The Emotional Fallacy: The Mirror in the Media

I was introduced to the idea of the emotional fallacy when studying literary criticism in college. The idea was that, instead of evaluating a work on the characteristics and qualities of the work itself, people sometimes respond to their own emotional response to the work. Thus, we are analyzing our individual and personal reactions and not parts of the work. 

For example, few people regard those highly sentimental movies about lovers, one of whom gets a terminal disease, and we watch their relationship grow as one of them dies, as great art. However, someone suffering from an illness or whose lover, mother, or friend had a similar situation might be touched emotionally. They would identify with the characters and situations in the movie. Their evaluation, therefore, might be a function of their response and not a result of the quality of the writing, acting, cinematography, editing, or other pieces of the craft of movie-making. They like the work because they relate to it. 

Yet, people judge works based on their own emotions all the time. They like things that make them feel good, inspired, or uplifted. They recoil from works that challenge their firmly held beliefs or make them think too hard. Sometimes, they miss the real art, skill, and beauty of the work because they are too caught up looking at themselves. Instead of examining the work, they see a mirror that reflects parts of themselves. 

We identify with a character and then that character becomes a stand-in for us. We think we know how they feel. We know how this plot goes because we have encountered situations like this in our lives. The work feels authentic and rings true because it mirrors our experience. 

Or our values. A work that confirms and supports our view of the world can be more appealing than one that challenges us to see a different perspective. A work that is simple and sweet goes down easier than one that is complicated and depends a great deal on the craft of storytelling. We like pretty pictures more than complex puzzles. 

Have you ever talked to someone who read a book you read or saw a movie you saw and thought to yourself, “Did we see the same thing?”  They may make a minor character into the protagonist because they see themselves in that character. They may impose their view of the world on the world of the story. They embellish the work with their values and experiences and transform it into an extension of themselves. Their response to it is no longer about the work.

Of course, creators want their audiences to connect with their works. They rejoice when their characters and situations are real to people. However, when the response centers on the viewer to the detriment of the work, we are no longer focused on the work – but on the viewer. 

It is not difficult to play with people’s emotions using words, images, music, or story. Advertisers, politicians, and propagandists frequently use anecdotes and compelling tales to manipulate their audiences. They are so good at this that their audiences rarely look behind the curtain to evaluate the vehicles themselves. They only see their images in the mirror. 

They see themselves in the characters and rewrite the story to fit their world, values, experiences, and prejudices. Think about the responses to the first Hunger Games movie when a Black woman was cast as Rue. The book made it clear that Rue was Black. However, many people who claimed to love the book rewrote that fact in their minds. They brought their bigotry to the novel and, when its explicit features were turned into a movie, it no longer matched what they recalled from the book – and they got mad! 

We recast the world in our own image. We rewrite the story to fit our values, wishes, and worldview. We think we know who are the oppressors and who are the victims because of course they reflect what we have seen and experienced in our world. 

And if it is not the same, if the story is not our story, we sometimes ignore those aspects of the text and rewrite it to reflect us. We create a confirming and comforting carnival mirror instead of analyzing the work itself. 

But the real story, the real movie, the real world doesn’t change. It isn’t just a mirror of us – and that can be difficult and uncomfortable to accept. It can make us the pawns of manipulators and Machiavellians. It can make us allies with evil.  

Reading for Treasure: Israel and Gaza

There is so much news coverage about the current conflict in the Middle East. Over and over, I find that my heart is broken. I read an article, see video, and then I cannot take it anymore. I realize that only my distance gives me that privilege, so I face again the horror both in Israel and Gaza and the reverberations around the world. 

It is not a straightforward situation. I chaff against the use of words like “simple” or modified by “just,” or preceded by, “all that needs to…” as if this is a knot that any casual observer could easily untangle. I wish it were so. Who am I to tell people half a world away how to solve problems that are centuries old? 

