The Blogger Who Cried "Wolf"

What if I'm wrong? That question has crossed my mind more than once.  Suppose all my fears about Trump's authoritarianism turn out to be unfounded, and it turns out to be part of his shtick all this time - to "own the libs," or whatever.  Man, won't I look foolish, what with all the squawking I've done about how he's a wanna-be autocrat, how he's a threat to democracy, and so on.

It's not like this is unprecedented, after all. Nixon privately wished he could assassinate a nosy journalist, and Obama aggressively prosecuted whistle-blowers and their journalist sources.  The US government has done business with undemocratic regimes in the past, on several occasions. Government crackdowns on protests in the 1960s were significantly more frequent and brutal.  Yet the US hasn't slid into authoritarianism itself, despite having frequent brushes with other authoritarian nations, and even our own elected officials who possess anti-democratic leanings.

And honestly, how much has life changed for the average person since January 2017? Probably not much, for most people.  We still have a free press.  We don't have to worry about the FBI showing up at our door because we participated in a march or voiced our opinion on social media.  We can still vote.  (And yes, there are many cases of voter suppression, but - and I'm not trying to downplay it here - it's another thing that has been going on for years, if not decades.)

So maybe I'm overreacting, and the things I've been pointing out are just "politics as usual." Maybe 2021 arrives, and my worst fear about Trump not stepping down turns out to be unfounded.  If that's the case, my credibility takes a big hit. Not only was I wrong in a big way, I panicked over nothing. I might have even made a handful of other people panic.  If I do end up being wrong, I'll dial back how much I talk about politics and current events substantially. (I'll never shut up completely, though. You're all stuck with me.) I'll also take a hard look at my preconceived notions, to figure out how and why I was so wrong.

But the way I see it, we're not "fine" even if the worst-case scenario never happens.  I compare it to a patient who refuses to make lifestyle changes after a major health scare.  Even if Trump's actions turn out to be an act for whatever reason, they still had the effect of chipping away at the country's democratic institutions.  It will take time and effort to repair them.  And that's the best-case scenario.  What if we don't get that best-case scenario? I'd rather overreact and be wrong, because prevention is easier than reversing the process.









I guess we'll find out in a few years.  In the meantime, I'll keep squawking about it, loudly and often.

Trump's Ongoing War on the Freedom of the Press

So it's been a while since my last post.  I never meant to let it lapse for this long, but sometimes things come up and you know how life goes.  Anyway. . .

There's a video circulating around showing how the news anchors for many Sinclair Broadcast Group outlets regurgitating a nearly-identical news piece.  Somebody took the time to splice a bunch of clips together, and that's the video that's been making the internet rounds.  (Or one of many videos.  I think there could be a few different ones.) Go watch this video here - it's disturbing as hell.

Imagine if you could only get your news from one source.  Even if you agreed with that source, it still presents a lot of problems. For one, you're getting all your information filtered through the outlet's preferences: the stories it deems important, the ideological slant it wants to put on it, the bits of data it chooses to emphasize or downplay, and so on.  Information is vital to a democracy: people need it to make informed decisions at the ballot box, among other things.  If one company, or a handful of companies, control a huge number of news agencies, how do you think those news sites will cover a political candidate that the company favors? Do you think voters will get a complete picture of that candidate, or will they only hear about the good stuff?

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  The Sinclair Group's "newscast" I linked to centered on the problem of "biased and false news" being shared on social media.  Now, that was a newsworthy story, so what's the big deal, right? Well, it's a big deal because this is the full script, courtesy of CNN:

"I'm [we are] extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [name of local station] produces. But I'm [we are] concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.  The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I [we] understand truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."

Do you see how the news anchors try to convince you that their news affiliate is the only trustworthy source of news? Like how Fox News uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is anything but that.  Also, the script's wording, specifically its use of the term "biased and false news", reminds you of a certain President's catch phrase, doesn't it? I doubt that's a coincidence, since the Sinclair Group is in the middle of some business dealings that Trump Administration officials are overseeing.

Obviously, the Sinclair Group executives are doing this to get on Trump's good side. Unfortunately, this is taking place at the same time while a steady flow of damning information is coming out about Trump's obstruction of justice, his ties to the Russian government, and his cabinet's unethical and possibly illegal actions.  What would happen if a number of local news stations began undercutting the Mueller investigation, peddling the "deep state" conspiracy nonsense, or distracting their viewers with whataboutism? Fox News and the right-wing media still get a lot of traction among their viewers with their fawning, pro-Trump coverage; if these outlets started parroting that message, it adds fuel to the fire.  On top of that, Trump's position to influence the Sinclair deals gives him a measure of control over the company.  We're already seeing that influence how the company operates, and the deals are still in progress.  If the Trump Administration decides in Sinclair's favor, it will be beholden to him and his cronies for as long as they serve in office.

This would effectively mean that Trump's attacks on the press are moving beyond his "brain vomit" Tweets, and could potentially be disseminated by news agencies with actual credibility, not just a BS-spewing network like Fox.  Trump's attacks on the so-called "fake news" were never in jest.  He means it when he says he wants to make them register, or censor them.  He wants to control the media and its message, and thanks to the Sinclair Group's ass-kissing, Trump could soon have an effective tool to help him with that.  That should terrify you.  It terrifies me.