Sports: Cam, Covid, and the Deepest Cut

I have a long-lived love/hate relationship with Cam Newton. Well, to be completely honest, it's mainly hate, so let me talk about that first.

It all started with Cam at Florida as an undergrad, stealing a student's laptop. Cam wrote "CAM" in chalk on the back of the laptop, then when the police came knocking in search of stolen property, Cam tossed it out of his dorm window. Process that story for a moment. There's a little humor and not a lot of IQ in it. Anyway, I found the whole tale pretty amusing, and I certainly didn't hate or love Cam for it.

Coach Meyer at Florida had a dude named Tebow in the quarterbacks' room, thus Cam decided to transfer. Here's where my hatred was ignited, although I didn't know it at the time. Auburn, not the cops, came a-knockin' for Cam. Wait, let me back up. According to those paragons of virtue, the NCAA, Auburn came a'knockin' to Cam's dad. Unbeknownst to Cam, so the myth unfolds, Auburn alumni stuffed various envelopes with somewhere between 200K and 400K to secure Cam's services. I don't know the exact amount. You might want to check with Charles Barkley; I'm pretty sure Sir Charles can pin it down a bit. 

So Cam's dad packed up the truck and moved Cam to Lee. County that is. Swimmin' pools; undergrads. Well, the first thing you know, Cam is Auburn's starting quarterback and the biggest pain in Alabama's ass this century. He helmed a damned near unstoppable offense. Auburn was running plays my dad ran coaching fifth grade football with a stud quarterback. And nobody could stop the Tigers. Every QB off tackle play garnered five yards, it seemed.

This is where my hate revved up, but not directly because of Cam. You see, I had uncovered a truly awesome sleeper team that year, a team I thought could and would go unbeaten and win a national championship. I thought the team I liked was maybe the best college football team I had seen in a decade. Their team speed on defense was unbelievable. And I could get them at 100-1. So I took them. That team was TCU.

Andy Dalton was the TCU quarterback, and he was not nearly their best player. The Frogs opened with a 30-21 win versus #24 Oregon State, then went on a 384-64, 9-0 rampage before beating San Diego State 40-35. Then they wrapped things up with a 66-17 win at New Mexico.

I waited for TCU's invite to the title game. It never came. Auburn had won by three at Miss State, by three in overtime versus Clemson, by three at Kentucky, and by one at Alabama. The NCAA and its lapdogs chose Auburn and Oregon for its single-game championship. My 100-1 undefeated and beloved Horned Frogs were frozen out through no fault of their own. 

It was then that I realized I needed to hate Cam Newton. Or at least hate Cam's dad. Or something. I missed a huge payday because Cam's dad got a huge payday. The butterfly effect had stung me in the ass.

Covid Cut

Well, it's a decade later, and the New England Patriots cut Cam Newton today. Most people were surprised. I really was not. The way Belichick played Mac Jones so many snaps the last pre-season game, I figured some PR stat-padding was in the works, and that implied certain things.

Theories abound regarding Cam's cut, but most center on Cam evidently being unvaccinated. He had traveled for a medical appointment last week, and some kind of Covid rules required him to miss practice for three days. Since Belichick stated that Cam hadn't broken any team rules, I'm baffled as to what occurred, and no clear cut explanation has emerged.

Media Reaction 

What interests me is the language being used in discussions of why Cam was cut. Many blurb articles say Cam's "stance" on vaccinations was partly to blame. Publicly, Cam hadn't said a thing. He said his decision was private. That's all he said. So how is that a "stance?" Not saying anything is sort of the opposite of a "stance."

Did any of today's Cam articles feature questions regarding Cam's medical history? What about questions addressing Newton family heart issues or auto-immune disorders? Nope, I did not read one bit of speculation. No reporter broached the subject. Did anyone ask Cam if perhaps a family member or anyone he knew had a bad vaccine reaction? Doesn't appear those questions are part of the conversation either.

Look, I'm not defending Cam Newton for being unvaccinated per se. I am castigating media for not asking pertinent questions. As someone who has heart issues, who has a brutal auto-immune family history, and who could have died the last time I took a drug with a "rare" side effect, I can appreciate vaccine trepidation. Media members need to ask the proper questions, or at least frame them for discussion if Cam keep things completely private.