One way I have found to deal with this situation with integrity is with a “both/and” approach: The Israelis suffered a horrible pogrom and their response to it is causing another horror. The Palestinians have been treated dreadfully and Hamas is not moving them in a good direction. The hostages must be freed and all of Gaza is hostage to Hamas. Some of the criticism against Israel is valid and some is antisemitic. 

I do not see this situation objectively. As an American Jew, I empathize with my Israeli family. Yet, as a Jew, I identify with the downtrodden and see Gaza as another ghetto. Both/And. 

So here are some articles from The Atlantic, a publication I have come to both trust and admire. I am not advertising their publication, rather it has become a mainstay of my reading and understanding of a variety of issues. These articles represent several perspectives and were written through this awful time of war. 

My wish for this season, as we head to Thanksgiving, is for peace for all of us, a return of those held hostage, and an opportunity for voices like the writers below to be heard. Please give them a read. 

“My Message of Peace”

“Even the Oppressed Have Obligations”

“Hamas Must Go”

“The Children of Gaza”

“When Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic”

“America’s Most Dangerous Anti-Jewish Propagandist”

I am currently reading Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky

Twenty Years Ago: May 2003

On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush declared that, in Iraq, our mission had been accomplished and “major combat operations” were over. He was very wrong. 

At that time, I was keenly aware that, as a parent and teacher, not only was my mission not accomplished, but my major operations were only beginning. It is ironic that, twenty years later, many of my missions are accomplished (This is not the place to debate the state of Iraq). I look back at May of 2003 and it is nearly the opposite of my life now. 

My mission at school was in full swing. I had Peer Helping meetings two or three mornings a week. I was preparing for the student performance of creative writing, StageWrite, after school, later in the month. I was getting my Sunday School students ready for their May confirmation, and I was meeting with a new teaching team and designing our class for the fall. I started my adult Hebrew class, too! 

Operations at home were complex and intense. Unlike now, my children lived at home. I moved them from violin to sports practices to the park district to birthday parties and doctor appointments. Oh, yeah, they had school, homework, and Sunday School, too! 

My mother-in-law was at a nursing home in Skokie. My wife visited her frequently. My parents and my wife’s aunt helped us by picking up my kids and taking them for sleepovers and filling in when our babysitter got sick, which happened a lot in May 2003. My wife’s aunt died seven years later, and now I am frequently helping my parents.

Oddly, I didn’t see myself as frenetically busy as I do when I look back. In my journal, I wrote, “Today felt so – reasonable! I don’t remember when I have had a day when I got everything done and I didn’t feel like a madman doing it.”  But I continued, “I taught three classes, got the school work done (I didn’t have grading today – that helps). Web, attendance, special ed forms, calls, reading, and then temple, North Trail, and all the rest – but done and no craziness. What have I forgotten?”  So maybe not so reasonable? Of course, just a day later, I write, “From sane and reasonable to crazy and hectic! The day is only a few hours old and already things are nustybaum.” Are you shaking your head? I am. I was so busy that one of my journal entries ends midsentence as if I was called away and never had a chance to finish it. 

I worked out on my exercise bike most mornings. My body was letting me know that I was stressed: my neck and back hurt. I made my morning workouts more palatable by watching TV shows, but Star Trek: Enterprise had its series finale in May 2003. 

A good metaphor for my life at that time was the way that I organized my students’ debate presentations. Students were in groups of four, debating two on two. It might take ten class sessions if we saw them one at a time, so I found empty classrooms and put cameras in them, and had multiple debates for two or three days. Kids had to report to our room, find their debate room, and then set up and operate the camera, keep time, and debate! I would then take all the recordings home and grade them. It was stressful, intense, and exhausting for me, great for the class schedule and the kids. 

I ran a fundraising road rally for the congregation, which was a mix between a treasure and scavenger hunt. I organized a Mother’s Day brunch for my wife, mother, sister-in-law, and aunt-in-law. My daughter had another wrist x-ray and then we went to the Bakers Square which was demolished this week. My son had an ear infection! We went to the spring play, gymnastics tournaments to watch a former student, and Honors Night. I was a human pinball. 

