About the only time I will watch Fox News is if I want to see how stupid people can be. Their broadcasts are full of errors of logic (I think they’re deliberate), one-sided commentary and over-simplification. I have friends who get virtually all their information from Fox and tell me they like it because it’s “fair and balanced.”
I find this in itself entertaining (in an aggravating kind of way), because from my perspective, Fox News is neither fair nor balanced. In fact, I think it’s somewhat of a stretch to call Fox a “news” show; it’s become mostly commentary and tilts so strongly to the right that it’s little more than a tool for the right wing of the Republican party. It wouldn’t be so bad if it were representative of a more moderate branch of the party (if such a thing even exists any more), but I don’t see that at all.
I do watch MSNBC on occasion; I recognize that Rachel Maddow and many of the others are unabashed liberals, but their views often align more closely with mine so I don’t find MSNBC as objectionable as Fox. But I recognize they also have a bias.
That brings me to this point: no one really listens any more.
Let me ‘splain.
Listening is not a passive process. It requires focus, attention and thoughtful consideration of what’s being said. It’s not simply waiting for your alternate to pause to take a breath so you can jump in with whatever you’ve been planning to say. It’s not “listening” to the others so you can better shape the defense of your point or trash their point. It’s attempting to understand what your partner in conversation is saying; the thought process that’s behind it. It’s part of the critical thinking function, without which we are all just in an echo chamber and we never have the opportunity to learn anything.
I think that’s part (a BIG part) of the problem we’re confronted with in the US today. We’ve got people on both the left and the right that are absolutely convinced of the “rightness” of their position. And they don’t take the time to try to understand the other side of whatever the debate might be. They demonize, trivialize and dismiss the other perspective as being worthless and beneath consideration. And while I honestly believe that this is primarily found on one side of the current political debate, I also admit it’s found on both sides. Any discussion that devolves to ad hominem attacks (“Oh yeah? Well you’re just stupid!”) is worse than a waste of time.
So how did we get here? It’s tempting to say that this has always been a problem, and there’s truth to that. Discussions around strongly-held positions have always been dangerous territory (the homily “never talk about religion or politics” comes to mind), but it really seems to me that there has been a fundamental change in our national conversation. I live in Orange County, California. While California is recognized as a reliably “blue” state (nearly every Democratic presidential candidate has carried California in the general election in current memory; both our Senators are Democrat), Orange County is one of the most conservative counties in the country. Interestingly, the demographics of the county are changing; while South OC is pretty white bread, Santa Ana (the county seat) is predominately Latino. Whether that will lead to a political sea change is doubtful however, because of the gerrymandering of the voting districts. In other words, most of our Congressional seats are unlikely to switch parties, because the districts are drawn in a way that protects the party in power. So while Santa Ana will elect a liberal Democrat (in line with Latino interests), South OC will stay bright red Republican.
What’s the problem with that? I think that historically, while politics have been messy, slow and rancorous, eventually they would get it right. Winston Churchill said that the US can be relied upon to do the right thing, once everything else has been tried. Even during the Vietnam era, with rioting in the streets over both the war and race, politicians were talking to each other. They disagreed strongly, but respected one another. I listen to Ted Cruz and his ilk today and am disheartened, even frightened by his unwillingness to accept any view but his own as having any validity. And I’m not alone; he frightens people in his own party. As much as I also dislike Trump, he got it right when he said that no one in Congress likes Cruz; he’s alienated nearly everyone by his intransigence.
And I think the Internet has contributed to this. Not directly, of course, but it’s made it easy to select information sources that have the same bias as you do. So I can set it up as my own echo chamber; that’s straightforward and a choice I could make. That I can watch out for.
But it’s more insidious than that; the internet can actually select for you what information you receive. Search algorythms make this happen. For example, if I search on Google or Yahoo for “anthrogenic climate change,” the search engines remember that. If I then search for “species decline” or “polar bear extinction,” the algorythms that drive the search engines put those together, draw conclusions about what interests me, and that changes the results I get from searches: I start to see what Google thinks I’m looking for, based on previous searches. That information gets sold to companies with their own algorythms for mining Big Data, and presto! I get a robocall from GreenPeace, the Sierra Club and ACLU asking for donations. On the other hand, if I do searches for “pro-life statistics” and “climate fluctuations in history” for example, a different set of robocalls or fliers comes my way, this time from “Citizens for Protection of American Values” or some such, asking for money to fund anti-abortion initiatives.
Back to Fox News. As I say above, if I want to, I can choose to listen to Fox News for breaking events, and set up podcast subscriptions, news feeds and follow blogs that all reinforce my already-held convictions. Nothing would pop into my view that would conflict with what I think is true, so even if I’m so inclined, I’d never have the opportunity to thoughtfully consider a contrary position. That’s also true for the other end of the political spectrum. I could have all-progressive sources that would gradually convince me that’s all there is.
And that’s exactly the problem. Unless (and until) we learn that we are a large and highly diverse country, and that no one ideology can (or should) meet the needs of everyone, we are never going to have a workable government.
