Red and Blue Divide

Recently, we've seen the controversy with Facebook and Twitter in their quest to eliminate "fake news". These big platforms are currently working to separate out the "legitimate" news from the supposed fake. But what does that really mean? What is fake news? Certainly, the world of news is different than it used to be. Anyone over the age of 40 remembers three network channels and prominent national newspapers and magazines. Think of Time and Newsweek and the The New York Times and ABC. In the past these few media arms controlled the majority of what people learned about. The presentation was tightly controlled to project certain narratives. You were told what to pay attention to and how to feel about it. There was very little balance in the presentation of certain topics.

Abortion and gun control are the easiest examples. When was the last time you recall a major media source presenting the pro-gun or pro-life side of those debates? Those sides are never presented and if they are it's a few lines buried deep in the article to ostensibly provide balance to the piece. There is a mainstream/democrat view of both gun control and abortion that is the ONE TRUE NARRATIVE. Contrary thought is rejected as either a sop to religion in the case of abortion or a sop to historical anachronism in the case of the 2nd amendment. Both are rejected out of hand, yet roughly half of the country in the case of abortion or higher in the case of gun control Americans hold the opposite view. Their voices had rarely been given a platform until recently.

Today we have YouTube, Twitter, and thousands of websites and blogs. The narrative has been irrevocably changed. Today no matter what the issue you can find similar thoughts and minds. The news calls this a bubble. What they fail to realize is that we were living in their bubble before. Today we get to choose our own. Journalism is supposed to be a presentation of fact. Who, what, when, where, why. It's purpose is to inform on issues or events that are generally of interest to the public. With the facts laid out the public should have a clearer understanding of why decisions were made or how certain events transpired. Mainstream journalism today is the same as it's always been: presenting opinion as fact based on a selective use of narratives. The difference is that control has been lost by the former arbiters of thought.

Facebook is hiring 20,000 people to provide fact checking as well as security against foreign interests with ill intent. They are targeting fake news and propaganda. But what is fake news. If I believe in national sovereignty and the value of borders does that make me fake? If I can see reason to believe in a world that doesn't revolve around war and only fighting for a legitimate national interest does that make me fake? No, those are my opinions. They just conflict with the mainstream media narrative. Neither are fake, but they are certainly divergent.

Fake news is something like "I had Michael Jacksons' alien baby". Differing thoughts on economics or politics isn't fake. It's just a difference of opinion. What the mainstream media hates about today's environment is that YOUR voice matters as much as theirs. You have platforms to express your ideas and can challenge their narrative. It is an age where citizens control their own narrative. This is what the outrage of the media reveals. They hate the fact that you may find alternate sources of news that completely bypass them.

The success of people on YouTube and Twitter to form their own narratives has given heartburn to those who manage those platforms. They again see divergent opinions as a threat to the narrative that THEY want to be magnified. Deplatforming, shadowbanning as well as outright banning for relatively innocuous but conservative views is common. The fake news they complain so loudly about is simply an alternative view of the world which runs counter to their beliefs. With the fervent belief that Russia hacked the election in 2016 there is enormous pressure to protect us from nefarious interlopers. It also provides the perfect cover for trying to eliminate views that are contrary to the narrative they espouse.

The battle over fake news is less about the news and much more about whose version of reality will prevail. In the marketplace of ideas it's always better to have more rather than fewer. One look at the success of Jordan Peterson's current world wide tour shows that people are hungry for complicated thought provoking ideas. Joe Rogan and his 1,000,000 subscribers has also shown the desire for long form interviews that provide a much deeper conversation and allows for greater context to be developed.

The new media is a powerful new way to express ideas. The fake news witch hunt is a direct response to the influence that these new platforms offer. Yet, it's vitally important that all ideas have the ability to be expressed. The essence of our republic is an informed public and healthy debate. There is fake news out there. However, most of what is labeled that today doesn't fit the definition. The debate over fake news is really about free speech and should be treated as such. The 1st amendment prevents the govenrnment from suppressing ideas they find distasteful. Companies with billions of users should abide by the same principles.