Much of my free time was filled with grading (and watching those debate recordings). I also started meeting with a group of teachers who team-taught classes. Those meetings meant I was not in my regular classes, which meant sub plans and thus additional work. 

Yet, I read to both kids every night. We had our mornings together, too, even if it meant that when we left the house, it looked like the kitchen had been ransacked by raccoons. We went to dinners at Sweet Tomatoes on a regular basis, which was my children’s favorite restaurant. I rode my bike with my daughter to her school in the morning until she felt comfortable riding by herself. We even had an occasional Saturday babysitter and went to see the movie, Bend It Like Beckham! 

Like today, I was very aware of my good fortune. I wrote, “I am so lucky, so very very very lucky.” Despite a relative’s divorce and my mother-in-law’s condition, the rest of the family worked like a well-oiled Rube Goldberg machine. I noted that I did a “thousand things today,” but I wasn’t overwhelmed or unhappy about it. As with prior months, reading my old journals exhausted me now – but not then. 

I don’t know when we’ll be able to really say, “mission accomplished” in the middle east. It was May of 2003 when the Israeli government approved a plan that they thought would create a two-state system by 2005! 

Looking back lets us shake our heads at the past. It emphasizes how our view then is different from our reality now. Yet, it is our past that formed this present and what will come next. I think that frenetic pace is why I love the quiet and calm of retirement.

Reading for Treasure: Articles I Can't Stop Thinking About

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

My theme this month is articles that have taken up residence in my head, that I cannot stop thinking about. I strongly recommend you read them. Many of them will probably end up being the seeds of my own writing on this blog. 

Lifehacker contrasts two thinkers who have confronted evil: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Donald Ewen Cameron. The piece asks what is the difference between being evil and stupid: “Why Stupidity Is More Dangerous Than Evil.”

When I was first hired as a teacher, I told my department chairman that I wasn’t going to give grades. He said I had to, so I said I would give everyone A’s. He said that wasn’t going to work either. So, I tried to make the idea of grades fit with real student-centered education. These two pieces about how institutions of learning are rethinking grades are excellent discussions of this issue: KQED’s “Some colleges mull the idea of 'Ungrading' for freshman students” and Wired’s “The End of Grading.”

Similarly, I struggled with kids’ use of their smartphones in the classroom. I ended up hanging a shoe tree near the door and requiring my students to relinquish their phones during class. This also made taking attendance quick and easy. This wonderful article in The Atlantic looks at “The Schools That Ban Smartphones.” 

This quick article from The Daily Herald addresses a question I have been asking since I moved next door to the school at which I taught and my children attended: “It’s Good For Kids and the Environment. So Why Aren’t More Students Walking to School”

As a follow-up to several sets of articles about gun violence, The Chicago Tribune addressed a part of this issue that does not receive enough attention. While we hear about people killed and injured by shootings, we don’t hear about how those who are shot cope afterward: “Doctors: A firearm-related injury is a chronic and expensive condition, but many victims are forgotten.” 

Two very political articles from The Atlantic fascinated me. As a former debate teacher, the “Gish Gallop” technique that the former president uses is both effective and highly problematic. “How To Beat Trump in a Debate” is a great analysis of more than Trump’s rhetorical style, but the philosophy behind it. Similarly, “Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers” looks at how ratings and pandering to the desires of an audience were more important than journalistic ethics on the Fox News Channel. Is there a connection here? 

Finally, two more articles from The Atlantic (can you tell that I am a huge fan of that magazine?) about reading. First, “The People Who Don’t Read Books” looks at some high-profile people who are proud that they don’t read. Second, “A New Way to Read ‘Gatsby’” was fascinating to me as I finished Nghi Vo’s magical spin on Fitzgerald’s classic, The Chosen and the Beautiful. Read them both and you will see why this book has staying power. 

