our own Democratic Republic we
have always had a responsibility to do the best we can to make sure
what we are reading and viewing and listening to and sharing is true,
particularly if we are going to use second hand information to form opinions for the purpose of the vote because systems are only as good as those who run them and we are in charge of who runs our government.
And that is especially true in an era where the uninformed and
the misinformed can be found across the board, including in our
representatives in government and in our media outlets. It is also especially true in an Era of Trump GOP, strategic political propaganda because, to my knowledge, political propaganda has never been beneficial to The People.
We
can't do a mass media class here but we can discuss some tips for
being relatively certain that the information we are consuming and sharing is
reliable.
As
an advocate for our Democratic Republic and as a former journalist who believes an informed
electorate is critical to the success of our nation, the intersection
of activism, truth in reporting and media became
critical to my work as a volunteer supporting President Obama,
Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party by
prodding main stream media to provide truth to the citizenry, i.e. to do their job, as charged in the First Amendment, so
the electorate can, in turn, do their job and vote responsibly.
I point out untruth and I share truth with main stream media, as best I can, and I ask them for truth, as well.
I do that because I don’t take main stream media’s role in our system lightly. Some of those roles include: Chronicler of the 1st
draft of history, fully informing the electorate and providing a market place of opinions via letters-to-the-editor,
columns, talking heads, radio and fact-based news stories -- all adding
to the knowledge base of the voters.
Often times, I am annoyingly purist
about it because I do hold messengers of the news to a high standard, most notably, to standards established by the Society of
Professional Journalists and if they don’t meet those standards the truth of their work is suspect. Some of those standards are:
ONE
I expect journalists to believe “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”
(If material presented is not relevant to what I need to know to be a good citizen, then I will proceed with caution.)
TWO
I expect journalists to seek the truth and to provide fair, accurate and comprehensible accounts of that truth.
(And, for me, that means if you don’t have the truth don’t report.)
THREE
I expect journalists to source their information (and that would be from more than one source, thank you very much).
(I worked in a small community newspaper and our reporters had to have two sources or they had no story.)
FOUR
I expect journalists to identify sources and to grant anonymity sparingly. (Speaks for itself.)
FIVE
I expect journalists to give voice to the voiceless – official and unofficial. (At least sometimes!)
SIX
I expect journalists to disclose conflicts.
Call
me naive but I believe mainstream media’s primary role is to
perform a service that is capable of assisting in the maintaining and
preserving the United States of America.
Following fits and starts the U.S. Government elevated the importance of the press via the 1st Amendment, further enhancing its status via preferential postal rates to spread of information.
I
believe our Founding Fathers were clear on the important role
communication played in organizing a revolution and a new form of
government even if they may not have been as clear on the boundaries
between truth, opinion, campaigning, etc., themselves.
But,
by the late 19th
Century, the New York Times owner declared news to be impartial; the
Progressive Era ushered in watchdog journalism and; the early 20th
Century Communications Act set the tone for a main stream that served “the
public interest, convenience and necessity.”
Today, main stream media has stumbled and misplaced clarity on the boundaries that separate truth, opinion,
campaigning, advertising, etc..
As a result, it is more important
than it has ever been that we accept responsibility for critical
thinking, for separating fact from fiction.
I
am of the old school of print journalism, editing and critiquing and I can be a stickler for sources, facts and language. It is what tells
me if I should consider a reporter/talking head to be credible.
As a former journalist, I have extremely high standards for
what I consider to be news. As noted above my overriding question
is – Is it true? – and I mentally and rapidly discard a lot of
information, so take the best and leave the rest in the context of
what works for you in determining what is true.
For example
qualifying language often leads to my discounting and perhaps
discarding reporting pretty quickly because, in my experience, it is typically used when the reporter doesn't have the facts but continues
to "report" anyway.
So, when I see
language like -- appears, suggests, indicates, could, may, mostly, etc.
I move into my #DistrustAndVerify mode and depending on how heavy
handed the qualifying language is I might discard it immediately.
In a real news
department, something doesn't appear to be blue – it is blue or it
is not. Someone doesn't suggest that he or she will vote one way or
another – he or she says how he or she will vote. A person doesn't
indicate he or she will retire – he or she says he or she will
retire or not.
Also, Congress is
a thing, it doesn't do anything. Individuals do things. So if names are not
named, without cause, I'm not believing it. Also, who are the American people? The American people don't think or say anything. Individuals do. So, again, name names or I'm not believing it.
It's a great
self-editing tool that cuts my reading material in half, at a
minimum.
If I continue to
read, and sometimes, if it's a topic that really interests me, I go to the next step: What is the information reported that I am interested in
and is it true?
Here's a quick
example –
Keep in mind the GOP tax scam is a fast moving story so I
am not looking for perfection in daily reporting but,
I am looking for a reporter with
knowledge of his or her topic and sources and links provided so I can find more
detail if I choose, too, and accurate language.
How long it takes to assess the veracity of
a story depends on the knowledge base of the consumer and in this example I already
know I have a high level of trust in "Shareblue Media" and from my own work I already know the
first four sentences are true so I am going to read this story and give serious consideration to its reliability.
1
The GOP’s corporate
tax scheme is getting worse every day.
2
It slashes taxes
for millionaires and large corporations.
3
It
cruelly eliminates credits and deductions used by working
families.
4
It has Obamacare repeal baked into it.
5
And many
senators are hoping to add a provision that triggers harsh
cuts to public programs if - as is inevitable - the bill does not
produce job growth.
