I first joined Facebook a little less than three years
ago. Probably I don’t go on to visit
there more than once per week. The only
reason I joined to begin with was because it was a requirement of the job I
hold. What I enjoy the most about
Facebook is keeping connected with certain people. Sometimes, people share nice photos, and occasionally
someone shares a good joke.
The political discussion is probably its least attractive
feature. Mostly I ignore such discussions
going. While it’s hardly a place to
change anyone’s mind about politics to begin with, that doesn’t seem to matter
to certain individuals who want to make certain their political opinion is
known. Often people share a single link
that somehow will convince us of the rightness of their opinions. And occasionally someone offers a thoughtful
opinion. Probably the truest statement I
have seen on Facebook pertaining to politics says something to the effect: “I’ve
changed my mind on politics because of something someone said on Facebook says
no one ever.”
Still, no one should take no offense simply because someone
offers a differing political opinion.
That is, we should take no more offense than if some proud parent shares
photos of the same child over and over proving their child is the most adorable
in the world.
Mining personal data
for marketing purposes
I’ve created marketing messages on Facebook, and I have some
idea about the use of data to target specific audiences. I understand the concerns of certain
interests regarding keeping such information private. Since most Facebook users had an
understanding that there would be no sharing of personal data, perhaps Mark
Zuckerberg should be testifying before Congress. But could Facebook really throw an election
to Donald Trump or Barack Obama for that matter? We have more significant problems than just
social media if that is the case.
While the outcome of the election was a surprise to practically
everyone, mining of Facebook data by Cambridge Analytica on behalf of Donald
Trump arguably was not all that effective.
Donald Trump received less popular votes than did his Democratic
opponent. What more likely won the
election was new voters showing up at the polls to cast their votes for
Trump. Besides these voters usually
sitting presidential elections out, these voters were far less likely to go
onto Facebook than were those supporting Hillary Clinton. These were voters from largely rural areas or
manufacturing sectors. Many were
blue-collar workers with a high school degree at most. That nobody paid attention to these individuals
outside of the Trump camp was a major miscalculation.
The press and the
2016 election
Surprisingly few media outlets have mentioned how badly they
bungled in the reporting of the 2016 election.
There are large numbers of conservative commentators who never imagined
Trump would win who may be bigger critics of Trump than members of more liberal
media outlooks. But the press overall
brought an incredible amount of attention to a candidate who no one gave a chance
in 2014 or 2015. And since they still
cannot figure out how they could have been so badly wrong, they continue to be
ineffective in critiquing the President of the United States.
Not too long ago the press played an extremely important
role in ending the Vietnam War. About
the same time, they also brought down a president who just won an election in a
landslide. Partly this was because the
reporters involved were real reporters rather than entertainers. Also, because there were fewer media outlets,
there wasn’t the fear of having to release a story before the facts were in
because a rival might release the story first.
But that doesn’t excuse the ignorance of many
reporters. For example, there is a great
willingness of many reporters to quote statistics without understanding what
they quote may not be reliable.
Conservatives have used statistics in making claims that Planned
Parenthood is primarily an abortion provider.
Liberals have used statistics in claiming infant mortality is higher in
the U.S. than all other developed countries.
In both instances, statistics used were likely unreliable or required
greater analysis.
Fake news and the
role of the media
As a lawyer, I need to continually take continuing legal
education classes to keep my license intact.
Recently, one such course concerned the 1st Amendment and
free speech. It featured amazingly
qualified speakers, and the conclusion of the speakers overall was optimistic. One was a state supreme court judge who
mostly could not state her opinion because of cases that would come in front of
her. The others included an ACLU lawyer
and a prominent member of the media – both who were much more forthright.
The media member stated members of the press make mistakes
in reporting, but their reporting should never become the focus of the
story. He used the example of Ferguson,
Missouri. While some blamed the media
for the rioting that occurred there, he stated the community was ripe for such
rioting before any reporting occurred.
But without media attention to the mistrust of people in the community
and law enforcement officers, no improvement of relations would ever happen.
The ACLU lawyer noted something more peculiar. She said that we have a U.S. Supreme Court
often called divided. Yet she said that
conservative and liberal justices alike are in very close agreement regarding
the need for free speech, and in the handling of free speech issues. That gives me hope that if the best and the
brightest can sit down together and agree on something that important, the rest
of us can agree on a few things to.
Donald Trump coined the phrase “fake news.” I guess we would call fake news a sensational
and false story that gets a lot of media attention. Trump, of course, can be incredibly disingenuous
when he touts any favorable news while calling anything negative “fake news”
because it doesn’t fit his agenda.
Yet with the level of polarization going on in this country,
just about everyone listens to what fits their agenda. It’s not the first time we’ve had this level
of polarization. The elections of 1800 (Jefferson
was in-league with the devil according to Adams’ supporters) and 1884 (the
Democratic party was labeled the party of “rum, Romanism and rebellion”) were
every bit as contentious as the one in 2016.
We just have not had this level of contention for a very long time.
March 31, 2018
© Robert S. Miller 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment