Is It News, Fake-News, Fake-Fake-News, or a Fascist Agenda?

How important is news to the preservation and protection of our American democracy? Surprisingly this has become a salient issue in our nation. While our history has demonstrated time and again that the public’s knowledge and understanding of events, issues, and societal information is often essential to fulfilling and sustaining our freedoms, values and way of life. The media is almost always a principle player in what the public knows or has access to know. This doesn’t mean that the media has always played on the side of the ‘angels’ of course; but then ‘the media’ isn’t one thing and doesn’t exist as a uniform and single voice. So, the media is a construct of numerous entities that provide information to the public or their clientele. It is in this function of disseminating information, “the News”, that they play their role in our democracy.

The importance of “Media’s” role was well expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s guidance: “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” This advice is more sage today then when Jefferson expounded it. Living in a more complex society that confronts more issues, in more areas, and at a significantly faster pace than was common in his time; the public’s reliance on the news media cannot be underestimated or undervalued. Of course, there is an implicit requirement for the media to provide accurate, complete and unbiased information in regards to what they report. This puts the current political ‘food fight’ over the media and “fake-news” as a central issue that has the potential to erode a pillar, if not the very foundation, of our democratic institutions.

The “fake-news” issue offers yet another arena where we can test the intelligence that is applied to fulfilling our societal obligation to stay informed. As long as enough citizens can pass the test there is always the hope that they can also retain control of our government; else the prognosis is self-evident like many of our American truths.

Question A:   Can the public trust the “Media”?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - A:  No

Rationale - A:      The answer must be ‘No’ because the “Media” isn’t a singular thing. Even the ‘news media’ isn’t a single thing. So as a starting point, you can’t trust what isn’t adequately defined and general misunderstood in the public arena.

With the internet, the ‘media’ has metastasized into an amorphous aggregate of news, entertainment, political forums, dis-information sites, money-making opportunities, anti-‘that and that’ venues, hate-communities, and a plethora of promotion platforms that present themselves as the ‘news media’. Add to this that these new entities are presented as co-equals to more traditional news entities and the problems should be apparent. The issue isn’t can the public trust the “Media”, but why would anyone trust ‘news’ regardless of source? This doesn’t mean that there are not reputable and reliable news entities that the public could put a high degree of confidence in being ‘trustworthy’.

Question B:   Can ‘trustworthiness’ be established for the “Media”?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - B:  Yes

Rationale - B:      While you can’t just trust the “Media”, it is possible to establish a basis for categorizing various entities along a spectrum of ‘trustworthiness’. This has always been a relevant requirement with media, especially the news media; but has become a more critical and more difficult task as the internet has expanded the vulnerabilities that misinformation purveyors provides and increases the number of ‘bad’ actors that can exploit the notion of being the “Media”.

Establishing the ‘News’ Trust Spectrum can’t be done by one person however, so you can’t do it on your own. If the American people want to retain their ability to be ‘well-informed’ then there needs to be a public discourse on and effort made on how to define and implement a sound and reasoned methodology for creating the spectrum. This is a case of “trust being earned”, and not just once but on an on-going basis.

Question C:   Which entities are appropriate to designate as ‘news’ sources within the full “Media” space? Select those that apply.

(1). Main-stream media

(2). Newspapers (with or without companion web-sites)

(3). Instagram posts

(4). Cable news channels (with or without companion web-sites)

(5). Other publications: Journals, Reports, magazines, …

(6). Talk shows: television, radio, internet, …

(7). Twitter tweets

(8). Web-sites publishing ‘news’ articles (only web-based)

(9). Governmental sponsored or controlled entities

(10). Broadcast corporations’ news divisions

(11). Facebook posts

(12). Comments associated with other “media” items

(13). Any information presented via any communication medium

Answer - C:  2, 4, 5, 8, and 10

Rationale - C:      Items 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 fall within the scope of being news resources that have a reasonable potential to be ‘trustworthy’ sources. Many of these achieved some standing of being a good source of accurate news over their respective history. But even among these categories the form of the medium doesn’t confirm upon each an authentic ‘trustworthiness’. Demonstrating that ‘trustworthiness’ is an attribute of an entity would be incumbent upon the entity itself, those who claim it is not, and reputable bodies that can confirm or disprove a news item.