Cam's Future

Well, this is almost ridiculously hand-in-glove, but the perfect fit for Cam is the Dallas Cowboys. If Prescott gets hurt again, Cam fits the stylistic bill for the Cowboy offense. And they may be the least hard-core vaccinators in the most anti-vaccination state in the league. 

That about covers everything...except I did say love/hate. So what do I love about Cam Newton? Well, keep it to yourselves, but I love his wardrobe. I'm not sure it's cool for a 64-year-old guy to love Cam's wardrobe, but I do. I bought a fine looking linen Cam Newton suit at Belk. I put on a few pounds during the pandemic, so I've kind of grown out of it, but it was my favorite suit. And I love the hats Cam wears to pressers.

So Cam, if you're reading this, I've bulked up to a 44 long. And bronze and maroon are my favorite hat colors. I'm not too shy to ask. The way I figure it, you or your dad owe me something.

Bob Dietz

August 31, 2021

Deplorables' Power?

Later in the week, I'll sink my teeth into a debunking of a really poor nationally televised piece regarding Covid. Today's entry, however, focuses on broad questions. My last two pieces have dealt with the pandemic's effects on American media. My argument is that when journalists decide to write and publicly present information so as to generate what they believe will be the greatest public good, they have jettisoned their responsibilities as journalists. They have become advocates for particular actions, and their reporting has shifted into the realm of propaganda.

The example I discussed was the categorization of the unvaccinated as fearful, irrational folk who are creating a drag on the U.S. effort to "solve the virus." An alternative perspective, I wrote, is that not being vaccinated is a political act, and its adherents wield attention and power they would otherwise lack. My problem with American journalists is that the second perspective does not get discussed or even mentioned in most reportage, and I suspect this non-discussion is quite purposeful.

Power or No Power?

Do I actually believe that the unvaccinated have been responsible for bringing Covid control to a screeching halt? Well, not really, at least not since the Delta variant has become the dominant Covid strain. Here's why I think that the unvaccinated have become more scapegoats than power brokers in August, 2021.

While some American studies suggest that vaccine efficacy with Delta has dropped from 90% to between 70 and 80%, a UK study indicates a more severe drop off in effectiveness. The below 40% vaccine efficacy versus Delta (from the UK) suggests that vaccination is no longer a huge factor in whether one gets Delta. The vaccines dramatically reduce the chances of Delta hospitalization and death, but they are only moderately useful in preventing infection itself. We're beginning to see reports of vaccine efficacy drop off being sprinkled throughout mainstream media in the last 72 hours.

Since Israeli and other studies have demonstrated that viral load from the vaccinated infected is comparable to viral load from unvaccinated infected, then the unvaccinated should not really be scapegoated as the overwhelming sources of virus spread. In fact, if vaccinated people tend to socialize more, go to restaurants more, or go to sporting events more than unvaccinated, then the vaccinated may, per capita, spread more virus than the unvaccinated. In other words, if the vaccinated behave differently, and they are being given permission to behave differently via vaccination gold stars, then they may per capita be more responsible for virus transmission.

Reporting Bias

Basically what I'm saying is that Delta has almost completely changed the game. The "deplorables" are no longer the sole virus control villains, and most American media simply does not discuss or even acknowledge it. For example, have you seen any reportage of how many people get Delta from the average unvaccinated, currently infected person versus how many get Delta from the average vaccinated, currently infected person? These stats would put things in direct, stark focus, and yet no U.S. health institution is even hazarding a public guess. Why do you think that is?

The question indeed becomes why. Why has American media decided to interpret reality as if the virus were the original strain with 90% vaccine efficacy? Is it easier to just report reality as if the virus were some monolithic constant? Does that simplify the writing? Do reporters have a difficult time, like the CDC, deciding that good practices in April are not necessarily good practices in August? Are American reporters spinning and framing news because the unvaccinated make convenient villains and, having established them as villains, consistent reporting trumps accurate reporting?

Going Forward

When the original strain was the dominant Covid strain, the unvaccinated bore more responsibility and wielded more political power of a sort, than now. They may have deserved their original casting as villains and fools, but the script has been largely rewritten by Delta. With the original virus, media interpreted reality as a kind of Unvaccinated Walking Dead versus Science Sapiens story. Now, who is responsible for what amount of illness is more along the lines of Murder on the Orient Express.

