<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Glen -</p>
<p>I appreciate the very clear and positive (albeit blunt) way you
framed Dave's post, hopefully allowing the rest of us (including
Dave) to continue the conversations implied in a positive and
coherence-seeking manner. I think Dave's rant referenced a number
of important issues worth discussing.<br>
</p>
<p>Dave -</p>
<p>I appreciate your checking in and letting us know you had arrived
safe and sound and now "settled". There was plenty in your
trip-report that resonated with me, even if your conclusions left
me somewhat baffled or in direct opposition. I'd like to be able
to discuss those topics openly and not risk A) telling you that
you are patently wrong(-headed) in your observations and opinions;
nor B) risk appearing to accept some of the assertions which I
patently do not. <br>
</p>
<p>All -</p>
<p>Here is my best shot at outlining (succinctly?) the issues I
think Dave raised that I'd like to see discussed further:</p>
<ol>
<li>I believe there is a value to the amateur-ethnographic
approach to taking the pulse of the people anywhere we might
travel. I also prefer to travel by secondary highways, listen
to local radio, read local dailies/weeklies, and listen in on
local cafe and tavern conversations along the way. I am not a
trained ethnographer nor anthropologist. I believe the more
familiar the ethnographic landscape, the easier the work. The
more unfamiliar, the more opportunity there may be to learning
something new. In both cases, there is a big risk of
confirmation bias.</li>
<li>I think "the fourth estate" is an important part of society
IMO... Tom and others can probably speak more eloquently and
elaborately to this, but it is worth noting that it was our very
first Amendment to the Constitution... what it takes to keep
such *healthy* is another question. Shrieking "fake news!"
back and forth across the aisle is either a symptom or a cause
of what seems to be an ailing if not failing 4th estate.<br>
</li>
<li>I have some experience (working in local Radio in the early
70's and investigative journalism in the late 70's) and basis to
believe that Local Media is no less biased nor more given to
reporting facts than the National Media. At *best*, a local
bias (aligned with local ownership and/or local advertisers,
real or aspirational) replaces the national bias. I believe
bias is always nearly invisible to those who share the bias in
place. At *worst* the local bias is in lock-step with the
national bias which is often not just handed down from the
affiliated network/syndication but in fact through a media
conglomerate consolidation which has gobbled up a huge portion
of the local print and broadcast media. This often comes
without the change of ownership being made strongly evident to
the consumers of that media. My personal bias/opinion is that
the Right has done a bang-up job of gathering up local media
around the country in the last decade or three to the purpose of
subtly influencing public opinion, in a similar way to the way
they have tried to hijack social media.<a
href="https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/media-consolidation-means-less-local-news-more-right-wing-slant">
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/media-consolidation-means-less-local-news-more-right-wing-slant</a></li>
<li>Cable News' greatest aspiration leads to what might be their
deepest flaw which is that they are a 24/7 operation with what
appears to be a huge budget. Whether Fox or CNN or
MSNBC/CBSN/ABC?? they have lots of time and lots of budget to
fill in between what conventional commercial TV spills out for
us in roughly 3 1 hour time slots (Breakfast, Dinner,
Bedtime?). So they repeat the same reporting over and over (in
case you missed something) and lace in a LOT of commentary. <br>
</li>
<li>Alternative Media has grown as we have lowered the bar to
entry. What used to be the province of pamphleteers, limited
distribution periodicals and pirate radio has exploded with the
internet. For better and worse. For any opinion you might
choose to hold, I believe you can find an "authoritative" source
to back it up somewhere on the internet. <br>
</li>
<li>Civil War. Dave was astute or lucky or cynical enough to
predict Trump's ascendancy while many of us were rolling our
eyes and trying to imagine "really?" as "the Clown" (as Dave now
calls Trump) rolled over the top of the rest of the Republican
field of presidential hopefuls, and then blustered his way nose
to nose with "the Hillary", ultimately pulling the electoral
college rug out from under her. Trump's divisive style and his
opposition's polarization away from his ideas/opinions/policies
has only polarized us more (IMO). Some (including Dave I
think) would suggest that the popular media is amplifying that
polarization. I am left wondering how real and how necessary
this divide is, and how much of it can/could be healed with a
serious and applied effort? Or is Dave's prediction of a
continued polarization unto breakdown inevitable?</li>
</ol>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>