|The former Lancaster home, inherited by Celia Mudd in 1903.|
1) A House Divided: Plantation Politics in the Civil War
2) Masters and Slaves: A Tale of Two Families
3) Unhealed Wounds: Freedom and Fear after the Civil War
|The former Lancaster home, inherited by Celia Mudd in 1903.|
A Chapter from FAKE NEWS: JOURNALISM IN THE AGE OF DECEPTIONS
Americans are trapped in a funhouse of contested facts and evidence that leaves many people with little to trust or believe. More and more they consume only information and sources that reinforce their opinions and prejudices. And many journalists aren’t helping. The first law of the profession, Alex Cockburn once suggested, is “to confirm existing prejudice, rather than contradict it.”
But this assumes a few things — for example, that professionalism no longer matters, or is actually part of the problem, and that the old standards are arbitrary and irrelevant. But good journalism isn’t so simple. For example, it involves recognizing the difference between facts, analysis and commentary. Journalists must develop skills like conducting fair but probing interviews, finding relevant and complete -– not merely convenient — background, examining various dimensions of an issue, and conveying what they learn clearly, efficiently and accurately. Without such skills and standards ensuring fairness and accuracy, the public is vulnerable to distortions, biased reports, and blatant falsehoods.
Only a small percent of blog writing can be called “reporting.” And their sources can often be traced back to newspapers and other major platforms. Who will do the actual reporting if they fade away? For all its benefits, the “blogosphere” has also accelerated social fragmentation. Most sites attract like-minded people, creating a self-segregated news and information environment that can serve the interests of extremists. It’s similar in some ways to the partisanship that characterized the press of the early 19th Century. Truth and facts have become debatable notions.
A related problem is that conflict drives the news cycle, with tabloid sources and obsessive bloggers often shaping narratives. The old saying — If it bleeds, it leads — is more true than ever. All this makes it far more difficult for people to reach agreement or even have a discussion, and easier for demagogues to ignore or distort reality. The result has been a loss of faith in almost everything, along with an escapist mentality rooted in the belief that no meaningful change is possible. Popular culture feeds on this attitude, encouraging excess and striking poses while confusing commitment with fanaticism.
Still, the situation isn’t all bad. Along with skepticism comes a re-awakened concern about the human condition and the planet’s health. The idea that “rational planning” provides all the answers is no longer convincing, gone with notions such as “bigger is better” and nature is merely a resource to be conquered and exploited.
In economics, the approach to production known as Fordism, named for the man who brought us the assembly line, has given way to a more flexible, eclectic system emphasizing innovation and a post-industrial compression of time and space. The view that corporations and the global economy are only parts of a whole planetary system is slowly gaining traction.
Commenting on the implications of post-modernism, former presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy once argued that it favors “fuzzy logic” and subjective impressions over rational arguments and clear thinking. There are no absolutes, just degrees and disposable attitudes. “This predicament is not altogether reassuring,” he said, “as it may lead us to a state of entropy, i.e., of randomness, chaos and disorder, with little basis for optimism as to what may result.”
Exploiting and responding to these trends, a right-wing cultural counter-revolution has gained momentum around the world. Speaking on his TV network years ago, Pat Robertson made the goal clear: “to mobilize Christians, one precinct at a time, one community at a time, one state at a time, until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than at the bottom of our political system.”
In a nation founded on the principle of church-state separation, such a fundamentalist vision sounded unlikely just two years ago. Yet there were warning signs like TV huckster Glenn Beck and political “celebrity” Sarah Palin. So we shouldn’t be surprised that opportunists seized the chance to reshape public discourse. Conservative evangelists had been working this terrain for generations. Not much has changed since Aimee Semple McPherson and Father Coughlin except the targets. For Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and their team it’s everything associated with progressivism and social justice.
Backed by Fox and billionaires like the Mercer family and Koch brothers, right-wing voices have mass marketed an extreme world view and immersed millions of people in a false reality. Specious arguments have been presented as history, biblical truth or scientific fact. Too often mainstream media have unwittingly helped to legitimize their misinformation.
Prior to Trump’s rise, the far-right had already created a distorted picture of contemporary reality that many people — insecure, alienated and hungry for any guidance — desperately embraced. As former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed explained, the short-term objective was to force candidates to endorse the right’s agenda. But the ultimate step was always to turn that agenda into national policy.