Besides The Atlantic, I am reading Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand by Samuel Delany. 

Reading for Treasure: Guns, Again- and Again, and Again and Again

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

Why do I keep listing articles that deal with the problem of gun violence? Because we have yet to confront the issue fully and deal with the consequences. It is one of our greatest public health problems today. Most Americans are in favor of “common sense” gun laws, but somehow, we still lack sense of any kind when it comes to firearms. Some of these articles are a little old, but unfortunately just as timely as when they were published. What a sad statement that mass shootings are always a current event. 

Peter Bergen says we should ban assault weapons, pass and enforce red flag laws, and look at a concept he calls leakage in his CNN oped:  “Opinion: This is how we stem America’s mass shootings” 

Two pieces from The Atlantic are very much worth your attention. First, a look at the police’s inaction, at Uvalde : “Where Were The Police?” And then a wonderful portrait of how marketing and profit drive the American gun problem: “The Gun Industry Created a New Consumer. Now It’s Killing Us”

It is a sad statement to say that I got so much déjà vu reading this article from Medium that I searched to see if I had already included it in a Reading for Treasure list:  “Why is America the Only Country in the World With Regular School Shootings?”  

This article in The Grio shows us what we really didn’t need proof to believe. Gun violence hurts some of us more than others. “Allowing guns in public without permits could create increased risks for Black Americans, experts say”

This link is not an article, but a website that tracks gun violence in America. The Gun Violence Archive tracks gun deaths broken down by location, age of those killed, suicides, mass shootings, mass murders, and much more. The statistics are horrific. 

As of the publishing of this post, in 2023, there have been 

2097 gun deaths 

909 homicides

1188 suicides 

32 mass shootings

4 mass murders

56 defensive use deaths 

73 unintentional shootings

2 officer killed and 17 injured 

61 subject-suspects killed and 35 injured

41 children under 11 killed or injured

253 children under 12 to 17 killed or injured 

This must stop. We must make it stop. 

Two cases, one from Washington, D.C. reported in The Grio, and one from Newport News, Virginia from CNN. The headlines paint the picture clearly: 

“Man guns down 13-year-old boy he thought was car vandal; cops won’t release killer’s name”

“A 6-year-old shoots his teacher. Now what?”

Finally, some good news. The Daily Herald reports from my home state of Illinois which has banned assault weapons: “Pritzker signs state's new ban on high-powered weapons: The final details”

I am currently reading She Who Became the Sun by Shelley Parker-Chan

RSS: The Easiest Way to Stay Current On Your Favorite Websites

Do you go to the same websites on a regular basis? Do you check news, sports, entertainment, or other blogs or information sites? What if, instead of going to them, they came to you in a neat, simple, and easy-to-read format. 

People rarely understand what I mean when I say I am addicted to my RSS feeds. Only the geekiest of tech nerds will nod and then ask what reader I use. While some people like Apple News or the home page on Yahoo (or some other service), using RSS (real simple syndication) provides a personalized view of what is new on the websites I most want to read. 

I follow a variety of news sources. I follow news sources specific to cities that interest me (for example, because my children live there) and local or niche websites. In addition, I think it is important that I follow sources that are designed for demographics that do not include me so I can get different perspectives on what is happening in the world. In addition, I am interested in technology, science fiction, word games, and a multitude of highly niche blogs, zines, and literary news. 

Like the old-fashioned dad at breakfast, I open my iPad to my RSS reader (I use Feedly) and get a list of what is new on the web sources to which I have subscribed. I see a long list of headlines with a few short sentences after each to give me a flavor of that article. 

I have grouped my list into sections like in a newspaper. These sections make it easier to manage - feeds. Like the newspaper, I have a news feed as well as feeds on technology, literature, education, shopping, and one for articles that don’t fit into any of my categories. I also have a favorites feed so, if I am in a hurry, I only look at the articles that come from the sources with which I am most engaged. 

