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
