The Triumph of Truthiness

In the recent US Presidential election, I think we may have crossed a Rubicon from "truth" to "thuthiness".

There was a firm reaction by many in the media after this election to the "fake news" being propagated on many social media sites in an obvious attempt to negatively impact the election campaign of Hilary Clinton.  And, sure enough, reports of child abuse rings being run out of the basement of pizza restaurants were 100% fake.  But lurking within the fake news was a shocking amount of outright manipulation by many in the mainstream media, much of which is now crystal clear.

Foremost amongst this was a refusal on the part of many in the US media to report on, or even acknowledge, the devastating revelations by WikiLeaks in the form of the Podesta and other e-mails showing a shocking level of manipulation and outright corruption on the part of the Clintons.  

Be clear on this - these e-mails were true, not fake. This refusal to fully report on these e-mails may stem in part because some news organization - the New York Times and CNN for example - were caught in these same e-mails working with the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee to get Clinton elected and/or to hurt Trump's campaign. They were close to operating as propaganda arms of the Democrats.

As well, the successful burying of the Clinton e-mail scandal (...she used a personal server while she was Secretary of State, refusing to use the government server even one time, including for the sending and receiving of secret information, which is 100% illegal), shows the extent to which many in the mainstream media in that country is essentially "mobbed up". Every idiotic excuse offered by Clinton was trumpeted without thought or assessment...again and again. (Yes, others used personal emails, but almost exclusively for small things like asking that a car be brought around. No one has ever used only their own personal server exclusively during the entire time they were in office.)

Why does this matter? As intelligent, informed citizens, are we not able to see the BS and manipulation when it is offered to us?

Well, no.

The key here is to understand that, as the progeny of a successful movement to democracy and the idea of a free press, we are conditioned to think that what we read is true. Our most normal approach to news, especially that emanating from the mainstream media, is belief, not doubt. This is changing, and the implications, while not completely clear, are serious.  

Let me illustrate the problem.

The New York Times is the best newspaper in the world. Reading the e-mails between that paper and Obama's politicized Department of Justice, and the Clinton Campaign about how they should spin the story they were about to break about Hillary Clinton using her own personal e-mail server while she was Secretary of State was enlightening and exceptionally disheartening. This was obvious manipulation and spin of the first order.

In short, the NYT allowed these officials and political operatives to look at their report before it went out, and to suggest changes. Unbelievable. You do this if you think you work for the government and the politicians, not report on them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/wikileaks-exposes-collusion-between-clinton-campaign-state-department-and-new-york-t

Maybe this has always happened - the media has always been corrupt and "mobbed-up". Certainly some news outlets - Fox and Huffington Post - are shameless in their support of their favoured champions. But we know that. What may be new is the realization that they may all be corrupt. Or, put another way, it may be that there is no neutral news media, anywhere. The free press is actually the bought press now.

If this is the case, all media necessarily becomes a source of information, because the only way to have even a chance of knowing what is actually going on is to read and compare all reports broadly. And so, you have to read the New York Times and watch Russia Today at the same time to get the complete picture, and then weigh what you read and hear.  

But underscoring this activity is a deep and I think damaging skepticism, the implications of which are not clear. Here are some initial thoughts, in the form of questions to emphasize that I do not know...

Progress is predicated on hope for the future. Will belief in a positive future become more difficult if we think our present is a pack of lies?

Rule of law is one of the hallmarks of democracy itself. Will our willingness to play by the rules, and even the rule of law itself, significantly erode in a world where we are convinced everyone else is cheating?

How do we raise our children so that they can be prepared for a world where we must assume that everyone has an angle to play?  

Beyond teaching them to be skeptical, which is healthy, do we teach them to recognize the facial expressions and idioms of pathological liars?  

Or, do we teach them how to play the game successfully, by showing them how to not give away the tell-tale signs of a liar, given that to be successful in this new world, they are going to have to lie and be good at it?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that the media is how we see the world, and this window may have become substantially murkier.

To summarize - what are the implications for us and our world if we actually can not trust anything we read from any source?  

If they are all playing games, how are we to know?  

They all claim to be telling the truth, and this may be the most insidious aspect of this development. Many in the press are now obviously trading on a professional obligation to tell the truth in order to successfully perpetrate lies and distortions.

The American press has move a far, far distance from the days of Walter Cronkite.  

Do they understand how badly they have damaged themselves?

Without trust, they're out of business....and we are out of freedom.