I have blamed conservative media for the rise and inexplicable failure to fall of Donald Trump's political viability.
I now double down on that accusation. I've linked to an article about one of the most interesting figures in modern media, Matt Drudge.
The title of the linked article is The Man Who Could Have Stopped Donald Trump.
The information offered in the article does not provide ironclad proof that Drudge alone could have spared us this torturous dragging out of a very bad joke, but it does indicate that there was certainly no attempt at objectivity on Drudge's part during the interminable 2016 primary season.
Matt Drudge is an interesting side effect of the internet. He is not a journalist. He is a news aggregator. He provides links to articles that usually support his narrative and sometimes provides the links with his own titles, often from quotes within the article, often from his personal conclusions drawn from the article.
I encourage you to read the article. It's very informative, and, from my perspective, damning, even though it seems as if it must have tickled Drudge's vanity since it was on his very web page that I first saw the article. And well it might puff the chest of a man who takes pride in his power to mislead. The Pied Piper could take piccolo lessons from this guy.
Here's a pertinent quote from the article.
I can only speculate as to Drudge's justifications for refusing to link to any article that cast Trump in any light that did not capture the essence of the illusion of the no nonsense Dirty Harry. Perhaps it was genuine belief in the billionaire. Perhaps it was crony capitalism. Perhaps it was a victory lap around the fallen walls of of the liberal monopoly of news. Perhaps it was only a Pavlovian hobby. Doesn't really matter. What is certain and what he even seems quite proud of is that visitors to his website received only one side of the Trump story.
Now, what should we make of this information? First, we must establish that news is a product. Successful news networks, websites and aggregators treat their customers in a way that encourages return business. They give the consumer what is more likely to be consumed, and more importantly, digested, with no danger of uncomfortable heartburn or acid reflux.
Of no concern at all to the provider or the consumer is the clarity of the environment which is adversely affected by the excessive flatulence that such a diet sorely lacking in nutrients and fiber produces.
News has always been a product to be consumed and has always been subjective. Even if it were just you telling your friend about the Dallas Cowboys game, you wouldn't say they lost by 6 points. You would say they almost won. But now, just like cars, phones, emojis and football franchises, you can literally find the news product that suits you to a T and reinforces your views. And sometimes it's a very subtle shading that sells the consumer. The National Enquirer is the obvious snake oil salesman. If it were a car dealership, it would be called Honest Abe's Luxury Autos Under 1000$. Nobody's buying there unless they only HAVE a thousand dollars and 0 credit (ibility).
The respectable capitalists don't insult the consumer's intelligence. There are no outrageous claims that can easily be discredited like HILLARY CLINTON IS HONEST or DONALD TRUMP RESPECTS VOTERS INTELLIGENCE.
No outright lies be told. The good ones are simply very skilled fact selectors.
Of course, Drudge nor anyone else is under any obligation to tell me the truth. Caveat emptor. That is the first lesson I take from this. I'm responsible for the information I take in, and more importantly, I'm responsible for what I believe.
The very first thing to do is to know what you believe. That I tell you to do this BEFORE you consume information indicates of course that I posit that there are transcendent guiding principles that need no input.
I'm pretty sure someone will read this and roll their eyes and mutter Yeah, don't confuse me with the facts.
Let me clarify. You don't need facts or outside information to understand that people have inherent rights. You don't need facts/outside input to understand that asking the innocent to give up rights because of the actions of the guilty is wrong.
Where information comes into legitimate play is maybe knowing that a certain person in question has violated the rights of others, and so forfeited some of his rights
I'm aware that someone reading this may have some beliefs that directly oppose mine. That's perfectly fine. I have enough confidence in my core beliefs and enough confidence that those who earnestly seek truth will find it.
The next step, I believe, is shrinking your area of concern.
If news is only a distraction for you, carry on. I wouldn't presume that news about your city council meeting would be nearly as entertaining or expertly packaged as news about the UN Security Council. Some people watch news instead of soap operas. And that's fine, too, although it does imply that if the news you're viewing is as entertaining as fiction, it might conceivably BE fiction, or at best, "loosely based on a true story."
However, if you consume news FOR the information it professes to contain, and are the sort who then sometimes acts on that information, here are three good reasons to think local.
1) You will never know all the information about any situation that involves anyone or thing apart from yourself. You may be an eyewitness to a crime, but you would still only have your perspective to rely on. But it stands to reason that the fewer degrees of separation between you and the situation being reported, the firmer grasp you will have on the facts. Every time the information goes from one person to the next, it gets filtered. Sewage can become drinking water, and vice versa.
2) I mentioned a city council meeting as opposed to a UN meeting. Another important difference between the two is you can actually ATTEND the next city council meeting, but if you tried to attend the next UN meeting without an invite, you will be met by men with guns that are far more functional than that miserable knotted symbol of peace that stands outside the UN building.
You can have an impact.
Some (not all) politics IS local.
3) You'll sleep better at night. Less obsession about things outside your control and more actual action taken in matters that are small enough to be affected by you will quiet your mind and strengthen your resolve.
Now, I don't expect you to leave off following national or global news. But, I would encourage you to try to keep it in perspective, balance it with local and state news, and, most importantly, let your conscience be your guide.