Item 1 isn’t a sufficiently precise definition of who is the “Main Stream Media”, so it’s circular.

Item 6 doesn’t constitute a mission or purpose that is assured to be unbiased. Being considered a trustworthy member of this category might need to be corroborated by the entities that are trusted among 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Items 3, 7, 11, and 12 do not possess an expectation of reliability, integrity, or professionalism. Trust isn’t part of that media’s DNA.

Item 9 is subject to political interference and may never be sufficiently free to trust on areas of ‘news’ about the government or government policy. In areas where the ‘news’ is of a scientific nature, the trust-factor is higher but must be examined with a degree of skepticism due to intrusive political interference.

Item 13 is self-contradictory with being able to be ‘trustworthy’, as it would contain information that contradicts other information where only one can be true and thus ‘trustworthy’.

Question D:   What is “fake” news?

(1). Inaccurate information reported as ‘fact’

(2). Information intentionally distorted to mislead.

(3). Presenting a report that contradicts what a politician says is true.

(4). Creating information and details that are not grounded in actual events.

(5). Misrepresentation of information and events that shift what is understood about the topic/issue.

(6). Information from a source that is not ‘named’ as the source.

(7). Reporting information that the public cannot confirm on their own.

(8). Publishing information indicating a government or political policy are violating a law.

Answer - D:  2, 4, and 5

Rationale - D:      Items 2, 4 and 5 are efforts to deceive or distract the public from the truth by providing ‘false’ information purposely. Fake news doesn’t come from incompetence, or human error (like item 1), or sources that are attempting to fool the news entity; these conditions result in erroneous and false news but not because the news entity is attempting to create the falsehood. Fake news is intended to lie to you, to prevent you from knowing the ‘facts’.

Items 3, 6, 7, and 8 would be as likely to be true as false based on the statement. Without an intention to distort, alter, lie or make-up information these are often conditions that are the ‘news’ that the public would expect to be reported upon. Protecting a ‘source’ doesn’t create a ‘fake’ news item there has to be more than an ‘unnamed’ source to make it ‘fake’.

“Fake” news provides an opportunity for those that dispute the ‘facts’ to provide adequate information and sources that would indicate the ‘news’ entity reporting the ‘fake’ news to lose or reduce its ‘trustworthiness’ assessment.

Question E:    Who should you ‘trust’ to decides what news is “fake” and thus what news is “real”? Select all that you should trust.

(1). Yourself

(2). The approving editor/publisher

(3). Elected politician

(4). Public polls on the stated ‘fake’ news

(5). News anchors that present the news daily

(6). Executive branch officials

(7). Other ‘news’ entities that provide news that identifies how the ‘fake’ news was / can be invalidated

(8). Members of Congress

(9). Fact-checking entities, like PolitiFact

(10). Friends, neighbors and family

Answer - E:  1, 2, 5, 7 and 9

Rationale - E:      The correct answers are a ‘collectively correct’ answer set since they do not stand as sufficient ‘trust’ sources individually. Even ‘yourself’ isn’t sufficient except in some rare and unlikely circumstances where you have and possess information that someone else could use independently to confirm or invalidate facts pertinent to the new item in question. Including ‘yourself’ is not absolutely required, although if you don’t know why you trust or distrust a news entity then your judgement on the other entities is dubious and strange.

The ‘collective’ answer is based on the argument and reliance on the variety of sources that are presenting the news item and in aggregate are supporting a view that it is ‘real’ or that it is ‘fake’.

Items 3, 6 and 8 are not in a line of work that lends itself to being trusted. Depending on their judgment that news if ‘fake’ or ‘real’ particularly that involved or touches upon their interests is foolhardy.

Items 4 and 10 aren’t representative of entities that would be expected to have access to the proper information that would validate or invalidate a news report. [Rare situations may occur where someone actually knows something factual but you can’t rely upon them to have the infrequent case of knowing on most news items. Otherwise it would not be a ‘rare’ situation.]

