By: Chris Hanrahan
It’s just a challenge to understand why they’re being made sometimes, and who’s making them. This is about articulating opposing viewpoints. What is the agenda behind the bigger story the author of any post, tweet, email, or article? To whom are they referring to or referencing?
The asymmetric nature of any claim requires an oppositional stance in order to gain or lose necessary credibility. It’s the job of a fact-checker, and it’s the role of an engaged audience. Some news sources (no names given here) fall short of factuality on a continuing basis. Any truthiness is incidental, and in some cases it is only the surrounding propaganda (of the 2-3 week news cycle) that props up the lofty claims.
Some authors become blind to the controversy surrounding their views, to the degree that there is no room for focused conversation. Pick any topic, and try to understand what is going on in the minds of those who think differently about the topic.
What little we know, collectively, on any subject, can be shared and discussed in a civil manner. Unfortunately, since this is how debunking/fact-checking gets done, it is sometimes not in the interests of the majority viewpoint that this type of conversation takes place. Over time, mistruths become eroded by facts, or they are protected by the ionizing effects of propaganda and the like.
One way or the other, the future writings (history book types of things) fill out in one vein or the other, through the carefully crafted participation of more than one source, on every issue. The way we form a consensus viewpoint which endures more than just a 2-3 week news cycle is a very important North Star, which should be integrated into the way we discuss today’s news, yesterday’s news, and begin to tell the story of the challenges we still face ahead.
It’s easy to pull the focus off of areas of thought, stories, subjects which are less desirable and palpable to mainstream media sources, of which there are many varieties. Even through the perceived clarity of the things we write/read/discuss, we can dictate the way the audience perceives and understands any topic, at any time.
Such is the nature of propaganda. Such is the nature of news, as we know it today.