IS Fake News the Problem? Not Really.

It occurs to me, who cries all the time about the MSM and Fake News? It's from the right, right? I don't seem to have that problem, fewer progressives seem to have that problem.
What's up?

Education? Ted Cruz went to Harvard. but a college education doesn't make you smart or aware or educated. I've met those types. Also, you can pick up an agenda, filters, limited considerations, closed minds. Sounds pretty conservative oriented.

What got me thinking about this just was, just, thinking about it. Wondering, how can conservatives have such a tough time getting accurate news from the MSM? Why does so much to them seem fake?

Well, they've been told to think that way. They have a news network hammering them about it. A POTUS who hammers them about it. Their culture buys into it. And they seek it out and call it out.

Problem that occurred to me was this. When I used to study international Sate covert activities, espionage, and how that world works, they don't have such a difficult time of it.

Honestly, if I was able to research spies and their lies and find the truth, you can't watch MSM and garner reality from it? REALLY? Look, our intelligence community does this on a daily basis almost without thinking. JUST think about how they must view all this whining about fake news. Not to mention the hard-working journalists who acutely do a good job, work so very hard to do so and then you simply lump them into, Fake News? That's just....embarrassing.

Why do conservatives? Or progressives who do for that matter.

DON'T watch a single news source dummy! Main Stream Media are Fake in your opinion, so you only watch Fox News? What? WHO does that? No, not watch Fox News, but finds something distasteful so locks themselves in an intellectual closest and ignores the rest of reality! Sure you should check the MSM for validity. Yes, they are wrong at times. Yes, they may even tell lies. Fox News doesn't?

Please. But you take the time, make the effort to see if it's true, or if your people are wrong. THAT'S what an educated person does. But they don't just cry FAKE NEWS unless they have a marked agenda. And that's what we have here with an entire political party following it. The left rebels against it, the right is offended and the Russians join in and voila! Polarized society and a breaking down of America.

Great job guys!

It appears to me to be a limitation on their parts. I like Rachel Maddow. She will set you up with a history of an issue, then tell you the issue, and you can see what's up and the surrounding issues. Yes, she can go a tad liberal at times. But I can see that clearly when she does it and she usually makes it clear. If you're paying attention.

Times like that, I note it and move on. But she's not fake news. Now, much of Fox News is fake. But conservatives don't see them as fake news. Why? Well, their culture, their president, and their belief system (cognitive dissonance).

The problem is that people don't pay attention, don't take the time to think, don't survey news, NEVER listen to one source. ALWAYS vet your info, it's not even that hard. SEE/HEAR when your sources go off track.

In researching covert ops that aren't available to the public, many of them are. By getting disparate sources, you can even when one source lies, uncover the truth.

It's not THAT hard, but it takes getting used to it. TO be sure it's easier and cathartic to yell, Fake News, move on, listen to YOUR pundits, and claim... KNOWLEDGE!

Uh-huh. Right pal.

My point? FAKE NEWS isn't the issue. People who scream fake news are. The facts are there. You just have to be able to recognize them, without cognitive dissonance, without buying into lies, especially when they so well and pleasantly fit YOUR agenda. Or when your leaders or pundits are telling you what to believe.

TRUST BUT VERIFY. There is NO need to be paranoid. But you have to put some effort into your assimilation of the facts and know facts from opinions, and lies.

And? When you find YOUR team is lying most of the time?

Stop being a Republican. Stop having a conservative mind. Those are generally speaking, closed off forms of thought, by definition, and by design.. Add in religion, it's like fuel to the fire. Conservatism is a form of government to limit things, not expand. To retard, not grow. By it's nature it is about austerity and isolationism, not wealth (for all, stop being so limited) and openness.

“In the social and civil context as well, I appeal not to create walls, but to build bridges," Pope Francis.

It's far more conducive to acquiring wealth and power, also. But in good ways, by being inclusive, where the strength is. 

Pope Francis also said: "In every religion there is always an integralist group that does not want to move ahead and lives from bitter memories, past conflicts, and seeks even more war and sows fear." @americamag

Same goes for political parties. And the one most closely resembling what he refers to here is the Republican party with their confused evangelical Christians. 

Open your mind. Learn. Expend effort. Survey information and news. Never use ONE news source. Talk or listen to your opponents. Pay attention to your pundits and heroes and question when they go off track.