Question F:    Is trusting a media entity the same as trusting its published news items?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      If you trust the entity, what would the reason be for not trusting their news items?  There may be some items that you have some doubt about, but if you don’t start with trust then why would you consider trusting the news items that they present?

If you trust the news items then what would the reasoning be to not trust the news entity also. If you find an occasional items to be of doubtful veracity that may require you to diligently assess if your general trust of the other items is still high.

Question G:   Does the public need to trust our government?

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). There is both a Yes and No element to this question.

Answer - G:  2 - No

Rationale - G:     The government is essentially the operational extension of the public and the public’s interests in governance. However, the public cannot simply trust the government to operate for and in the public’s interests without vigilant attention on governmental actions and persistent questioning and challenges. The public isn’t supposed to trust the officials, legislators, appointees, or agencies that not American. The best individuals may have the best intentions and attempt to do what they believe is best for the nation; but those individuals, their intentions and their actions may not be in the best interests of the public. Imagine what the normal run-of-the-mill politicians and bureaucrats might do if you were foolish enough to trust them without question.

This should not be taken as a condemnation of those elected to or working in government, only that trusting them implicitly isn’t a beneficial approach to fulfilling your democratic social responsibilities.

You have to hope that your government is striving to do what is right, and you can’t assume that everyone is intentionally trying to act corruptly or harmful to the public’s interests; but you also need to pay attention to what the government is doing, saying, proposing, and hiding as a civic duty.
 

Question H:   Which of the following political or governmental entities need to be trusted to preserve our democracy?

(1). President

(2). Senate

(3). House of Representatives

(4). Governor of your state

(5). State Legislature

(6). Supreme Court of US

(7). State Supreme Court

(8). Dept. of State

(9). Education Dept.

(10). Dept. of Health and Human Services

(11). Environmental Protection Agency

(12). Dept. of Defense

(13). Agriculture Dept.

(14). Dept. of Justice

(15). Dept. of Homeland Security

(16). Internal Revenue Service

(17). All of the above.

(18). None of the above.

Answer - H:  18

Rationale - H:      As discussed in Question G, it is not in a citizen’s interest to trust any part of our government. Rather citizens have to have an expectation that as long as the public is properly informed about what the government is doing, about what is happening in the nation and around the world, and what they understand and believe is a proper adherence to the ‘law of the land’ and our democratic system is being followed; then we are protecting our freedoms. This requires a ‘trustworthy’ news media to be recognized and accepted based on facts that can be confirmed, a record of accuracy, and on presenting coverage of issues that is both objective and non-partisan.

Question I:      Can you trust a government when it is comprised of members of your own political party?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - I:  2 - No

Rationale - I:        Political parties are entities that are not concerned about the interests of their members. This may seem contradictory in as much as the Parties work to tell those members how they will work to deliver the form legislation / governance that the members approve of. But the promise isn’t the guarantee, and their actions do not mean that what they do is in the public’s interest.

Question J:    Are you well-informed and protecting our democracy?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - J:  No

Rationale - J:       Being well-informed has several requirements. It requires:

(i)    that the ‘news’ media is doing a thorough and competent job of presenting the information that citizens need to know and comprehend.

(ii)   that the government isn’t engaged in preventing the news from getting information that is relevant and appropriate for the public to have.

(iii)  that the government isn’t violating the law and protecting the corruption by hiding relevant information with ‘classified’ information markings.

(iv) that the news media isn’t selectively censuring news that would harm it’s corporate owners.

(v)  that the news media entities you choose to listen to and ‘trust’ are agnostic to political ideologies, religious alignments, or proponents of one view on national issues.

(vi) that national leaders are not intent on presenting via their outlet to the news media a self-serving narrative that degrades American values, principles and interests.

Unless you believe that these requirements are being delivered and met today then you can’t be well-informed.

American Intelligence Test: When Did Reasoning and Logic Become Un-American?

Polarization has always been an aspect of America’s democracy if for no other reason than it’s unrealistic to imagine people with different interests, beliefs and goals to align on how a nation should proceed. It may be more accurate to state that the nation has occasionally coalesced around a common outlook for brief periods but spent most of its history struggling with issues that pitted one group against another. This is a just the way that a society works, competing interests seeking resolutions that accommodate their own disparate interests.

So, while polarization, divisiveness, and discord are to be expected there isn’t a rationale value in promoting and depending upon the polarization to just achieve political goals that don’t serve the interests of the nation. Now if we had competent politicians this would not be as meaningful an issue; however, when was the last time that those two terms were appropriately paired?

This presents an opportunity to test the soundness of the reasoning and logic that are used by the public or at least in many cases presented to the public by politicians in assessing and answering questions and dealing with issues. Some of the questions contain statements that reflect ‘popular’ phrases used to justify actions, to claim credit for events, and to assign blame for other events. The test is to look at the reasoning and logic that supports or disputes the soundness and quality of intelligence that’s behind the espoused positions, policies or pronouncements.

Question A:   Is it true that “If the President succeeds then the nation will succeed?”

(1). Yes, it’s true.

(2). No, it’s false.

(3). This is not a question that is answered as either True or False.

Answer - A:  2. No

Rationale - A:      The assertion is false. Its falseness is easily obscured and overlooked. This is because the elements that make it false are embedded in the meaning of simple phrases that while matching an “If A then B” proposition don’t have to follow from valid assumptions.

Consider, what does ‘succeed’ mean for the President, and for the nation; and then assess whether success is the same for both or needs to be the same for both. And if it’s not the same for both, why does one proceed from the other? This doesn’t mean that there are no cases where ‘success’ is the same both and the statement would be true. But if there are some cases that are not the same for both, then why is it true that “A” occurring means “B” occurs?

Now consider, as an example, what the President succeeding means if the President wants to reform the financial system and accomplishes that reform. The President has ‘succeeded’ (doing what was promised). Does that mean that the consequences of the financial system reform will be ‘successful’? History would inform us that this is not true. Presidents have acted to ‘fix’ the financial system when the nation has experienced issues before and the record doesn’t always prove that their ‘success’ was good for the nation.

It seems more reasonable that the requirement for ‘success’ is dependent upon a reasoned policy and implementation that includes specified costs and benefits which must be delivered before the state of ‘success’ is attributed. Until the results are in, and as projected, there is no ‘success’ for either.
 

Question B:   Would it be true that “If the nation succeeds then the President succeeds?”

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). This is not a question that is answered as either True or False.

Answer - B:  2. No

Rationale - B:      As in Question A, the meaning of ‘success’ isn’t self-evident nor is there a ‘law of physics’ requirement that the state of the nation’s achievement and progress that it must be tied directly to the state of the Executive’s efficacy. The

The economy can expand and grow even when taxes are raised. If cutting taxes can also expand the economy which is the trigger for success, and which President is ‘successful’ because of their tax policy? Now reverse the outcome for each. Which is ‘successful’ now? Is the assertion of ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the nation and the president required? What prevents the case of a president failing and the nation succeeding?

The action of the President in these cases is a factor in the economy, but without a projection of the costs and benefits that result over a specified timeline that can be measured the success of a president isn’t predicated on their actions, it’s just a roll of the dice.

Question C:   Which of the following areas would be key to the nation “succeeding”?

(1). US Economy

(2). National Security

(3). Jobs

(4). Education

(5). Trade

(6). Infrastructure

(7). Energy

(8). Military

(9). Healthcare

(10). Commerce

Answer - C:  All the items are key to a nation’s “success” and there are significantly more areas than just those listed here.

Rationale - C:      The nation’s success is reflected in the state of its overall well-being. The nation isn’t dependent upon the President to do well, but it may be much more dependent upon the President to not do badly.

Some of these areas are directly the responsibility and domain of the President, others are to some degree influenced by policy, and some are beyond the practical influence that a President could impart. So, what does the ‘success’ of National Security, the Military or the Economy require for the President to be accountable for that success? Even in these direct responsibility areas it isn’t possible for success to be attributed to the President without that success measured against some base-line.

