Don't Let Stupid Win: Challenging the Information Status Quo
Practice Something
Watch Best of Enemies: Buckley vs. Vidal
Best of Enemies: Buckley vs. Vidal is an enthralling documentary that traces the (sometimes) high-minded feud of ii very public intellectuals, William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.
Sentinel the trailer below, then check it out on streaming services similar Amazon and Netflix.
Connect WITH OUR SOCIAL ACTION Squad
-
Do Something
Spotter Best of Enemies: Buckley vs. Vidal
Don't Let Stupid Win
Don't Permit Stupid Win
How I almost bought into the media-fueled myth that ten per centum of Americans think Estimate Judy sits on the Supreme Courtroom
Oct. 28, 2016
About three weeks agone, I'd had enough. As a respite from the idiocy of what's passed for our election-yr debate, I fourth dimension traveled, watching a few documentaries that hearkened back to a different era in America, when pop civilization and inspecting issues of national importance weren't necessarily mutually exclusive. 1 was Dick Cavett's Watergate, a PBS chronicle of how the presidential crimes and misdemeanors in the 1970s were consistently laid blank on a literate and entertaining primetime TV talk testify. The other was The Best of Enemies, which traced the (sometimes) high-minded feud of 2 very public intellectuals, William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.
Seriously, stuff like this one time filled America'south public airwaves? Its absence nowadays only might be proof of the unintended consequence of technological advance; more programming equals more drastic attempts to capture eyeballs equals a depressing race to the lesser. In less than half a century, we've gone from Cavett, James Baldwin and Gloria Steinem dominating our airwaves to Kim Kardashian, Anne Coulter and, now, Donald Trump, whose "I'm going to proceed you in suspense" debate moment seemed straight from the insipidness of reality Telly.
Philly'south ain Michael Smerconish—one of the few talking heads in the punditocracy nonetheless valiantly trying to testify that reasonableness can attract an audition—recently provided proof that this denouement was upon us. 1 morning time, on his Sirius XM radio program, Smerconish referenced a stunning poll upshot: 10 per centum of college graduates think Guess Judy is on the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.
Journalism at its all-time—the integrity of our public narrative—is like clean air and clean water: A public adept.
Self, meet breaking bespeak. I began to pen a screed: The results are in, and stupid has won. My self-righteousness aligned just and so, I pecked abroad, avenging, more than mourning, our collective famine of thoughtfulness. A quick Google search, however, brought me up short. Turns out, quite predictably, the poll in question fabricated headlines across internet concluding Jan. Search it yourself and you'll see the onslaught: CNN, the New York Times, U.S. News, Play a trick on News, and countless others—all screaming this latest dispatch from the frontlines of the apocalypse. But then came a Washington Post piece debunking the story that was baiting all those clicks. Turns out, the poll was conducted for a grouping called the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, and here was the question:
Q: Which of the following serves on the U.S. Supreme Court?
At that place were iv possible multiple choice answers: a). Elena Kagan. b). [Retired U.South. Court of Appeals Judge] Lawrence Warren Pierce. c). [Secretary of State] John Kerry, and d). Judith Sheindlin.
Of course, Elena Kagan sits on the Court, and 66 percentage of respondents correctly chose her. 22 per centum chose Pierce and 6 percentage chose Kerry. Notice that the 4th option—chosen past ten per centum of respondents—doesn't read "Judge Judy." It is, instead, Judge Judy's given name, Judy Sheindlin. The only reasonable inference, then, is that the ten percent voting for her were not expressing the belief that "Judge Judy" is a Supreme Courtroom justice. No, they were among those who didn't know Elena Kagan sits on the Court—so they were simply guessing. An accurate headline, then, would have been: "34 Per centum of Recent College Graduates Don't Know Elena Kagan Is A Supreme Courtroom Justice." But how many clicks would that generate?
There I was, all exercised about the dumbing down of America, and, past buying into this manufactured story, I was nearly to perpetuate it. I had stumbled upon a case study in the perils of click-bait journalism, something with which I have had personal experience. When I was editor of The Daily News, there were daily commercial pressures to capture eyeballs and clicks — without regard to what type of civic narrative our torso politic needs. I'm not being holier than thou here; I willingly, even enthusiastically, published countless covers with bloated images of and then-Eagles coach Andy Reid, along with some double entendre juxtaposing his weight with his team's fortunes. But at some signal you start to realize: I'm just part of the noise. Which is precisely what I would have been had this column been simply another complaining about how stupid we are because ten percent of our fellow citizens remember Gauge Judy is a Supreme Court justice.
That'southward how insidious pack and clickbait journalism can be. I was buying into a manufactured storyline without even knowing it, a storyline designed to simplistically endorse conventional wisdom rather than, in keeping with journalism'southward finest tradition, challenge information technology. I was about to write a column that betrayed the very reason we started The Citizen in the starting time identify, the notion that journalism at its best—the integrity of our public narrative—is like make clean air and clean water: A public good.
Possibly Facts can exist revived. How? One way is for those of united states of america who have cut our teeth as authors of the outset draft of our collective history to bring more introspection to our function. Instead of breathlessly chasing readers and users, let's comprehend nuance. Instead of appealing to preconceived notions, allow'southward challenge them. Instead of striving to be first, permit's aspire to be smart.
These are perilous times for that public narrative. We've got a whole lotta shouting going on, simply a dearth of wisdom and insight. Perhaps most disturbing, as evidenced by this election season, it is incontrovertible that we've entered a post-fact era. A column by Rex Huppke in The Chicago Tribune cleverly eulogized the passing of Facts in 2012. "To the daze of most sentient beings, Facts died Wednesday, April 18, after a long battle for relevancy with the 24-hour news bike, blogs and the Internet," Huppke wrote. "Though few expected Facts to pull out of its years-long downward spiral, the official crusade of death was from injuries suffered last week when Florida Republican Rep. Allen W steadfastly declared that equally many as 81 of his fellow members of the U.S. House of Representatives are Communists. Facts held on for several days after that assault—brought on without a scrap of evidence or reason—earlier expiring peacefully at its domicile in a high school physics book. Facts was 2,372."
Huppke was right then, and he's even more than right today. That said, I'm not quite prepared to concede that Facts has passed on, despite the best efforts of the journalism-industrial circuitous, which perpetuates stories like the Guess Judy meme. Maybe Facts can be revived. How? 1 way is for those of us who have cut our teeth as authors of the first draft of our collective history to bring more introspection to our role. Instead of breathlessly chasing readers and users, let'southward comprehend nuance. Instead of appealing to preconceived notions, let's claiming them. Instead of striving to be commencement, let's aspire to exist smart. When, after all, was the last time yous read something in a major American newspaper and said to yourself, "Hmmm. I never thought that earlier—what an interesting thought!" Most of all, allow's slow downwards. Information may desire to be free, as the saying goes, but does it accept to travel at the speed of calorie-free?
I know, I know. I'm a dinosaur, pining for a thoughtfulness that is as antiquated as eight-track stereo and VHS. Maybe that's true. But is anyone happy with the level of discourse this political flavour has bestowed upon usa? How's the information status quo working out for you lot?
Photo header: Quondam Senator Howard Bakery talking to talk evidence host Dick Cavett about Watergate.
Source: https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/dont-let-stupid-win-challenging-information-status-quo/
0 Response to "Don't Let Stupid Win: Challenging the Information Status Quo"
Post a Comment