With all that said, I’m still not interested in listening to bloviators on Fox. There’s other ways to find stuff out.
Echo chambers
I find this in itself entertaining (in an aggravating kind of way), because from my perspective, Fox News is neither fair nor balanced. In fact, I think it’s somewhat of a stretch to call Fox a “news” show; it’s become mostly commentary and tilts so strongly to the right that it’s little more than a tool for the right wing of the Republican party. It wouldn’t be so bad if it were representative of a more moderate branch of the party (if such a thing even exists any more), but I don’t see that at all.
I do watch MSNBC on occasion; I recognize that Rachel Maddow and many of the others are unabashed liberals, but their views often align more closely with mine so I don’t find MSNBC as objectionable as Fox. But I recognize they also have a bias.
That brings me to this point: no one really listens any more.
Let me ‘splain.
Listening is not a passive process. It requires focus, attention and thoughtful consideration of what’s being said. It’s not simply waiting for your alternate to pause to take a breath so you can jump in with whatever you’ve been planning to say. It’s not “listening” to the others so you can better shape the defense of your point or trash their point. It’s attempting to understand what your partner in conversation is saying; the thought process that’s behind it. It’s part of the critical thinking function, without which we are all just in an echo chamber and we never have the opportunity to learn anything.
I think that’s part (a BIG part) of the problem we’re confronted with in the US today. We’ve got people on both the left and the right that are absolutely convinced of the “rightness” of their position. And they don’t take the time to try to understand the other side of whatever the debate might be. They demonize, trivialize and dismiss the other perspective as being worthless and beneath consideration. And while I honestly believe that this is primarily found on one side of the current political debate, I also admit it’s found on both sides. Any discussion that devolves to ad hominem attacks (“Oh yeah? Well you’re just stupid!”) is worse than a waste of time.
So how did we get here? It’s tempting to say that this has always been a problem, and there’s truth to that. Discussions around strongly-held positions have always been dangerous territory (the homily “never talk about religion or politics” comes to mind), but it really seems to me that there has been a fundamental change in our national conversation. I live in Orange County, California. While California is recognized as a reliably “blue” state (nearly every Democratic presidential candidate has carried California in the general election in current memory; both our Senators are Democrat), Orange County is one of the most conservative counties in the country. Interestingly, the demographics of the county are changing; while South OC is pretty white bread, Santa Ana (the county seat) is predominately Latino. Whether that will lead to a political sea change is doubtful however, because of the gerrymandering of the voting districts. In other words, most of our Congressional seats are unlikely to switch parties, because the districts are drawn in a way that protects the party in power. So while Santa Ana will elect a liberal Democrat (in line with Latino interests), South OC will stay bright red Republican.
What’s the problem with that? I think that historically, while politics have been messy, slow and rancorous, eventually they would get it right. Winston Churchill said that the US can be relied upon to do the right thing, once everything else has been tried. Even during the Vietnam era, with rioting in the streets over both the war and race, politicians were talking to each other. They disagreed strongly, but respected one another. I listen to Ted Cruz and his ilk today and am disheartened, even frightened by his unwillingness to accept any view but his own as having any validity. And I’m not alone; he frightens people in his own party. As much as I also dislike Trump, he got it right when he said that no one in Congress likes Cruz; he’s alienated nearly everyone by his intransigence.
And I think the Internet has contributed to this. Not directly, of course, but it’s made it easy to select information sources that have the same bias as you do. So I can set it up as my own echo chamber; that’s straightforward and a choice I could make. That I can watch out for.
But it’s more insidious than that; the internet can actually select for you what information you receive. Search algorythms make this happen. For example, if I search on Google or Yahoo for “anthrogenic climate change,” the search engines remember that. If I then search for “species decline” or “polar bear extinction,” the algorythms that drive the search engines put those together, draw conclusions about what interests me, and that changes the results I get from searches: I start to see what Google thinks I’m looking for, based on previous searches. That information gets sold to companies with their own algorythms for mining Big Data, and presto! I get a robocall from GreenPeace, the Sierra Club and ACLU asking for donations. On the other hand, if I do searches for “pro-life statistics” and “climate fluctuations in history” for example, a different set of robocalls or fliers comes my way, this time from “Citizens for Protection of American Values” or some such, asking for money to fund anti-abortion initiatives.
Back to Fox News. As I say above, if I want to, I can choose to listen to Fox News for breaking events, and set up podcast subscriptions, news feeds and follow blogs that all reinforce my already-held convictions. Nothing would pop into my view that would conflict with what I think is true, so even if I’m so inclined, I’d never have the opportunity to thoughtfully consider a contrary position. That’s also true for the other end of the political spectrum. I could have all-progressive sources that would gradually convince me that’s all there is.
And that’s exactly the problem. Unless (and until) we learn that we are a large and highly diverse country, and that no one ideology can (or should) meet the needs of everyone, we are never going to have a workable government.
With all that said, I’m still not interested in listening to bloviators on Fox. There’s other ways to find stuff out.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.