Perhaps the current forms of progressiveness aren't perfect either. But they are in part a reaction to conservatism, which has led the way in many cases in pushing agendas out of fear and a dislike for change, a love of status quos. Which, status quos, require change even to maintain. So much of that is counter intuitive, which is frustrating to the conservative mind.

Overall, we just have to pay attention. And if we can't. Well, then Republican party is waiting with open arms, and you can go on whining disingenuously about Fake News with all your new friends.

Fake News is not the problem. We are. 

Our State of the State: Faith, Hope and Charity

There are those even in our own government now, who wish us to be ignorant, misled and misinformed for their own benefit. We need to stop and create an environment that is toxic to those types and to those types of behavior,

I read a great book that expanded my mind when it came out. "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century" in 1978, by the brilliant and persevering, Barbara W. Tuchman. A seminal book on how to write a history book and not just copy from previous history books. She also wrote before that, "The Guns of August" in 1962. Not the main consideration of that book was, in fighting one war, both sides believing absolutely that the knew what the other side was willing to do and capable of. But it was only after the fact, when it was all over, they all realized that they were basing their analysis on a previous world war.

We are in that place today. And most of us do not know it.

We have people attacking other people with new technologies while fully incapable of understanding how it all works, just knowing it will work. Not understanding the social dynamics, the meta and cyber dynamics, the historical dynamics. The other side (US basically), then needs then to try to understand it all, why they did it, what they did, how they did it and what the foundation was for it to be functional, as well as all of what it entailed, and why.

The problem there is just that. They didn't much need to understand it all in order to attack. But we, or whomever the attacked party is, who they may be, or will be... has to. They have to understand it all in order to properly counter it in the correct way. Other than through war, or ignorant other responses. And that is how our leaders are addressing all this. Through ignorance. Both in attack and in response.

We live in interesting times. Too interesting. Far, too interesting.

Hope

Russia attacked America through cyber activities in our 2016 election and before, and after. They are gearing up to alter our 2020 election. We need to more fully understand their actions and our assimilations and therefore our misdirected activities. Russia acted on something they thought would work, and it worked far better than they ever expected or projected. They do not understand fully well what happened either, but we have to. Far more then they do. Because to affect something is easier and requires less information and understanding than actually understanding that affect in practice in order to protect oneself. It is far easier to appear greater than, in destruction, than it does to appear great than in construction.

Faith

Repeating a lie will not fundamentally alter the truth, or change the reality that the lie was and remains, a lie. But it can and will alter people's beliefs, even when it goes against their beliefs. This can be countered by deepening one's ability at thinking, centering oneself in reality and facts, and being aware of one's world and environment, as well as utilizing compassion.

Charity

Regardless what our beliefs are, if we adhere to fundamentals in dealing with other human beings, and lifeforms, and our environment, all with due care and respect, even toward our enemies, much of our disrepair and responsibility in our mistakes when later realized, will be greatly softened by the fact that we were acting all along as decent beings, regardless our mistaken beliefs. Also, we may find along the way in acting on mistaken beliefs in such a way, that those beliefs are indeed mistaken. W|e will at least have the potential to find in the moment, that we are headed in an incorrect direction. We will increase our potential for becoming correct amidst our incorrect actions.

Socially Posting Reality

First up, Vote!

This is the process I try to follow for posting\sharing information on social media. It is important that we post the best and most accurate information possible. We need to pollinate social media with reality and accuracy. We have got to get a handle on it, somehow. It's not just all up to the government or the platforms and companies who own, support and run social media.

"Post Reality."

Whose Reality? As objective a reality as is possible to divine from current and available information. I don't see a lot of that today.

Not to mention by one expert's account to the Congressional Intelligence Committee: "1 in 25" partisan memes\postings are actual American human beings, the rest are bots. Mostly if not all, Russian bots. Which means, we not as partisan as it appears. Well, that's SOME good news anyway.

That being said, EVERYONE screws up sometimes.

Whenever I do I try to be gracious about it if someone points it out, typically posting in public, sometimes to embarrass.

IF it is something extremely obvious, and I am correct, and the person is being outright stupid, I deal with them appropriately. That can be anything from pointing out their mistake with supporting evidence to cutting them down to an appropriate size in their mind (that takes a degree of skill or talent and I see many screw that up and embarrass both parties). Mostly it's best to be compassionate and polite.

But some just need a kick because others need to see that on their side and feel some catharsis on my side. I say that because there are too many bullies out and about, trolling for fun not to educate, not to be accurate. Like children.