American media, however, is slow to adjust, as it loves villains and scapegoats. Villains and scapegoats make for easy writing with all kinds of moral imperatives and familiar storytelling. But this easy writing hinders providing a reality-based reportage for Americans. Villains and scapegoats do us a disservice.

I'll get into more of this tomorrow as I briefly examine media coverage of the California teacher who infected half of her class. It will be a warm-up to my deconstruction of a major television piece regarding Covid. 

Bob Dietz

August 31, 2021

In the Name of "The Public Good"

Tuesday's (8/24) "Hillbillies or Heroes?" entry asked why American media doesn't publicly recognize, acknowledge, and explore anti-vaxxing as a rational political act. Since reticence to vaccinate demographically overlaps heavily (but not perfectly) with Trumpism, one would expect serious discussions of anti-vaxxing as a political act with power and teeth. Such discussions would almost seem required.

Why are such discussions not ubiquitous? That question brings me to one of the themes I'll revisit repeatedly in the weeks ahead. I'm sure there are a thousand dissertations being written these days regarding the paths of American pandemic news coverage. I'm a simple gambler, used to dealing with the challenges of partial information, so I'm going to speculate in a decidedly simple way as to why these discussions are not front and center in mainstream media.

Framing anti-vaxxers as rational and political, and as wielding power, may be viewed by American media as making a bad situation worse. The pandemic has decidedly raised our day-to-day stress levels during what has become an unwavering blue/red cultural civil war. Underlining more examples of this cultural war, although entirely justified and reasonable, may be perceived as adding fuel to the cultural firestorm. Acknowledging that anti-vaxxers wield real, significant power seems too distasteful, too worrisome, and too much of a public anti-vaxxing boost. Reporting such would do more public harm than good. American media therefore avoids the topic.

The problem with reporting that edits, spins, and adjusts tonal variations for what it perceives as the public good is that it's no longer unbiased reporting. This kind of reporting is advocacy, and the consequence of advocacy is propaganda. 

When journalists spin stories because they perceive their spin as benefitting the public, they have become propagandists. They may be 100% correct in that honest reporting would make current situations worse, but they are still engaging in manipulative, dishonest propaganda.  It is Propaganda with a capital "P."

Editing for the "good of the reader" infantilizes the reader/viewer. The power of information that should be shared with readers/viewers is instead retained and monopolized by the journalists. That is selfish. It's dishonest. It's a kind of paternal anti-journalism.

In the last few weeks, I have run into some of the most blatant, purposefully constructed examples of propaganda I have ever seen in mainstream American media. Tomorrow, I'll preview the single worst example. Next week, I'll deconstruct that piece of journalism line by line. 

The evolving state of American journalism has really been a surprise to me, akin to opening Dracula's coffin for the first time. Yeah, there's the dude who said he knew what was best for me. Immortality and all that. Like Dracula, American journalism is leaving out a few of the gory details. American reporters have become the story, and they have become advocates for particular actions and particular points of view. In doing so, they are trying to rob us of glimpses of the overall picture. It's time to get out the holy water and stakes and expose their carefully constructed storylines as mirages.

Bob Dietz

August 28, 2021

The Unvaccinated: Hillbillies or Heroes?

Here in Tennessee, with fewer than 40% of the population vaccinated, the unvaccinated might be perceived as political prisoners to their established commitment to the Trump era. Good people, perhaps, but hopelessly naive in their bundling of religion, white nationalism, and a distrust of established institutions. Tied to their biases, their echo chamber anti-science, and their idiosyncratic definitions of personal liberty, Tennesseans may fashionably be considered foolhardy "deplorables" who don't realize they are putting themselves, their neighbors, and their children at Covid risk by resisting the obvious benefits of vaccination.

