[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

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.

Dave -

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.

All -

Here is my best shot at outlining (succinctly?) the issues I think Dave
raised that I'd like to see discussed further:

 1. 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.
 2. 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.
 3. 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. 
    https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/media-consolidation-means-less-local-news-more-right-wing-slant
 4. 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.
 5. 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. 
 6. 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?

- Steve


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200414/a07e8052/attachment.html>