Skip to main content

Polar Opposites; Separation in American Politics

One of the first things I want to talk about in my Blog, simply because it is so important in today's America, is the polarization of our nation that has become increasingly worse over the past decade.  I want to share some of my own insights on the subject and ask that others weigh in and let me know their thoughts. 

If we look at the political spectrum right now in America, politicians seem to be increasingly headed toward the fringes of the political left and right on most all issues concerning our great country.  That is concerning for many reasons.  In environments like this, living at the fringes leads to extreme viewpoints that are often not in the best interest of the vast majority of the citizens of this great nation, or in the best interest of the current and future stability of America. 

Living at the fringes also leads to citizens taking on viewpoints that are extreme.  If we look at the media in America, it seems to foster an environment in some cases that encourages extreme viewpoints on issues.  I am not speaking of only one side here, but of the media as a whole; whether bias falls to the right or the left.  Some media outlets lean far right to hard right (Fox News, The Daily Caller, Red State, The Blaze, Breitbart, Info Wars, etc.), and some lean far left to hard left (Occupy Democrats, Addicting Info, Natural News, US Uncut, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc.).

Then we have news sources that historically cover both sides fairly and have a history of breaking good stories and utilizing hard facts and good sources for their news stories (NPR, BBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times (Not to be referred to as 'The Failing New York Times'), Reuters, Associated Press, ABC, NBC, etc.. 

Obviously the list above is not all-inclusive, but it serves to represent the fact that there are scores of news outlets, but those outlets cannot all be considered balanced, and in many cases some can be considered nothing more than conspiracy provocateurs such as Info Wars.  Info Wars is an outlet that relies more on conspiracy theories than facts.  When they use facts, those facts are modified in such a way that they end up serving false narratives that are published as factual news stories put out over social media platforms to influence the impressionable minds of millions.

Technological advancements over time have been necessary for humankind to survive and thrive in the world.  Technology, however, is a double edged sword when it comes to politics and news in general.  If you all remember a time many years ago before the Internet connected the entire world, people received their news from local news outlets that all employed many journalists who would travel to the news, document it, research big stories, get to the bottom of the facts, and put out great material for all to enjoy while sitting at the kitchen table reading the paper, or watching the local news at lunch or after dinner.  There were a few large news networks that employed scores of journalists travelling the globe covering the big news stories that erupted in as close to real time as they could. 

Times have changed.  Large companies have bought out much of the local news market, newspapers have been shutting down in droves, local news outlets are skeletons; having been stripped of journalists and other important staff, and the news has become an instant, live stream, in your face experience.  Something happens and within seconds millions of people are watching live coverage on their tablets, computers and cell phones. 

That immediate news coverage is great in a sense, but news manipulation is what really concerns me at this point in our history.  Outlets operating on the fringes feel it ok to stretch the truth and bastardize facts to help further agendas.  Completely false narratives are being published on a regular basis and shared across all social media platforms.  Much of the news is skewed to the right or left, leaving Americans wanting the truth in a position where they have to watch multiple news sources to get to the bottom of an issue. 

I recently spent time watching Fox News and MSNBC cover the news on a very busy news day.  There were 2 big stories to cover that day, both of which could easily be covered in a way that was fair to the viewer; a way that didn't skew the facts, omit important information, or redirect viewers to other information in order to avoid covering what didn't fit the narrative of the network so-to-speak. 

Had I been a person who just watched one of those two channels and didn't look at multiple news outlets for my news, what I would have received was either a far right or far left version of events, in both cases being presented by channels that were modifying the facts, omitting certain facts, and skewing the stories to fit their viewpoints.  That isn't news folks.  That is simply wrong.

People consistently say that they know what is right and factual, and to that I call bullshit.  Every day I look at my social media accounts, and Facebook is the best example.  It takes me no more than a minute to happen by a story someone posted or meme that states some sort of political data that is completely fabricated and false.  Yet, people post these stories and pictures and present them as fact, even though they are completely false.  Often times when I jump in and show the individual who posted something that it is indeed not true, the response I get isn't, "Thank you.  I appreciate that and will take it down."  It is usually, "Well, it may not be true but it proves the point I was trying to make."  No, it doesn't prove anything except that facts aren't as important as they used to be.

I am going to make this a multiple part blog, as it is beginning to get long.  Please provide your comments and let's start a conversation about what I have presented in this blog.  Have a great day, and remember, Facts are Important!

Stephen Dunkel 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and the DOJ Trying to Silence Mueller...

Mueller is set to sit in front of Congress on Wednesday this week and answer questions regarding the Mueller Investigation.  The DOJ, and organization that is supposed to look out for the best interests of America but has recently decided to become Trump's personal Law Firm, has sent correspondence to Mueller about what he can and cannot answer. For instance, you have the question of the 10 documented cases of obstruction in volume 2 of the report.  Mueller made it clear that he was bound by DOJ policy and could not indict a sitting president.  One very important question the Congressional Leadership will likely ask is, "If Donald Trump wasn't the sitting President, would you have indicted him based on the amount of evidence in the report?"  That question in every respect is fair.  You are asking the head of an investigation if they would have indicted someone had an arbitrary roadblock not been in place.  I say arbitrary roadblock because the policy is...

Electoral College

I have seen a ton of talk about the Electoral College in recent months.  The majority of Americans feel that going to a Direct Popular Vote like the rest of the world is the way to go.  Those on the Right seem to be completely against abolishing the Electoral College.  The question is why? The most common argument given is that we shouldn't let voters in all the big cities decide who is in office for the entire country, and that with Direct Popular Vote, those people who live in rural communities also get a say.  When you break down that argument, you quickly find all the holes that exist within it.  Let's start by talking about one other thing that is completely unfair in our current political system.  Let's look at the Senate. In the Senate, each State elects 2 Senators to go to Congress in Washington D.C.  Sounds fair right? Let's look at the most populous states and least populous states and how many people in each state Senators repres...

Dictators are Great! and other scary as hell things.

Most people weren't very happy with President Xi Jinping of China passing legislation for the ability of the President to rule indefinitely, but Donald Trump seemed to love it.  Donald Trump said, "He's now president for life.  President for life.  No, He's great, and look, he was able to do that.  I think it's great.  Maybe we'll have to give that a show some day." In July of 2016, Trump said of Saddam Hussein about killing terrorists, "He did that so good.  They didn't read them the rights.  They didn't talk.  They were terrorists. Over."  Granted, Trump did label him a bad guy as well, but had more good than bad to say about the former Ruler of Iraq.  Trump also said in 2016 that Libya would be better off, "if Moammar Giddafi were in charge right now."  Trump said that China, when they brutally cracked down on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, "shows you the power of strength,"  He was using that as an e...