I
don't know if that last sentence is true. Many Senators? Who are they?
But
the writer has given me a link to more information and when I go to
the link I find out that the Senators noted have asked for anonymity
because they do not have the okay to talk about this while
negotiations are going on – and I am fine with a reputable source
of information telling me that … especially when it is the
Washington Post which has been doing credible reporting since the
advent of Trump and when the linked article is laced with other names …
that have not asked for anonymity.
While Senate Republicans
are being whipped into line, opposition to the bill is growing
louder. And not just from Democrats.
My
experience being active on twitter advocating against the tax cuts
tells me this is true.
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic
policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan who helped design his
famous supply-side tax cuts, is disgusted with the bill now being
considered in the Senate, according The New York Times.
Providing the information that Bartlett's background is in the context of Reagan gives perspective on his point of view. Link provided.
“What they have here is
a big tax cut for the rich paid for with random increases in taxes
for various constituencies,” Bartlett said. “It’s ridiculous.
And it’s telling that they are ramming this through without any
debate. All of the empirical evidence goes against the tax cut."
Bartlett, to be fair, is
hardly representative of conservative politics. He is an independent
who disavowed the GOP over a decade ago, and was also highly critical
of George W. Bush.
Being fair is good.
But he is not the only
former Reagan adviser to express concerns about the GOP scheme. Larry
Kudlow, a Trump adviser, has as well. He worries the changes to the
individual income tax are “going to hurt a lot of different people”
and that this is “not a true tax reform bill.”
Link provided.
This is just the tip of
the iceberg. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued
a dire report that the plan would raise taxes on the poor.
Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the deficit hawks who tried to forge
a budget blueprint in the Obama era, staunchly oppose it. And
AARP, outraged over the bill’s cuts to Medicare and tax
increases on disabled seniors, is now mobilizing.
Links provided.
Republicans have
repeatedly claimed that this tax bill is the reason why they have put
up with all of Trump’s behavior. If this is what they were holding
out for, they have descended into complete moral and ideological
bankruptcy.
The first sentence I don't know it it is true or not and it is not sourced and I don't want to take the time to confirm because
it is really not relevant to me at the moment
and the second sentence is pure
opinion … but I can let it slide because I received the information I needed and I can disregard it and, overall, the piece rates at a 4 out of 5 for me.
(“It’s ridiculous.”
Father of Reagan tax cuts slams GOP’s “big tax cut for the rich”
Bruce Bartlett, a
former top adviser to President Ronald Reagan, sees the GOP tax scam
as an absolute disaster.
You
can read Mathew Chapman's original story here )
And, you can read more tips for fact checking here
Focused Thought in 30 seconds
Focused Action in 30 seconds
You can share Shareblue Media's Tweet here
Focused Point of Interest 3-5 minutes
Why 2020 Will Be the Year
of the Woman
“The Woman’s Hour has
struck!” thundered Carrie Chapman Catt in 1916, as she
exhorted her suffragist sisters to wage the final political battle
for the 19th Amendment. “The time has arrived in America for the
Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and to
walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights,” said
then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic
National Convention, winning the fight for a civil rights plank in
the platform, prompting a walkout by segregationist delegates and
forever changing the party.
Moments like these have
become the lifeblood of modern liberalism, when visionaries shoved
aside naysayers and shattered outdated bigoted norms. The hunger for
making more history is not easily suppressed...
... There is no resolving in advance; the
only way out is through. One candidate will simply have to be better
than everyone else.
When the New Republic’s Jason
Zengerle examined why Massachusetts Attorney General Martha
Coakley couldn’t beat backbench Republican state legislator Scott
Brown in the 2010 special election to fill the Senate seat vacated
after Ted Kennedy’s death, while two years later Elizabeth Warren
could, he concluded that “Warren is a political superstar.” As
for why Coakley lost to a bland Republican male? “We’ll know
Massachusetts has reached true gender equality when its female hacks
stand as good a chance as its male ones.”
Everything about 2016 told us that we
haven’t reached true gender equality, in Massachusetts or anywhere
else. And for a woman to win in 2020, she can’t be a pedestrian
politician. She must be a superstar.
And she won’t become a superstar by
anointment, as Obama was in 2004. She will have to make it happen by
breaking out of the Senate procedural muck, delivering soaring
speeches, crafting signature policy ideas, picking high-profile
fights, outwitting conservatives and proving she knows how to triumph
over the inevitable misogynistic attacks.
Anyone interested in fulfilling this
role shouldn’t wait around. For Democrats, 2020 may be the Year of
the Woman. But it’s no fait accompli that it will actually be a
woman who carries the Democratic banner."
You can read the story here
.
.
.
→ Direct sources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
The Democratic Party Website
Also
C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))
in alphabetical order...
FactCheck.org
FlackCheck.org
PolitFact
Snopes
Washington Post Fact Checker
( You can read more here: https://www.spj.org/ethicsweek-beintheknow.asp )
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:
📰📰📰 Mother Jones
📰📰📰 The Washington Post
📰📰📰 The New York Times
💻💻💻 News And Guts on Facebook
→ Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
📺📺📺 Rachel Maddow on MSNBC
📺📺📺 The Beat With Ari on MSNBC
( ⬆⬆⬆ Wallace is new to the job but for right now
her work on Trump GOP has been credible, IMO)
...for Networking for Democrats today!
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."
(Remember 2018...)
*
Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )
*
Thank you for focusing!
g., aka Focused Democrat
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment