ecdmuppet

I have a similar desire to eliminate corruptuion, but in the management of the civil discourse through the media oligopoly and the partisan political system.

What's the best way to start on the path of becoming a journalist?

If I believe that public opinion is being skewed and manipulated to create false conflicts, do you believe that creating my own polling company that uses the same tactics of leading questions and assumptive multiple choice answers to skew the data in the direction of unity and shared values, is just as wrong as it is when other organizations use those same tactics in reverse to make us fight eachother? Do two wrongs not make a right?

This is more of a moral quandary for me than a journalism question per se, but you appear to have an admirable morality that you clearly defend above all else. Your opinion matters to me personally.

Is the press actively trying to destroy this country by only ever talking about every bad thing that ever happens, and inviting conclusions about which social or political group as a whole bears responsibility for the actions of the individuals involved?

Or are they just too blinded by the profit motive of whoring for attention to notice that that are inadvertently helping all of the people who are trying to destabilize our society by fomenting hatred and animosity?

Serious question.

Excellent info!

What's the significance of the working group you identify here? Are they a group that looks at how to fight corruption in journalism?

I was raised in a far right conservative political socialization. Growing up learning about the left-wing bias in the media as a common assumption, I recognized the places where the mainstream media often ignored or misrepresented the strongest conservative arguments and perspectives of moderate conservatives in favor of highlighting the fringe.

What moderated my views was seeing that conservative media does the same thing in reverse, and that the fight on both sides is perpetuated by this constant misrepresentation that is almost completely unrelated to the way the average citizen actually thinks.

Then I read this quote from George Washington's farewell address as our first POTUS:

"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."

His use of the words, "designing men", is both what inspires me to take on this fight, and legitimately scares the hell out of me at the same time. I genuinely believe that about 90% our current conflicts are being intentionally perpetuated by powerful influences that use partisan politics to keep the populace too divided and weak to stand together against the problems in our society that their corruption and manipulations for personal gain are creating for us. I am convinced that the continual erosion of our individual economic and political power is an intentional effort on the part of these forces to consolidate power and keep our society enslaved to their will.

To be honest, I like our society, and with the exception of the partisanship in our civil discourse, and the aforementioned erosion of individual power, I wouldn't have a problem with this leadership if they were just honest about running things, and used their influence to solve more problems than they create. I fully understand that there are complicated problems in the world, and making tough decisions is part of what leadership has to do.

But when I see that that leadership is allowing society to crumble due to largely fabricated division created more by misunderstanding than real differences, and driven more by greed for power than by genuine hate on the part of regular citizens, It compels me to take action to correct the problem.

But then again, all of these conclusions are speculation. The only thing I am certain of is that the conflicts we have are based on misunderstandings that for whatever reason, the media and politics is complicit in perpetuating.

Since human motivation is impossible to prove without mindreading skills, this is where the similarities in our fights diverge. Your challenge is in presenting objective truth about verifiable events, where my challenge is in dispelling stereotypes and ending divisiveness that is based completely on subjective reasoning, regardless of what motivates the spread of that division.

My first thought is to create a media organization that discusses news, politics and current events much like other outlets, but is slanted towards eliminating the stereotypes, building common ground, and promoting the idea that solving problems is not a team sport. I feel like that model has the potential to tap into a drastically underserved part of the population, but I have no idea how to put the same force and charisma and appeal behind that message that the corporate media outs behind divisive politics.

Again, I'm not sure you have answers to even those conclusions you agree with out of what I'm sharing, but I value your thoughts all the same.

Best regards,

I think the fight against the "Spirit of Party" that Washington warned us about starts by applying opposite pressure to what party promotes.

Party promotes pointing out flaws in an adversary. To fight that, we point out the best parts of subcultures that differ from ours and appreciate those qualities. There is much in liberalism that I can respect as a moderate conservative, and I work hard to express those conservative values that my liberal friends can most appreciate.

Party promotes exaggerating differences and offenses to apply those qualities to the entire opposition. To fight that, we have to resist the urge to take offense when offense is given, and to admonish individual failures while we elevate the group as a whole. For example, as a conservative, I agree that urban crime is a problem, but crime tracks far more with poverty than it does with any other quality regardless of population density, or other typical wedge issue factors like race. We should treat all crimes as individual issues, because assuming a connection based on identity groups or politics is just stupid.

I think that a news channel that talks about current events as individual events, with commentary that applies feedback against partisan politics instead of in favor, might stand a real chance of success on its merits.