Question D:   For the areas designated as ‘key’ for the nation to succeed, what is required to determine that the nation has ‘succeeded’?

(1). A Political Party claims that the nation is better off than before the President was took office. [By extension, ‘failure’ would be logically that the nation is worse off.]

(2). Quantitative metrics and measurements on the state and level of a national area of importance that can be compared to historic information and to forecasted targets for this data.

(3). The various factors that define a nation’s interests should be prioritized and ranked, and, if there is improvement in the at least two-thirds of the top half then the nation is succeeding.

(4). Improvements in items like: increased percentage of people in the middle-class economic bracket, increased percentage of America’s wealth held by the lower 90% of population, an increased rate of jobs growth, an increase in wages, an increased level of spending on infrastructure, a more technologically modern military at a lower budgetary cost, a decrease in homicides per capita, lower deficit or positive trade imbalance, … .    In general, specific information that provides a comparative view of how the nation has changed.

(5). Congress will through its respective committees that oversee these areas issue a annual public status report that assesses the state of the area. There may need to be a separate majority and a minority report.

(6). There isn’t a means to determine if the nation has succeeded or not.

(7).  A nation’s success is the result of the composite actions of our citizens, businesses and political processes just as its failure would be. So, our success/failure is just an opinion poll.

Answer - D:  2 and 4

Rationale - D:      Items 2 and 4 are basically the same answer, which is that you have to have both some goals that you are seeking to achieve and you need to be able to assess where you are in the process of reaching those goals (i.e., the ability to measure quantitatively some progress toward your goals, or a way to validate that you have reached a state of accomplishing the goals).

Item 1 would require trusting the knowledge, skills and honesty of politicians, so this is a self-evident futile approach. Who would trust what a politician tell you?

Item 3 is an example of an approach to define how success might be measured but it assumes that success is only needed on a couple of ‘key’ areas which is illogical if they are all ‘key’ areas.

Item 5 presumes that Congress is an adequate judge of the nation’s success. This seems an obvious fallacy since if they could make the proper assessment than what would be preventing them from resolving national issues on their own, which they have aptly demonstrated that they cannot do.

Item 6 would imply that it can’t be done which doesn’t make sense since there are innumerable individuals and groups that make that assessment all the time.

Item 7 may be the most common manner in which the judgment is made; however it is vulnerable to the people who are polled not understanding the question, the issues, or the dimensions of the situation that they are being asked to assess.

Question E:    Does the condition of ‘success’ require a meaningful change in what was transpiring before and being quantified as better than it would have been if nothing had changed?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - E:  No

Rationale - E:      On a simplistic level, the nation could be in one of four “before and after” situations. The state of the nation would be either ‘succeeding’ or ‘failing’ before a given point, and the nation would then become either ‘successful’ or ‘failing’ after that point. So, in the two cases where the ‘after’ state is ‘failing’ there is no accomplishment that can be claimed of the nation ‘succeeding’.

In the case where the nation was already in a ‘success’ state then remaining in the ‘success’ state could be considered as ‘succeeding’ without any change; thus, change is not required though change can occur as long as it doesn’t force the state to a ‘failure’ state. This leaves the one state where a ‘better’ condition in the “after” situation is required to achieve a nation ‘succeeding’.

The last state requires that you have defined the initial state as ‘failing’, which should require appropriate base-line data that can be used to demonstrate progress toward a ‘better’ condition.

Question F:    Can ‘success’ be nothing more than holding the course?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      As noted in Question E as long as you recognize the ‘before’ state as ‘successful’ then the ‘after’ state can be called ‘successful’ as long as it doesn’t render the state of the nation into a worse condition.

Question G:   If a President fails does that mean that the nation also fails?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - G:  No

Rationale - G:     A President could have goals and objectives that are resisted by Congress, wrong for achieving a ‘successful’ state, or ineffective at accomplishing the goals; and the nation could still be evaluated as progressing toward a ‘better’ state than when the President’s administration began. This is comparable to Question A.