Just be aware that nowadays they may simply be a waste of your time in trying to educate them. If they are obviously not interested in actual education, in better and more accurate information, they are just being stupid, and by definition (my definition).

As hard as I try, and I'm a university trained researcher but, I make mistakes too, I may act too fast. I'm human. I may be tired, nor feeling well, distracted, maybe I really shouldn't be posting, etc.

These here are my gold standard points however for how I do try to act in trying to be helpful to others and to be as accurate (and mature) as I can be. Consider that when you read some things online that people post.

IF trained researchers can make these same mistakes, what kind of information do you think is being passed about by those who have no idea what they are sharing or how to go about it? What percentage of information do you think is accurate? Because today one really needs to ask instead, what percentage of information do you think is inaccurate?

When you have other nations like Russia trying to subvert our path, to add chaos to our nation, with national leaders like the POTUS Trump constantly being incorrect and constantly outright lying, constantly escalating the numbers of already inaccurate or irrelevant information. along with people with vested interests in dis- and misinformation, just how much bad information do you think is out there?

Information you may pick up and inadvertently become a part of sharing incorrect information.

Traditionally all through history, we have had incorrect information simply because of an overabundance of poor information, and a lack of available accurate information. Either by accident and simple human fallibility.

Today we have it because people want it there for questionable purposes, vested interests, greed, espionage and political purposes. There is also the allegation that many people actually do like and prefer wrong information ("Study Finds People Like the Wrong Stuff on Social Media Better").

Weird, right?

We simply have to be more careful and do our best to flood social media with the most correct information available that we can access. So....

• Think before posting.
• If possible, click on the post, following it. Does it exist? Check the date it was originally published.
• Do a quick search on the title or topic to see how recent (or valid) it is and what and if the source is reasonable. Especially if there is no publish date or if it is not obvious from content exactly when it was posted.
• The more important or controversial the information the more vetting (validating) is necessary.
• Post less assuredly from others you do not know or do not know well.
• Triangulate (see footnote1 below) research on a post prior to posting (find one or more other relevant, trusted and disparate sources to vet information). Typically cyber-vetting is used today as it can be highly effective and quick...and accurate when done properly. Highly inaccurate when done improperly, which we see a vast amount of from right-wing extremists. 
• As a general rule, if something agrees with your POV too much, it's probably a lie or Russian type disinformation attack on social media. So give it trust only once you've vetted the information.
• When friend or foe challenges your post, do not do an ignorant, or conservative "knee-jerk" type reaction. It's immature and counterproductive. Instead, although you can initially reply with something clever or snarky if entertaining to others in some way and especially to your challenger. But do then go and vet that information to be sure you are correct about it. Especially if challenged by someone you trust or is known to post valid information. There is nothing more foolish than to be caught in a mishap and then double down on what is then your stupidity. Do not be a Donald Trump. Best rule is after guessing it is correct and posting, always go vet that info at some point in the next hour to 24 hours and come back to correct it if you find issues with it, or to clarify it if you realize it may come across with options for being incorrect in part or whole.
• IF you post something incorrect, especially if it's gone viral before (or after your posting), leave it up online. Then, add to the initial post to indicate what is incorrect so as to allow others to read the updated post and attached thread below so they can understand WHY it's incorrect, along with links to associated vetted information. In that way, you help to decrease the incorrect information online. To simply remove it, typically so you are not embarrassed, leaves others who might have seen it, open to making the exact same mistake. 
• Never call something "fake news". It is immature and has too much Donald Trump, Republican, and conservative negative baggage. 
• Show don't tell. Telling is fine if accompanied with value-added information. But it's also all about the orientation and who your post is actually addressing. frequently we get emotional and address our side, not the other side and may even say things to force the other side to "dig in" and worse, "double down."
• When you vet information, research down through several levels or layers and over several sources of information. Use sources who should know, not just any source with that topic. Sites like InfoWars, typically do not know a damn thing. IF you find something on a site like that, you then have to vet THAT information several more times and it can go exponential, so best to leave them to the nut cases and ill-informed (you cannot help them, they are not interested in reality and really not interested in being correct, especially not by a member of their as they see it, ignoble opposition...ironically enough, they are typically the ignoble ones). Most incorrect postings on social media are not verified at all or sometimes worse, vetted only one level down, or out. I say worse because then they tend to incorrectly think that they DID do due diligence. Typically it takes two, three or more to finally know if something is true or not and that all the related and relative supportive information has been acquired.
• More questionable sources require ever more vetting.
• At times you may find something requires excessive vetting of never seeming to be enough sources, or you cannot seem to vet it. That's not hard to deal with. You simply admit it's merely your (maybe informed, maybe not so informed) opinion. Or that you tried and cannot fully vet it and/or that you got the information from some public figure who should know or whatever. The point is to state it in such a way so if you are later proved to be incorrect, it reflects not on you or your vetting process but on others. 
• That last part of the last point does NOT refer to "plausible deniability", a method used by national leaders and greatly abused by the Republican party. Don't stoop to their level. Though I do admit to using that at times for reasons that are hopefully overt, obvious and the biggest reason, humorous. 
• Truth. That is what is important. IF you should find you are wrong, and in vetting your information you learn something new and contrary to your beliefs, you have two choices. Absorb those beleifs, incorporate them into your overall beliefs. Update, reprocess and look at your understanding of things with this new updated information. Do no ignore it. Worst case,place it to the side and DO NOT FORGET about it. The other thing you can do if it really disturbs you is to start again and revet with this new information. You can try to prove your original beliefs right, or the new ones right. Just be careful of ending up with your beliefs being verified, when they shouldn't be. Because in the end if is not about you, not about your beliefs, but about what is really going on. Share the new information and help humanity. 
• Humor is almost always useful and one of the best ways to persuade or handle difficult information. Just be aware and careful, it can backfire. Joking about a mass shooting, typically will. 

