Real “Fake” News, the Cuba Plan, and Mergers & Academics
Here’s What You Need to Know
In the wake of the presidential election, there has been a new and growing debate over the pervasiveness of so-called “fake” news. The catalyst for this newfound concern is the claim that this “fake” news is what drove many voters to choose Donald Trump on Election Day. The theory is that outside propaganda somehow amplified the new American zeitgeist and led to some sort of collective mistake by voters. In reality, it wasn’t “fake” news being too real, but “real” news being too fake.
GOP strategist Brad Todd coined a phrase back in August that he recently reiterated in a CNN.com column: “Voters take Donald Trump seriously but not literally, while journalists take him literally, but not seriously.” Todd points out that Trump, unlike the political press or a traditional politician, does not take words seriously. He makes his point without agonizing over every term, comma, or turn of phrase. This habit led the word-obsessed “real” news to make fake stories out of statements, or more likely tweets, that were never intended to be taken literally. But, the “real” news had already decided on a pre-determined narrative, painting Trump as a rogue candidate with outrageous plans if he were elected. So, every comment, tweet, or speech was filtered through that view and misinterpreted or exaggerated as necessary.
For example, CNN felt the need to use their chyron to correct Trump in his claim that Barack Obama was the founder of ISIS. The condescension of suggesting that Trump was actually proposing that the U.S. President somehow chartered a notorious terrorist organization is immeasurable. In reality, he was making the entirely legitimate argument that the Obama administration’s foreign policy directly contributed to the formation of ISIS.
Subscribe to Receive Insights
"*" indicates required fields
NBC felt the need to fact-check Trump’s use of the phrase “acid wash” to describe the program used by Hillary Clinton to wipe her email server, because the actual program was called “Bleachbit.” They also took the time to correct Trump’s use of the phrase “line in the sand” when describing President Obama’s failed “red line” policy with Syria.
This media criticism is not new. Many in journalism write, publish, and air stories to fit a pre-determined narrative. In this case, journalists sacrificed the “realness” of their news in order to fit a pre-determined, often click-bait-ready headline. This temptation is the true threat to “real” news, not the invasion of some “fake” news bogeyman. The analysis that “fake” news somehow duped the American electorate into voting for Donald Trump misses the mark on what actually drove pro-Trump sentiment. Instead, the “real” news’ incessant need to manipulate the intent of what Trump said to fit their narrative led voters to discount what they were reading and watching, and ultimately, determine that Trump might be the better option on their ballot.
News You Can Use
THE FALL OF THE CENTER-LEFT?
Many are still feeling the shock of Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. But, when looking across the Atlantic to the state of European political affairs, it becomes clear Clinton’s loss and the present disarray of the Democratic Party is merely the latest in a trend of trouble for center-left politics. Throughout Europe, specifically in Britain and Germany, once dominant center-left political parties have begun to lose their influence. As the Washington Post writes, “The decline of the European center-left is part of a broader unraveling of the continent’s mainstream consensus as electorates fracture and a political kaleidoscope of alternatives emerges.” Voters across are tired of the hegemony of the current political system and are seeking out political alternatives that may have appeared improbable, if not impossible, a decade ago.
Related Posts:
“THE CUBA PLAN”
For more than 20 years, the Miami Herald had been preparing for how they would cover one of South Florida’s most anticipated news stories ever – the death of Fidel Castro. This past weekend, they implemented what they had come to call “The Cuba Plan.” The news team actually had photos, banner headlines, print pieces, and digital stories already drafted depending on the details and results of the Cuban dictator’s eventual demise. After years of rumors of Castro’s death and possible green lights for the “Cuba Plan,” when the day finally came, the Herald’s plan allowed for instantaneous coverage and analysis thanks to over two decades of careful planning.
A PHD IN MERGERS
Traditionally, the success of corporate mega-mergers has been ascribed to lobbyists, lawyers, or executives. But, if regulators end up approving the pending $85 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, the credit may go to a subset of top economists from elite universities moonlighting at several consulting firms, earning up to $1,350 an hour. These highly-paid consultants lend academic credibility to arguments made to the Department of Justice that various large-scale mergers won’t decrease competition in the marketplace. Yet, these and other economists have received substantial criticism for the allegedly less-than-scientific methods they use to reach these conclusions. Mergers are becoming more popular in a number of sectors, and key regulators may be paying attention to the work and the credibility of these third party experts.
WORKERS WIN, DEPT. OF LABOR LOSES
Last May, the Obama administration’s Department of Labor issued a rule under the Federal Labor Standards Act doubling the weekly threshold for salaried workers exempt from overtime pay to over $47,000. But this past month, federal judge Amos Mazzant III blocked the new rule, marking this the third labor regulation in a single month put forth by Labor Secretary Tom Perez that has been stopped by the Courts. According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Perez’s loss is American workers’ gain. Employers had been preparing for the new rule by reclassifying salaried workers as hourly, capping employee hours, and hiring more part-time workers. It is almost certain that the incoming Trump administration will not appeal this ruling, ensuring the rule is never implemented.
THE MYTH OF ISRAEL’S DEMOGRAPHIC DANGERS
Gregg Roman, director of the Middle East Forum, recently published an op-ed in The Hill criticizing the claim often used by world leaders, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, that Israel is headed toward a “demographic doomsday” in which Israeli-Arabs would actually become the majority and force the country to either become undemocratic by denying them the right to vote, or cease to be a Jewish state. Roman points out three main flaws with the demographic alarmist argument: First, the underlying premise of the argument assumes the number of non-Jews in Gaza is relevant, which it is not since Israeli occupation of the region ended a decade ago. Second, the argument is based on Palestinian population data provided by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, which has produced deliberately inflated numbers to qualify the Palestinian Authority for more foreign aid. Third and finally, it fails to take into account the fact that the birth rate of Israeli Jews has equaled Israeli Arabs in recent years. This is merely another in a long line of examples of how, if you play with the facts, statistics can give you the answers you want in order to push any agenda.
INEQUALITY’S INCORRECT PRESCRIPTION
Recent conventional wisdom on income inequality has generally followed the idea put forth by French economist Thomas Pinketty, who claims wealth becomes concentrated in the 1% because more money can be made by investing in capital – machines and land – than in human resources through wages. This theory of the competitive advantage in capital investments has become the conventional explanation of why there are long-term dynasties of wealth and inequality. However, a 26-year-old MIT graduate student, Matthew Rognlie, has recently gained attention for challenging that wisdom, suggesting technology does not hold value the way it used to and therefore it is misleading to assume the wealthy have a long term advantage. Rognlie argues that land and housing are the only investments giving the wealthy a leg up; therefore, those who wish to address income inequality should focus less on taxing capital investments and more toward housing policies, some of which currently make it more expensive and difficult for the less advantaged to own property.