Question H:   When a politician says that “The American people voted for me because I promised to do ‘something’.” Does that mean that the public supports the ‘something’ that is being justified by the election?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - H:  No

Rationale - H:      Whether the public supports a politician’s position on a particular policy or issue would likely depend upon several factors, and whether they voted for the politician need not be one of them. All the voters for a given candidate are not uniform, mono-ideological, or even compatible with others who voted for the candidate; and those who didn’t vote for the politician are even less likely to support the politician’s policies.

Do those voters who voted against the other candidate, rather than for the politician that they help elect would it be sound reasoning and logic to conclude that they supported the candidate’s positions and views? If the candidate received a ‘protest’ vote would that group of the electorate agree with the candidate’s views or just be rejecting the candidate that they are protesting?

The assertion that the voters wanted the politician’s policies isn’t a logical proof. It’s a lie that helps the politician justify their action even though only fools would accept it.

Question I:      When you listen to elected officials and politicians, how do you know which side is telling you the truth when there are conflicting statements around the issue?

(1). They are a Democrat

(2). They are a Republican

(3). You are of the same Party as the politician

(4). They are a politician that you voted for

(5). The ‘main-stream’ media provides coverage that is consistent with the politician

(6). Members of your family agree with the politician

(7). The reasoning behind the position and the information and data on the issue can be validated independent of the politician

(8). You share the views, policies and positions expressed by the politician

(9). The media source that you prefer sides with the politician even though ‘main-stream’ media opposes the politician’s statements

(10). An authoritative person or body with expertise on the issue and unassociated with the politician or political party would have made the equivalent statement prior to the politician’s statement

(11). Officials of your religious affiliation support the politician’s statements

(12). You know when someone is telling the truth

Answer - I:  7 and 10

Rationale - I:        There is no guaranteed means to ‘know’, but items 7 and 10 are the basis for most forms of assessing the truth in a ‘knowledge-based’ society. It is how our sciences, technologies, businesses and understanding progress, and how we educate. Recognizing the ‘truth’ isn’t ‘believing’ in someone that you approve of. Recognizing the ‘truth’ is accepting that when you do not have the data, the experience or the training that you should seek someone(s) who does. It’s why you go to doctors when sick, to architects to design a building, to engineers to build infrastructure, to programmers to develop software, to a jurist to obtain justice, and thousands of other ‘knowledgeable’ skill-sets that we depend on for our nation to succeed. If you ‘pick’ your ‘truth’ the nation fails.

Item 5 is a good base to check your judgement against, but you can’t rely upon the media to be right or know the ‘truth’. However, if a politician is telling you that the media is wrong then it incumbent upon them to provide adequate information and reasoning that demonstrates why you should believe them.

The other items are just poor substitutes for intelligence.

Question J:    If a President decided to undertake a policy, program or project which falls within their Executive authority but that is ultimately harmful to the nation’s interests and that will not deliver the intended benefits/results either in the near-term or the long-term; who is supposed to oppose or prevent the effort from proceeding?

(1). No one. The President is in-charge and the nation expects them to make the decisions.

(2). Congress

(3). The President’s Cabinet

(4). Supreme Court

(5). Media

(6). The public

(7). The Administration’s department, agency and governmental heads

Answer - J:  All but item 1

Rationale - J:       The President is elected to serve the nation. They work for the citizenry and are responsible to the public. A President is not an unquestionable authority nor an unchallengeable one.

The method to question and challenge a President is part of our government’s foundation and is deeply embedded in our Constitution. Not only can any of these groups oppose a President’s decisions, some are duty bound to do so when the President is acting other than in the nation’s interests. The means to prevent a President’s action vary greatly, but they are available. The ‘separation of powers’ is a governmental structure that provides for that opposition. The media is intended to present the case to the public when the President is acting in questionable ways.

This is a part of our American tradition, of our democratic principles, and of our founding values. If we were good at electing politicians then why would the nation have had to suffer through so many bad public policies and immoral  positions?