Legitimate News Vs. Cynical Manipulation

A Focused Free Writing

The next time you watch the Broncos play, turn the sound down and pretend the quarterback you are watching is the media's darling. His arm is golden. He sees the field. His footwork is solid and he does not make mistakes. Then evaluate Tebow's performance through that prism.

Now, turn the tables and tune in the next time the Patriots play. Turn the volume down and pretend that in Tom Brady you are watching an inept bungler who has no business starting in a professional football game. I predict you will be surprised at the results. All of Tebow's passes that used to be arrant have now been broken up by good defense, or should have been caught, or would have been caught had the receiver not cut his route short. And his successes? The great touchdown pass to Decker in the Oakland game? Ditto his pass up the middle to Decker for a touchdown against Kansas City? Instead of being momentary aberrations in an otherwise hapless quarterback, they have become yet more evidence of Tebow's sure fire admittance to the hall of fame.

On the other hand, Tom Brady becomes a stiff. His once brilliant survey of the field becomes the result of a great offensive scheme. Any overthrown balls, instead of being attributed to the loss of speed at the wide receiver position, have become inexcusable mistakes. If he leads his team to victory, it is now a fluke to be marveled at as we wait until next week to see if he can repeat this miracle.

We are slaves to this media supplied filter, but it serves us right because thinking on our own has become just too damn hard. There is too much info out there to wade through and it is nearly impossible to distinguish legitimate news from cynical manipulation.

There was a brief little story on television this morning about the recent controversy over oil deposits around DIA and its environs that would require fracking in order to access the stuff. The news crew reported that precious few residents of the area knew what fracking was and were angry that they hadn't been more thoroughly informed about the down sides to the procedure--like the elimination of our water table. This piece of information was accompanied by televised images of the confused residents. I think we were supposed to feel sorry for them.

I don't think the Great Fracking Controversy has any clear cut answers, but the uninformed residents only made me mad. How could you live in this decade and not be familiar with the term? And why don't you go out and find out for yourself what it means and what its implications are?

You see, I think the presupplied media filter we are given for any situation has conditioned us to wait to be told things. As boring as a droning lecturer can be, if you just play the stupid game it is kind of easy to get by. Even though the spin on cable news makes the truth impossible to discern, it is a lot easier to listen to Fox or MSNBC and their versions of "Obamacare" than it is to actually read that unbelievably boring document.

So we end up believing all sorts of contradictory things. Fox News devotees believe that computerizing medical records will lead to the scary world of Big Brother and Communism. MSNBC folks believe that computerizing medical records will save money and that Republican naysayers have been bought and paid for.

Fox News listeners think the main issue in the next election is whether or not we should raise taxes. If the right wing manages to frame the issue in those terms, the results of the election are easy to predict. MSNBC types, on the other hand, think the main issue in the next election is whether or not we should preserve our social safety net. This is a completely different way to frame the same issue and would result in a different vote.

I was thinking about all of this as I was reading The New York Times this Sunday. I was struck by the number of straight news articles that would elicit completely contradictory reactions, depending on the reader.

There is an article on page one that talks about the V-22 Osprey, a $70 million hover aircraft the Marines use in Afghanistan. It seems that the Marines love the machine, even though it has an alarmingly high failure rate. Congress has been debating the fate of the Osprey since the Bush Administration and the Marines, fearful of impending budget cuts when the "SuperCommittee" (There's a misnomer if there ever was one.) fails to reach an agreement, are busy showcasing their craft by giving dignitaries rides to and from the Pentagon.

My reaction is one of bemusement. I'm going to enjoy hearing the Republicans rationalize why we can't let the automatic trigger touch this cool aircraft, so lets raise social security age to 70. My conservative friends at the Y and some more that I used to teach with would not appreciate my sense of irony and would instead be shaking their collective heads over yet another example of the misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration.

Another article on the front page is about suspect programs in the nation's law schools. It seems that law schools spend most of their time talking, reading, and thinking theory and precious little time teaching the practical side of the law. Now, anybody who as ever seen My Cousin Vinnie already knows this, but you get the idea. To illustrate this problem, the article sites a course offering in a typical law school: "A Future Foretold: Neo-Aristotelian Praise of Post-modern Legal Theory."

My reaction? Cool. The Aristotle class sounds good. I think law school should be about theory and thinking and arguing and being obnoxious. You know, all those things that lawyers are. How hard can it be to figure out how to file a merger or file a complaint? If Joe Pesci can do it, anyone can.

But others would be furious that a lot of tax dollars end up susidizing a lot of this time wasted on phony things like Aristotle and obscure court cases.

Finally, an article appears on page 13 that really highlights our divergent filters for looking at any issue: "Deficit Panel Faces a Rift Over Who Ought To Pay." I don't have to go into particulars. I think the panel will fail and ultimately Congress will fail to come up with any bipartisan plan because Republicans simply refuse to consider raising taxes and therefore a compromise is impossible. My Republican friends would snort at my naivete and say the Democrats' refusal to cut entitlements makes any compromise impossible.

Neither one of those positions is an accurate statement of the situation, but this isn't about accuracy. This is about creating and sustaining media generated illusions and winning the next election.

And betting on the intellectual laziness of the American people is a good way to start.