There seems to be a "buzz" about "fake news" these days. I don't understand the problem. Nobody wants "fake news"... well wait... we do... sometimes. The Onion used to be good entertainment. We knew it was fake, and enjoyed it... but over time, that changed.
For me, it was when I started noticing that the "real news" wasn't keeping up with what I was seeing in "social media". I believe the recent elections brought this to focus for a LOT of people. Social media reported a lot of things the mainstream media refused to report.
I have to admit, as a Bernie Sanders fan, I wasn't too focused on the Trump media circus. I was busy watching what the Democrats were doing to control what CNN and others were reporting. It became obvious to me that I was getting far more accurate news coverage on Twitter and YouTube. The silence of the mainstream media about the shenanigans at the DNC made it obvious to me that I needed to look elsewhere for information. The parroting of "chairs were thrown" at the Nevada convention by the mainstream brought this to sharp focus for me.
That "chair-throwing" nonsense made it suddenly MY responsibility to discern what is "real news" and what is "fake news". Not an easy task.
So, how do we cut through the crap? The first thing I did was to set some ground rules for myself. For example, when I select an article to read on-line, the first thing I do is see if comments are allowed. If not, I won't bother reading the article. If the writer cannot subject his work to criticism and review by others, they're pushing "fake news" as far as I'm concerned. CNN, as an example, stopped allowing comments on their articles. Additionally, if comments are allowed, I scan through them to see if anyone has refuted anything in the article... or if comments mention heavy moderation.
Another thing I do is look for "anonymous" sources. If the sources in the article are anonymous, I want to be sure to view them with suspicion IF they are providing hear-say and not evidence. I like sources that supply evidence. I follow the links that support what the article is saying. Are they real links or just links to fake news? Is the reporting being done by an investigative reporter, or just re-tweeting something? Is there a reason behind the fake news story?
Well, let's not be silly about this. We already know that the mainstream news in in the hands of a very few multi-billionaires. And it makes perfect sense that the news would be adjusted for us by them. And seriously, what's up with Snopes these days? So, does social media even have a chance against the Washington Post's the MSNBC's and NYTimes' of the world? Maybe...
I'll tell you when I first realized the power of social media. It was, sadly, the day someone videotaped the tragic beating of Rodney King. All too common now, those images were gut-wrenching to those of us who saw them. All hell broke loose as people were outraged... for good reason. And as more and more people started video-taping, social media brought the scope of this type of systemic abuse to our consciousness.
Standing Rock
Today, investigative journalism has become a thing of the past for the mainstream media. They have been told what to say and more importantly, what NOT to say. Standing Rock is a good example of a story the mainstream media has been told not to cover. Fortunately, we have investigative journalism on the front lines at places like Standing Rock, by journalists like Jordan Chariton, from The Young Turks, and Amy Goodman from Demcracy Now! They covered how the police escalated the violence at Standing rock starting with attack dogs and sound cannons and moving to water cannons and pepper spray, and finally to the point where a concussion grenade almost took off the arm of a young woman, and a tear gas canister was fired at the face of another woman, blinding her in one eye.
Mainstream media were involved in covering this up, getting "both sides" of the story. The water cannons were being used to put out fires (watch the videos)... and protesters were aggressively praying at the police, some armed with feathers that could, possible, poke an eye out (according to anonymous sources). Well, that great big Occam's razor is a lot sharper than these mainstream reporters. How do I know they are full of crap? NO reporters on the ground.
Pizzagate
So, the mainstream media has lost the confidence of its viewers, and wants to gain it back. I think this has become obvious. Stuff gets out there that they can't report on, so they simply don't want people to know about it. And, indeed, the mainstream media is in a good position to ensure some things never see the light of day... at least they were at one time. It seems that now, however, that in trying to shore-up their own credibility problem, the mainstream is caught between a rock and a hard place... they simply are NOT ALLOWED to report the truth on some things.
Then there's Pizzagate, a story too bizarre to be true. Originally growing out of John Podesta's leaked emails (he lost his cell phone so maybe "misplaced emails" might be a better description) - the emails were revealed by Wikileaks, an information service with a perfect record for accuracy (*much like the Washington Post, except perhaps a little better). Occam's razor is going to get tested here... but... Surely we can find evidence to suggest there's nothing to see here at our good friends over on Snopes... right?
Here's EVERYTHING they say on the subject:
"A detailed conspiracy theory known as "Pizzagate" holds that a pedophile ring is operating out of a Clinton-linked pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong."