There are, however, other ways to view the cluster of attributes that have led to vaccine resistance amidst the worst public health crisis in national history. Hillary Clinton's deplorables, whether by accident or choice, are behaving in ways eminently consistent with widespread established traditions. For example, if the U.S. is in fact deeply enmeshed in a culture conflict unprecedented since the Civil War, then it makes sense to refuse to cooperate with what MAGA voters view as an occupying force. Maintaining behavioral autonomy becomes a priority as the occupying force tries to assimilate you. It's a lesson and strategy straight out of the Bible, whether Jews in Egypt or Christians in Rome. People are willing to risk dying to maintain cultural identity. When this blueprint for sacrifice is laid out time and again in the U.S.'s most important religious text, the behaviors are more than understandable. They should have been expected.

The unvaccinated being relatively unmoved by the prospect of loss of life can be viewed as self-sacrifice to continue a cultural identity. Unvaccinated status, if one believes lack of vaccination sabotages the "conquering" of Covid, can also be viewed as an act of death-spreading aggression. Spreading disease becomes a weapon to take down the evil progressives, who currently control the House, the Senate, and the White House. Keeping Covid humming damages the economy, which can be considered a strategy to degrade the occupying power. 

Since the "culture in power" is, at the moment, pushing the narrative that vaccination reduces virus spread, not getting vaccinated becomes a rational revolutionary act. Risking one's life in the pursuit of taking down an incompetent, corrupt, un-Christian occupying force is a reasonable and rational strategy. If one buys the unvaccinated as spewing more death and destruction than the vaccinated, the deplorables wield real power.

A Lack of Discussion

Now that the Delta variant is the dominant virus, I don't much buy into the "unvaccinated spewing death" guilt messaging. In the days ahead, I'll get into that and many other curious messages being promulgated by U.S. institutions and media. For now, the point I want to make as an introduction is that for many of the unvaccinated, their actions have firm origins in American traditions. Bluntly speaking, Pickett's Charge and getting nailed to a cross set high profile, deeply embedded examples of self-sacrifice for cultural identity. The unvaccinated are defining themselves as separate from what they perceive as an occupying cultural force. With that separateness may come, consciously or not, actions that sabotage the occupying force through any available means, including self-sacrifice.

Everything I've just laid out is simple and obvious, but reality is not being framed, or even discussed, using the phrases and language I've used above. I have never seen the U.S. media stringently avoid certain topics and questions as deliberately as in 2021. Future blog entries will discuss the very strange communications mores that have emerged in the United States. What's become increasingly obvious is that Fox News has no monopoly on the "state reporting" propaganda game.

Pivoting Perspectives

One perspective on all of this is that the unvaccinated are indeed the "deplorables" -- the great unwashed who, through fear or sheer ignorance, are holding back the sacred societal effort to defeat the devil, in this case Covid-19. This perspective requires defining the unvaccinated demographic as some combination of willfully irresponsible, evil, and irrational. 

Another perspective is that the purposefully unvaccinated are, consciously or non-consciously, political actors trying to impose their will on a regime in the only way they know how. They are not solely or mainly uneducated hillbillies unable to grasp science.

To me, the fascinating aspect of all of this is that the first perspective is how most U.S. media are defining the situation. The unvaccinated are irresponsible fools gumming up society's Covid battle due to fear and ignorance. Yet I find the second perspective more Ockham's Razor worthy. It requires fewer suppositions and unlikely causes/effects. It puts the vaccinated and unvaccinated on more equal intellectual terms. The second perspective also better explains what I'll explore further in the weeks ahead. I think that the U.S. and corporate framing of the pandemic, the language used, and the topics NOT discussed publicly are best interpreted in the context of the second perspective. 

I'd argue that both the behavior of the unvaccinated, and the framing of the reporting/discussion involving them, is more usefully described by the second perspective, namely that this is an occupying cultural force scenario with the language and reportage used by the state consistent with what would be employed to dampen a revolt.

Conclusion

I don't think I've said anything particularly surprising or erudite. I've just stated the obvious. More than anything, I guess what does surprise me is that these topics aren't omnipresent in the U.S. media. Regardless, however, of how strongly I can or cannot make these points of perspective, I think that this is a rich taking off point for my investigation of propaganda in the Age of Covid.  

In my opinion, we may be on uncharted media ground, with the pandemic providing moral cover for some of the most dishonest and manipulative U.S. journalism I have witnessed in my life. And, as I will demonstrate, it is not subtle.

Bob Dietz

August 24, 2021