In the end, we all want (or should want) ACCURATE information. Not Donald Trump type incorrect news and information, inaccurate and constantly changing information and faux facts and disinformation and misinformation all which benefits incorrectly one viewpoint over another.

There is a distraction involved in all this. One that has led to many new conspiracy theorists. Many new conservative Republicans who spook at a shadow in ever corner.

"How do you know what is true and accurate?" The ask.

That is for another article, this is for the foundational concept of sharing Truth. Next is the consideration for what is true or can be true or who to trust to disseminate what is true. But basically, a country has got to trust it's intelligence and law enforcement agencies over it's elected officials. See, for the most part, most of those people are like you or I. That is like most of us. We have a given job, we do our best to follow the mission set before us. To be honest, truthful. To do the best we cvan for our country.

Republicans and Donald Trump would have us distrust those people, until we distrust ourselves, until we have to trust only HIM. He wants us to believe we cannot trust our government, our judciary, our law enforcement, our intel agencies.

WHEN that is PROVEN untrue, then you act, you ignore, you refuse to believe. But at that point, you have far worse problems. Personally, AND socially.

But we are not there. Not by a long shot. Those whom extremists call the "deep state" or in some cases the "swamp", are just patriotic citizens, who remain in government from elected administration to elected administration. What conservatives have done in calling these people out is to sow fear into the basic fabric of America. Refuse them their fear mongering.

IF all information online were accurate and properly vetted, America would suddenly take a leap forward in education, politics and social interactions. Much of our bickering today is due to people either arguing the same point of view from different perspectives because one or both sides is lacking relevant information. Or one side is vastly incorrect and the other side has little or no grounds from which to debate the issues. It's like debating with a crazy person. Not to say the other is insane, but the dynamics are very similar.

In the end, we can help to alleviate this current situation by posting only the best information we can access. Also by focusing on the facts and not emotional reactions. Falling back to that old adage of "Hate the sin. Love the sinner." We have got to find a way to communicate, to see our opposition as noble opposition, and to help them find a way to become once again, noble. Just don't put yourself in that position where they have the same problem. Because then, we are all truly lost. Even though we have been seeing that effort pushed at this time by Donald Trump as POTUS. 

We find ourselves now at the point since Donald Trump became president, to truly need to make America great again.

We have got to get back to the basics, to pollinate reality into social media, politics, and culture. To get back to the facts, and back to...reality. 

Footnote 1:
Triangulation is three points, one being your POV. So one or two (usually at least two) other sources. A university professor of mine once explained this to our class saying to always get three other and disparate sources. Even better if you can find at least one on the opposition side who agrees with your POV. The other form is to go out to disprove your POV and if it proves true, you win. Either should be neutral in orientation so you don't involve personal information bias.

Either way: "'...triangulation ’ originates in the field of navigation where a location is determined by using the angles from two known points. Triangulation in research is the use of more than one approach to researching a question. The objective is to increase confidence in the findings through the confirmation of a proposition using two or more independent measures.2 The combination of findings from two or more rigorous approaches provides a more comprehensive picture of the results than either approach could do alone.3"