Way to debunk this nonsense, Snopes! Now THAT'S investigative reporting. Whew... I was worried there might be something to this stuff. And the mainstream media flagship, the New York Times put a puff-piece reporter on the story to confirm this. And now that reporter's work has come into question by social media.
So, unless you do your own research, and on this particular topic, I can well understand why you wouldn't want to, you won't get the story... if it is a story... and if it's a true story, and not "fake news".
The Elections
It wouldn't be fair to talk about "fake news" without mentioning how it impacted us recently in the elections (and the primaries). It became evident that the media outlets were taking out all the stops in their efforts to try to control the elections. As I mentioned earlier, the primaries on the Democratic party side were my focus, but there are suggestions that the rise of Donald Trump's popularity on the Republican party side was due primarily to the free media coverage he received. At least he was a popular candidate. The Democrats were faced with a much bigger challenge, getting the public to believe their unpopular candidate might win the election. They definitely rigged the primaries... and even the formerly-respected Associated Press helped with that - releasing a story on the eve of the California primaries that certainly was intended to impact voter turn-out in favor of Hillary Clinton. There is no question in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump in the general election. So, thank the media for Trump.
So then, on to the general. Hillary, according to the mainstream media, was a shoe-in. Funny, how Cenk Uyger, of The Young Turks, a social-media news network predicted a Donald Trump victory. Did social media have a better understanding of the election dynamics than the mainstream? Um... (as Cenk would say) OF COURSE?
Bottom Line
Many of us are coming to the realization that we have a state-run media and that when we "Google" news, what we're going to see is what the state wants us to see. That's actually good information. If I look at what the big papers are writing about... and it seems less-than-newsworthy, I can pretty much bet I need to dig into social media to find out what is NOT being reported.
*I Like Sarcasm
 |
| Wiggle your Big Toe |
Back when I was young, I was a big fan of Sears. I liked Craftsman tools, I bought my appliances there, home products... I spent a lot of money at Sears. I even had a Sears credit card.
I was doing OK back then, even had an excellent (844) credit score. Despite my best efforts, I was a week late on a $10 payment one month. My good friends at Sears decided that was reason to ding my credit.
OK... fine... but because of their decision, I paid off my account and haven't stepped foot in a Sears store in over 40 years. I voted with my feet. I'm sure Sears didn't notice.
Corporations today are far more ruthless. We've seen Wells Fargo openly defrauding customers just this week. Should their customers continue to trust Wells Fargo? Um... FUCK NO! They should vote with their feet... and find a different bank... perhaps one that doesn't use fraud as their business model. I recommend looking into employee-owned credit unions over big banks if possible. And let's be frank here... banks are doing a lot more than defrauding their customers.
I wrote about the use of attack dogs at the NDPL recently. Private corporate security unleashed dogs on citizens to protect a corporate-owned pipeline. Wells Fargo, Bank of America and others fund the pipeline (and the dog attacks). I don't support banks who fund corporations that do this to citizens. So, for me, this is another opportunity to vote with my feet.
Now, I'm sure I don't have any reason to suggest or suspect that my choice to vote with my feet, as an individual, is going to bring down a huge corporation (the subsequent huge decline in Sears sales notwithstanding)... but this election has woken up a large block of people who are fed up with corporations and their deceitful actions. And if they ALL vote with their feet, there is going to be hell to pay!
This election, voters are voting with their feet! There is no question - many Republicans left the Republican party... even former Republican Presidents... and Demexit was the official title of the Democrat party exodus. Voters don't want what they're being offered. Even loyal customers are turned off by this election.
The key to voting with our feet is organizing... and this is what the corporations are showing us they are intent to prevent. The media is, of course, involved and we've seen how Google has started influencing politics around the world simply by rigging its search priorities.
So how do other large blocks of voters organize? One attempt has been under the flag of Our Revolution - run by former Sander's campaign manager Jeff Weaver. Another has been Wolf Pac - supported by The Young Turks. The problem with both of these is that nobody is quite sure if the direction they are going is the same direction our feet are taking us in November. We're voting with our feet...
Between now and November, voters need to decide which way their feet will take them. Are they fed up with corporations buying politicians? Are they fed up with corporations running prisons? Running our elections? Are they fed up with racism and Islamophobia? Of the murder of people of color by police? Are they fed up with student loan debt? Denial of health care? Denial of a decent living wage? What are voters fed up with? Where are our feet taking us?