From time to time, Hannity, Beck and others also point to a secret conspiracy, supposedly bent on subjugating the nation to a mutated socialism or fascism. The idea that Barack Obama is a Muslim socialist fit well within this overarching narrative. We hear its echoes today in accusations about “deep state” manipulation. This also harks back to the sermons of Aimee McPherson and Father Coughlin.
Bombarded with disinformation, people often turn to hucksters and demagogues who offer simplistic answers and the faint hope of a moral revival. Erich Fromm says that Hitler's authoritarian personality, which made him so brutal, was also part of his appeal to an insecure middle class. Their "fear of freedom" became a deadly threat to democracy. Sadomasochism was also a factor, he believed, the demand for deference to those “above,” and contempt for those “below.” A frightened person “seeks for somebody or something to tie his self to," Fromm wrote, "he cannot bear to be his own individual self any longer, and he tries frantically to get rid of it and to feel security again."
Along the same lines, John Dewey argued that “the serious threat to our democracy is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions which have given a victory to external authority, discipline, uniformity and dependence... The battlefield is also accordingly here -- within ourselves and our institutions."
Corruption of truth has been contributing to social division and civic decay for years. Yet there are few consequences for peddling lies and paranoia, intentionally confusing speculation with fact, or perpetrating a vile premeditated hoax.
By Greg Guma
Conspiracy theories. They used to be good fun, provocative dinner table conversation and the focus of action movie plots. They were like certain parts of the body. Everybody had them and, most of the time, no one got hurt.
But that’s no longer true. Now believing in conspiracies can get people killed— like thinking a virus infecting millions is just more fake news— or cause confusion and havoc at the very least.
Forget Jeffrey Epstein. These are the real perverts. Epstein is just another deep state victim. That’s how this thinking works.
Back in reality, supporters of QAnon have been linked to multiple threats, attempted acts of violence, even murders. And Trump has amplified Q messages dozens of times on Twitter. Just days before he destroyed part of downtown Nashville and killed himself last week, the Christmas Day bomber sent packages containing writings and videos promoting conspiracy theories to multiple people.
In October 2017, QAnon jumped to the mainstream in the form of shirts and signs that were prominently visible at a Trump campaign rally in Tampa, FL. After that Trump met with several supporters of the conspiracy theory — at the White House. A QAnon supporter co-chaired a coalition group for Trump’s reelection campaign, and several believers have since been elected to Congress. In 2021, they are challenging the legitimacy of the last presidential election.
Do more people buy into conspiracies today? Or is it mainly more media coverage? Either way, for most of the last 50 years, between 60 and 80 percent of the country has believed in some form of JFK conspiracy theory. They’re obviously not all “conspiracy nuts.”
On the other hand, conspiracy thinking did cross over in 2016 — probably with foreign help — from Internet chat groups to mainstream news coverage. For example, a Yahoo News podcast, aptly named "Conspiracyland,” revealed that Russia’s foreign intelligence service was the origin of a hoax report that tied the murder of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer, to Hillary Clinton. Washington police concluded that Rich was killed in a botched robbery. There was no proof that his murder had any political connections. But many people believed there were.
Among the violent conspiracy theories cited by the FBI is one involving a man who thinks Transportation Security Administration agents are part of a New World Order elite. Another focuses on the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a government-funded facility in Alaska that has been linked to everything from death beams to mind control. (See Podcast Extra for more on HAARP.)
Whatever the truth about HAARP, two men were arrested in 2019 for “stockpiling weapons, ammunition and other tactical gear in preparation to attack” the Alaska facility. They believe it is being used “to control the weather and prevent humans from talking to God.”
Source: Reliable Sources/CNN
In response to the spread of conspiracy-motivated violence, the FBI is applying the same radicalization analysis it has used against foreign terrorism. They essentially focus on the ideological motives. FBI Director Wray claims that the Bureau is only concerned with violence, not with what people believe.
But the number of extremist categories has certainly grown. According to Michael German, a former FBI agent with the Brennan Center for Justice, “It’s part of the radicalization theory the FBI has promoted despite empirical studies that show it’s bogus.”
“They like the radicalization theory because it justifies mass surveillance,” the former agent claims. “If we know everyone who will do harm is coming from this particular community, mass surveillance is important. We keep broadening the number of communities we include in extremist categories.”
But this argument is also, basically, a conspiracy theory. And that’s the problem. It’s increasingly hard to tell which ones to give credibility.