I read some of the articles. Some I save for later. My reader, Feedly, has a means of saving content, but I use another web app called Instapaper. Instapaper allows me to save an article to read not only later, but offline when I don’t have an internet connection – perfect for reading on airplanes or while waiting somewhere where there is no wifi. 

Here is how you start. Start with an RSS reader. Here is an article describing several. 

Here is a step-by-step video to help you set up feeds and websites in Feedly. 

Enjoy! 

Where are the Guardian Angels?

The shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is overwhelming. Each time I think about the horrible events of May 24, I find it is so painful that I need to deflect to something else, anything else. The thought of that kind of loss is nearly too difficult to imagine.  

I was teaching the day that Laurie Dann walked into Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka and began shooting. My school moved to “red alert,” which was designed to prevent senior pranks, when it was reported that the shooter was headed northwest. My school is only a few miles northwest of Hubbard Woods. This was more than thirty years ago. 

There are no words to console a grieving parent or partner. There is no pain I can imagine worse than the death of a child. It is so hideous and powerful and painful. Why must parents keep experiencing loss because of school shootings? 

What is wrong with us that we refuse to protect our children sitting in their classrooms? What is wrong with us that we argue about the rights of children not yet born, but we refuse to protect fourth graders? How can people rush to protect gun rights at the cost of children’s lives?  Anyone who has worked in education knows that putting more guns in school will not address this problem. It is a false fantasy solution that ignores everything we know about these situations. 

Even the National Rifle Association prohibits guns at its convention! Arming teachers will work, but having a convention full of gun owners won’t? I don’t understand. 

Let’s start a new organization: No Retro Abortions. This organization would advocate that we ban abortions beyond the 15-week or 3-month or the latest of late-term timelines and argue that even abortions that take place after birth should be forbidden. The organization could be called by its initials: N.R.A. 

Recently, I read a short story called, “Mr. Death” by Alix Harrow. The story is nominated for the prestigious Hugo award, and.I read the nominees every year so I vote for the winners. 

This fantasy story follows a relatively new “reaper” who ferries souls across the river of death. He is given assignments and then sits with the person as they die and accompanies them to the other side. However, as the story opens, he is given a horrible assignment: a child of only 30 month: a two year old. 

Our focal character has deep misgivings and does his best to rationalize and justify the child’s death. But he can’t. He lost his own child and has experienced this kind of pain first hand. As the story proceeds, he moves from giving the child a little extra time to being unable to complete his assignment. He refuses to complete the assignment even though it will mean much more than losing his job, it will probably mean he will be consigned to oblivion. 

If you are going to read the story, this is the place to stop reading. I am about to spoil it. Read the story and come back or skip to the paragraph beginning, “Lovers of life…” 

Here is the connection: when our reaper refuses to take the child and is willing to sacrifice everything, he is surprised to find that he is transformed. He is no longer a reaper and instead, he is a guardian. He stands beside the child as a  protector. 

Lovers of life, pro-choice, pro-life, we need guardians now. Our children need us all to become angels who protect them: in their classrooms, churches, synagogues, movie theaters, and homes. Not with more instruments of death, but with thoughtful and rational laws and rules. Other countries do this; we can do this. 

Can we transform from partners of death to protectors of life? The Supreme Court will soon rule about how the unborn should be protected. What about the newly born? What about the fourth graders? What about our children and grandchildren? 

Thou shall not murder. Put down your weapon and accept your wings. Protect the children. Please. 

Reading For Treasure: We Need to Keep Talking and Reading About Racism, Roe, CRT, and Hate

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction! 

The news overflows with horrible stories of racism, sexism, and other forms of hate. Here is a small selection of articles and videos to further your understanding of these critical issues. 

Imbolo Mbue writes in The Atlantic about the recent biography of George Floyd. Neither he nor the writers of the biography shy away from a nuanced and complex picture of Floyd – and that picture is also one of our America:  “The America that Killed George Floyd.” 