For me, the answer is not going to be found within the two-party system. And the current "organizers" I mentioned above seem to want to bring change from within that system. My feet are skeptical... and they can't wait to run from both Democrat and Republican parties... (Sorry Jeff and Cenk).
I guess we will have to see how this plays out... but for the moment, I'm leaning toward third-party candidates. I'm leaning away from incumbents. I've come out of my coma... I've wiggled my big toe... and I'm ready to VOTE WITH MY FEET! Who's with me?
It was during World War II that Adolf Hitler's racist goons used dogs to attack the Jews.
Growing up, I never thought I would see this sort of thing in my lifetime.
Then came the civil rights movement.
The dogs of war were unleashed again... this time, before my young eyes.
This looked like something from my history books in school. Why were these policemen using attack dogs on people?
I thought we learned from this at some point. We were supposed to STOP doing this. Below is an image from the civil rights movement, of a peaceful protester being assaulted by a police officer and his dog... and a statue capturing that moment... It sure looks to me as if we pretended to have learned our lesson... so what happened?
So, this statue means this is shameful... right? WE don't do this anymore... right? So WE must not approve of CORPORATIONS doing this... right?
This is happening at Standing Rock North Dakota PEACEFUL protest right NOW!
Standing up for OUR planet against CORPORATE interests, the brave PROTECTORS put themselves in harms way for ALL of us. Where are the mainstream media? Where is OUR President? Where are our elected representatives? Where's Bernie? Hey, Elizabeth Warren... these are YOUR people, right? How about the candidates running for President? Hillary? Donald? NOBODY is interested in this story?
My two favorite superheros are there... Amy Goodman from Democracy Now covered the story here. And Jill Stein, Green Party candidate apparently maced some bulldozers with spray paint.
But, if you're expecting the mainstream media to cover this event... you may be waiting for a long time. Expect to see some stories about police dogs receiving medals. And let's be clear here... the dogs are NOT at fault here... clearly the "animals" are the ones holding the leashes. This is a PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY, hired by a corporation to attack civilians. Where are the assault charges?
Expect the police to step in and arrest the peaceful protesters... not the ones who have committed ASSAULT!
And the media... they can't be bothered with this sort of thing. The protesters here identified their sacred burial sites - in order to protect them.
The bulldozers headed straight for them destroying the ancestral grave sites and the known stone monuments that marked them.
Imagine for a moment, a corporation bulldozing ARLINGTON CEMETERY.
I imagine this is what it must have felt like for the Standing Rock people.
The media is covering another desecrated monument today, however...
Duckbill rock is famous for people standing on it and taking pictures of themselves. We should all bow our heads that vandals destroyed this... and ignore the ones who are actual PROTECTORS of our PLANET.
The link below has some videos of what happened during the weekend protests:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/4/1566763/-The-Dakota-Access-Pipeline-guards-unleash-attack-dogs-on-our-American-Indian-Water-Protectors
There seems to be a "buzz" about "fake news" these days. I don't understand the problem. Nobody wants "fake news"... well wait... we do... sometimes. The Onion used to be good entertainment. We knew it was fake, and enjoyed it... but over time, that changed.
Then there's Pizzagate, a story too bizarre to be true. Originally growing out of John Podesta's leaked emails (he lost his cell phone so maybe "misplaced emails" might be a better description) - the emails were revealed by Wikileaks, an information service with a perfect record for accuracy (*much like the Washington Post, except perhaps a little better). Occam's razor is going to get tested here... but... Surely we can find evidence to suggest there's nothing to see here at our good friends over on Snopes... right?
It wouldn't be fair to talk about "fake news" without mentioning how it impacted us recently in the elections (and the primaries). It became evident that the media outlets were taking out all the stops in their efforts to try to control the elections. As I mentioned earlier, the primaries on the Democratic party side were my focus, but there are suggestions that the rise of Donald Trump's popularity on the Republican party side was due primarily to the free media coverage he received. At least he was a popular candidate. The Democrats were faced with a much bigger challenge, getting the public to believe their unpopular candidate might win the election. They definitely rigged the primaries... and even the formerly-respected Associated Press helped with that - releasing a story on the eve of the California primaries that certainly was intended to impact voter turn-out in favor of Hillary Clinton. There is no question in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump in the general election. So, thank the media for Trump. 