Not all conspiracy theories are dangerous. Even the FBI admits that much. Some may even be benign. But others have led to attempted or successful violent attacks. The Pizzagate conspiracy, for example, led a 28-year-old man to invade a Washington, D.C., restaurant to rescue the children he believed were being kept there and fire an assault-style weapon.
Or the related, overarching Deep State conspiracy theory. The FBI cites an unnamed California man, arrested in December 2018 after being found with what appeared to be bomb-making materials in his car. He was allegedly planning to “blow up a satanic temple monument” in the Capitol rotunda in Springfield, Ill. Why? To “make Americans aware of Pizzagate and the New World Order, who are dismantling society.”
The FBI’s intelligence analysis doesn’t mention Alex Jones or InfoWars by name. But it does include some of the conspiracy theories frequently associated with him, especially the New World Order theory. Jones claimed the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which 26 children were killed, was a hoax, a false flag operation intended as a pretext for the government to seize or outlaw firearms. The families of a number of victims sued Jones for defamation, saying his conspiracy-mongering contributed to death threats and online abuse.
Following the conspiracy trail a bit further, you quickly come to President Trump, who promotes a number of theories. Here’s a short list: He often talks about the Deep State, and frequently retweets output from QAnon. He’s the godfather of Spygate, which alleges that Obama and others wiretapped him, and a big pusher of the voter impersonation lie, aka the existence of millions of phantom voters. There is also white genocide theory, baked into his output, and of course, the Obama citizenship theory — which launched the movement that launched his presidential candidacy.
Yet it’s highly unlikely that the FBI will be investigating Trump for peddling conspiracies — no matter who they hurt — even after he is no longer in power. Instead, Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, has told Congress that the bureau now classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories:
* racially motivated violent extremism
* anti-government/anti-authority extremism
* animal rights/environmental extremism, and
* abortion extremism, used to classify pro-choice and anti-abortion extremists
The new focus on conspiracy theories falls under the broader category of anti-government extremism. And that’s a slippery slope.
A decade ago, the most successful right wing conspiracy theory involved Obama as a secret Muslim. Before Trump piled on, millions of people already believed it. They also believed that secular humanists wanted to repress religion, and that liberals were plotting to confiscate people’s guns and push a “gay agenda.” All of that set the context for Trump’s election.
At the other end of the ideological spectrum, however, there is the idea that 9/11 was an inside job — and all that entails. On the first 2021 broadcast of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd raised that theory from the conspiracy graveyard, comparing the idea to Sen. Ron Johnson’s allegations about election fraud. Tit for tat.
In the past, I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist myself —for example, for saying that we should know more about the attack on the Twin Towers. Nevertheless, I also think that a modern-day Reichstag fire at multiple locations qualifies as a radical, somewhat implausible conclusion.
On the other hand, despite the fact that conspiracy theories can be distractions, even deliberate deceptions, some are worth consideration, as long as we stipulate that they aren’t necessarily 100 percent accurate, and certainly resist exaggeration or total buy-in. But some theories definitely pose a real and present danger as incitements to violence.
The problem is that it has become difficult for millions of people to tell the difference between the strange and the dangerous in an era when facts have been so seriously devalued. There are so many possibilities, the standard of proof appears to be in decline, and the theories tend to evolve, expand and mutate rapidly in unexpected ways as they circulate through cyberspace. There is often also too little follow up to see whether new facts reinforce or discredit a particular theory.
For several years, corruption of truth has been contributing to social division and civic decay. Yet there are few consequences for peddling paranoia, intentionally confusing speculation with fact, or perpetrating a premeditated hoax. Instead, more actors are weaponizing these things to expand or hold onto power.
For all the false prophets, gross opportunists, and irresponsible rumor-mongers who currently threaten societies with truth decay, real accountability has been hard to get so far. But we do know who many of them are.
So, how about this as a start? Let’s call them out, publicly, maybe even post their names on billboards, banner ads, and Trump’s Great Wall of Lies down at the border. And on the wall, please make the names big enough to be seen from space. Then let’s all stop listening to them.
I usually resist the urge to challenge the controversial theories of fellow travelers, at least in public. Years ago, during an after-dinner discussion about Al-Qaeda after Osama, someone casually asserted that President Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen. No one objected or said a word. I thought about it, but let the moment pass.