A businessman who is multilingual and often travels the world made a passing comment to me recently. It shook me up a bit. Watching both FOX and Russian state television, he was struck by how much their productions sound and look alike. The tone is so similar. Both put forth supportive news and comments slanted to please their leaders and spread the leader's talking points, and avoid challenging accusations and questions. I also recognize that other cable channels, like MSNBC, are often critical of the Trump administration, but at least they are careful to identify sources of facts, provide historical context, and tackle issues and raise questions that others do not. We all need to verify what we trust, but how? Being a skeptic helps.
I have been in politics and been a first-hand witness to how dictators work who come from a different ideology than mine, but the techniques of control of thought of those they govern both employ suppression of any opposition thoughts and support of the message the dear leaders want you to hear. In short, I try to take all with a large dose of salt and ask myself, "Is that so?" and try to test them against other media outlets, foreign and domestic. While I have a point of view, I am a confessed skeptic. Others need to be the same.
How can you do that, and what are other sources when government data, once supplied by green eyeshade non-partisan number crunchers, that have been politicized and under the control of Donald Trump? How do you do it when Trump has threatened to take revenge on any reporting media outlets and data-gathering analysts who have dared to contradict his views? It takes effort and time that few have, so it becomes, "well, it sounds ok to me, and it supports my side of the political divide". It is trust without verification.. It is why it is so easy for a wannabe dictator to manipulate thoughts, minds, and hearts, and it happens before you ever realize it. We are approaching the end of a free speech/ freedom of the press country when it comes to media, data, and sources. The Trump regime is responsible for that sad accomplishment.
What can be done about that? The first step is to recognize it. The next is to tap your own skeptical self. The third step is to find other sources that do not have a self-interest in the issue's outcome, or are in a position that cannot be pressured by the powers that be. The fourth is to defend the First Amendment and freedom of the press to the hilt, so that you have access to various views and evidence, and those alternative sources are not suppressed by an oppressive dictator or, if you will, a king.
____________________________________________________________
Here is how I try to do it: You will see on this blog at least the print source link that influenced me the most, but it may not list all of the sources I looked at before I posted that blog. I am also constantly editing and revising past blogs as new information surfaces. Often, those updates are posted separately on Facebook, too.
I am particularly wary of the governmental source of data and facts, knowing that Trump fired data agency leaders, for example, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who reported data that contradicted Trump's words. Some data, such as climate-related data, is no longer reported at all. I still give high credibility points to the Congressional Budget Office since it does have bipartisan participation in a closely divided legislative branch. even though the majority is subservient to the White House's wishes. Legislators on both sides of the aisle still have to rely on the same source, at least, and they should have the skills and knowledge more than a layperson to know BS when they see it.. I understand that networks now fear they will lose licenses if they become too critical of the dear leader, or that universities are afraid of loss of federal contracts, if they report research, provide classes that promote certain views, or allow diverse opinions that contradict the regime's official line. Think tanks are helpful, just so I know where they are coming from. The Pentagon press room and White House access are screened, and the impolite are barred. It is particularly frightening as active military are being deployed into major US cities, an aircraft carrier is on the way to the Caribbean for what looks like a war on Venezuela we are initiating, and a paramilitary force is being trained and equipped by ICE for unpopular mass deportations with accountability to anyone except DHS..
Furthermore....
Where and what are the sources I use to verify? I no longer accept any information without question and try to verify the best I can. Being an opinion writer and having a point of view I feel compelled to express, I am usually reacting to public stories. Occasionally, I do some actual first-source reporting, but mostly it is reacting. My antenna is up. My gut is: trust no one but verify. Then I can shape an opinion piece, which these blog postings are, and I have a degree of confidence that I did not miss something. and at least drew from a variety of sources and can anticipate rebuttals. Believe me, that exercise has indeed also caused me to alter my initial suppositions. Among those sources, since they are not yet jammed or forbidden, are foreign press with seasoned US-based reporters like Reuters, The Guardian, and The Independent. They tend to be at least another view, a different opinion to consider, and reporting stories not in the US press. A news service like Reuters is often just plain factual. More and more dissident academics have fled to Toronto, and I take them seriously. AI is an increasing source I use, but mostly it also provides a referral to another source, since they also footnote and link to where they got their information. The trick with AI is being able to ask the right question to get a pertinent response, whether it justifies your supposition and premise or not. I also am using YouTube more frequently to quote comments from the horse's mouth, which are not whitewashed or distorted.
