I'm a big proponent of free speech, which I think means you can't start listing qualifiers and limitations to what is or isn't allowed. What I will say is that I need this place to be helpful to my creative process, so while a hearty debate is welcome, persistent antagonism of myself or the rest of the community won't be tolerated indefinitely.
Anyone with half a brain on (and even those with the other half already in the frying pan) would believe that the statement declared in this post's headline was true. But now, we don't need to believe anything since we've got evidence to support the thesis.
A recent Axios report confirmed as much, finding that 56% of the people in the USA agree with the statement "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations." Just 18% of self-described Republicans and 57% of Democrats trust the media.
Naturally, the media monolith has a plan to correct these figures, and just as naturally that plan has little or nothing to do with presenting the facts in a complete and unbiased fashion. The great John Nolte over at Breitbart did a better job eviscerating the author's ludicrous prescription than I could, so instead I'll focus on a few keywords which each look like the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
First off, the author uses the word 'trust' in the opening line of the article. But in the second paragraph, that word is replaced by 'faith' in the statement: 'Faith in society's central institutions, especially in government and the media, is the glue that holds society together.' If we were to use poker terms to describe this statement, we'd say it was loaded with 'tells.'
So 'trust' becomes 'faith,' probably for a variety of reasons, but the one I think is most relevant is that those who believe government is the One True Church of Humanity will often invoke the term 'faith' when discussing government. An overtly religious (English-speaking) person would rarely, if ever, employ that term in this context because it has a very different meaning for them.
For a religious person, the word 'faith' is inextricable from spirituality, divinity, grace, and perhaps most importantly, FOR BELIEF IN A GRAND ORDER WHICH IS PRACTICALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO MORTAL MINDS.
Government is many things, most of them distasteful, but it is not incomprehensible to mortal minds. Indeed, the government in the USA was described by the immortal Abraham Lincoln as: 'Of the people, by the people, and for the people." If it is of the people, it is not incomprehensible to the people. That's simple logic. So either they're right and Honest Abe was wrong, or...
crickets
So why would we need to have FAITH in government? The entire idea of political transparency was to ensure that just about every aspect of government could be laid bare to examination and public inquiry at any moment. You don't need FAITH when you can VERIFY something at the fundamental level. For that all you need is curiosity, a little energy, and a lot of determination.
To me, when an author employs the word 'faith,' they are rarely invoking spirituality, divinity, or grace. They are almost always invoking a method of grappling with the unknown or, more acutely, the UNKNOWABLE. The author (and/or editor) of this Axios piece first uses the word 'trust' to describe the problem Americans have with the media, then slips in 'faith.' I disbelieve that word shift was accidental; as an author myself, I know that in the critical points of storytelling or pontification, every word must be carefully chosen and put in its proper place.
So if we accept that the word change was intentional, there are two general possibilities: first, that the AUTHOR PERSONALLY believes government is practically unknowable for whatever reason. I used to lean toward this explanation, but the older I've gotten, the less I'm inclined to do so.
The second possibility, and the one to which I subscribe, is that the author believes that government is practically unknowable TO THE PEOPLE. This means that FAITH, rather than TRUST, is required since all one would need is trust if one could grapple with the reality of a system like government when one chose to do so. This implies that the people are incapable (due to the gap between their ability and the difficulty of the task) of understanding government. That's elitism, ladies and gentlemen, laid bare as surely as you'll ever see. "WE, THE MEDIA, CAN UNDERSTAND GOVERNMENT, BUT THE PEOPLE CAN'T, THEREFORE TRYING TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND IS POINTLESS." If you subscribe to that viewpoint, then you're left trying to manipulate their 'faith' in government. Think about it for a sec.
The other bit about the use of the word 'faith' at such a prominent point is probably the more egregious and easy to recognize: people on the left generally disdain traditional religion and its cultural anchor points. They view 'faith' in religion as something to be ridiculed, stamped out, or, if all else fails, subverted to their own aims. Using 'faith' when talking about how to manipulate public sentiment is such an obvious 'tell' that what is about to be discussed is not how to fix a problem, but rather how to manipulate hearts and minds--and how to usurp the position 'faith' has in the hearts and minds of people who cling to silly old notions of tradition, culture, and heritage.
Look, I know it's just one word. I allow that I could be badly misreading its import. But for me, reading that article, I saw the mask slip...and I saw a condescending smirk of victory on the face behind it. These people think they've won. They think it's inevitable that they'll be able to control the way we think; the question to them isn't 'if,' but 'how' and 'when' they'll reassert control over the way we think, the way we interact, and how we spend our precious lives.
We can prove them wrong, or we can prove them right. But as ever, the choice isn't some self-described journalist's at a desk somewhere. It isn't some tech titan's in his ivory tower. And it most certainly isn't some politician's in the corridors of governmental power.
It's ours. And I have just enough faith left in my fellow man to say that
I think we're going to prove them wrong.
It's been almost two years since I posted anything on social media, and frankly the absence has been due to the lack of a platform I thought made sense to use. That all changed when Dave Rubin mentioned Locals.com.
This seems like the perfect platform to combine so many different things into one interface, so I intend to make this my new headquarters for all of my online activity. I'm not exactly riding the razor's edge technologically, but neither am I a cave-dweller, so while it might take me awhile to figure out all the bells and whistles available here, I'll get them eventually.
So to anyone interested in connecting with me or participating in my creative process, welcome aboard! I think it's going to be a grand voyage.
My six-year-old daughter is quite the physical powerhouse, and this isn't mere pride of fatherhood speaking. At the age of five, and without warning or training, she did ten chin-ups on a local playground when I became curious just how strong she really was. She was all smiles as she came off the bar, rubbing her arms and remarking in fascinated bewilderment, 'That HURT!'
A few months later, I showed her the proper techniques for a situp. You know, the kind athletes do for their coaches with hands crossed over the chest or over their ears like earmuffs. My personal best for situps when I was sixteen ended up at 450, and it took me about four years to build up to that.
It took her about a week to do fifty in under two minutes. A year later, her personal best with the earmuffs is 212 (and that's on a 15 degree declined wooden plank, which is even HARDER than on a flat, carpeted floor). She just glares at me in contempt when I tell her to try the hands-over-the-chest technique. 'C'mon, Dad, that's WAY too ...
As one of my earlier collaborative efforts, I wrote Ure Infectus (Burn the Corrupt) as part of a shared universe started by indie sci-fi star Chris Nuttall. It's one of my earliest works, so my style has gotten tighter and crisper since then, but I stand by this grim ode to liberty as my personal favorite of all the novels I've written.
I've written nine books (published eight...more on that later) in my Spineward Sectors: Middleton's Pride series. It's pretty standard Military Space Opera stuff, with lots of lasers, space marines, loyalty, courage and sacrifice to go around. A few years ago I made Book One, No Middle Ground, 100% free on all the major platforms. Here's a link to that book's Amazon page, so that anyone with Kindle in its myriad forms can sample my work!