The overturning of Roe v. Wade puts several other rights in jeopardy. This article from Blavity outlines how this Supreme Court decision could open the door to eliminating other rights: “5 Other Rights That Could Be Struck Down If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned”

Alexis McGill is the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. She writes in the New York Amsterdam News that “The end of Roe and what it would mean for the Black community.”

Two pieces that focus on Critical Race Theory: Lifehacker provides a clear piece on “What Critical Race Theory Actually Means (And What It Doesn’t).”

John Oliver discusses Critical Race Theory on this episode of Last Week Tonight.

How do we prevent white children from becoming white nationalists? My former colleague provides teachers, parents, counselors, and coaches with information about “Inoculating Our Students Against White Nationalism — Teaching While White.”

Finally, the Associated Press published this article, “Explainer: Theory of White Replacement Fuels Racist Attacks” which provides a background to the ideas that are motivating terrorist attacks by white nationalists. 

I am currently reading Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel.

It's Way Too Complicated!

“Let me make this simple for you.”

Simple? For me? Does that make me a simpleton? Why do you need to make it simple? What happens when you simplify? Are we losing important information and ideas if a complicated issue is turned from a detailed mosaic into a black and white cartoon? 

Sometimes, people don’t want to think that hard. Sometimes, they don’t want to make difficult choices and decisions. Life is so much easier when the alternatives are straightforward: good or evil, rich or poor, right or wrong. 

That’s why we sometimes tie ourselves into knots finding ways to make tough problems easier. That’s why politicians provide sound bites instead of thoughtful arguments. They believe we don’t have the time, patience, or mental capacity to understand the nuance, see the details, or appreciate the complexity. But we do. We must! 

Sometimes, we’re lazy. We make choices about where to spend our precious energy, especially our brainpower. Running a marathon is grueling, thinking one is even more so. Governments, advertisers, cheaters, and crooks appeal to this laziness hoping that, if they make it simple for us, we will do what they want us to do. They don’t want us to worry our pretty little heads about these grown-up issues. 

Trust me, this is the heart of the matter. This is what is going on underneath all the layers of manipulation, deflection, and denial. I’ll do the thinking for you. I’ll tell you what to think and then I’ll tell you what to do. You’ll do what I say. You’ll believe my interpretation. You’ll just follow along. Trust me. 

No! 

We must confront the complexity. We must take the time to sift through the information. We must examine the shades of gray, uncertainties, and inconsistencies. I’ll trust the expert who has credentials – and I’ll ask them to explain their reasoning. 

I might have a question. I might have many questions. If the issue is so simple that no questions are needed (or desired), then why are we talking about it? Why is there disagreement? If the statement begins with, “Anyone with any common sense would, of course, come to the conclusion that…” it is probably been over-simplified. 

Years ago, students would say to me, “I’m sorry, but I prefer math to English class because math doesn’t make me defend my interpretations and answers. In math class, the answers are just the answers. Everything is clear cut and I know when I am right.” In other words, I don’t want to think that deeply. Wow, were those students in for a surprise when they find themselves in upper-level math classes where content is as nuanced as any literary analysis. 

It is challenging to comb through information in search of patterns. It is hard work to reach decisions based on reams of information. But I would vote for thoughtful leaders who take the time and energy to really figure things out over simpletons who jump to easy decisions quickly because they won’t – or can’t cope with complexities. 

Dealing with COVID is complicated. The war in Ukraine is complicated. Dealing with racism is complicated. Important issues aren’t simple. We wish there were more, but, as the old saying goes, wish in one hand, spit in the other, see which one fills up first. 

Googling the question is not doing research. Reading an article or watching a story on television is not figuring it out. Real reasoning takes time and critical evaluation – and expertise. It is a rigorous process. This is why academic journals only accept peer-reviewed articles. This is why good journalists verify what their sources tell them. It is easier to jump to conclusions. It is faster to only read the headline or listen to the sound bite. It feels better to just decide that the answer you want to be right is correct. 

Unfortunately, I fear the simpletons and lazy thinkers are in the majority. Many people don’t want to think that deeply. They work hard doing many other things. They want the answers to be short, sweet, easy, entertaining, and cheap – and when the shysters claim that it is all really very simple, they are selling exactly what these simpletons desire. 

In Search of Media Integrity: What About Openly Affirming It?

We need a news source for everyone! 

Remember when there was a rule that, if a news story quoted one point of view, they had to provide the opposing viewpoint? The Fairness Doctrine was a rule from the Federal Communications Commission that stated that, if an organization is using a publicly held resource, the airwaves, to share news, that news must be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” 

Cable TV and relaxed regulations made the Fairness Doctrine a thing of the past. Suddenly, every point of view had a news source that was the opposite: unbalanced, biased, and sometimes stretching the truth beyond recognition. Spin and news were indistinguishable. 

Newspapers have frequently been allied with specific political points of view, but these leanings were only supposed to be seen in their editorials and opinion sections. The goal for their news stories was to be as factual and unbiased as possible.

We know that there is a limit to news neutrality. Students studying to become journalists learn about the myth of objective journalism. There are too many factors that can taint objectivity and a writer’s choices about which points of view to share may not be complete. 

Add to this the attempt of strong forces to purposely spread disinformation. Beyond advertisement and opinion, our recent elections have been plagued by powerful forces, both inside and outside the United States, creating propaganda that attempted to change people’s voting behavior. 

If voters can’t figure out what is true, how can they make good choices? If voters rely on sources that have specific agendas or points of view, a feedback loop is created that prevents growth, learning, and change. If voters are overwhelmed by so many different versions of the news, they may retreat to a mindset of choosing which is most comforting or consistent with their points of view rather than making a careful evaluation of the facts. 

Facts are the issue here. What are the facts? Over and over, we hear people debating if something is factual and often the response is, “I don’t believe that.” A fact is true regardless of any person’s belief in it. Denial of fact is not debate, but delusion. 

So how do we know what is factual? Therein lies the rub! 

At first, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia style crowd-sourced and checked news source. This way, all the interests would have the ability to both be represented and a reader could look at them side by side. 

Aside from articles becoming too long to digest, this idea also requires the creation of another news source and that news source has to reach people. There might be a way to achieve the same goal with our current media outlets. 

Instead, could we create a clear statement of integrity that news sources could endorse, a kind of pact or promise? A media source that signed on with this promise would be saying that the news they presented followed a set of ethical guidelines; it would be a kind of commandments of fair media. 

One doesn’t have to look far to find such a set of values. The Society of Professional Journalists  (https://www.spj.org/) publishes a code of journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). In it, they state that 

“Journalists should: 

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
• Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
• Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
• Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
• Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
• Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
• Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
• Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
• Label advocacy and commentary.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
• Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
• Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
• Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
• Act Independently
• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
• Be Accountable and Transparent
• Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
• Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
• Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
• Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” 

How would voters find out if their news source were trustworthy? The news source would openly state that it agrees to abide by this universal code of journalistic ethics. If a news source did not make this promise, that, too, would be a message. Much like the UL logo on a product says that Underwriters Laboratories’ tests have found it safe to use, we would know we could trust a media outlet’s promise of integrity because we would clearly know what that means. 

And if a media outlet violated this code? Well, that would be a news story for other sources to carry. 

For Me, Social Media is About the People

Dear Friends, 

Social media has been much maligned recently and for good reason. I know that many people use Facebook, Instagram, and other online services to get their news, make political statements, market their businesses, and spread all sorts of things that might be called information. As you know, I have experimented with doing some of these things. However, the reason I am writing this is to let you know the real reason I stay on social media: I love thinking about you.

Seeing your photo, comment, post, or whatever reminds me of you. It makes me smile. I fully understand that getting together and actually having a face-to-face conversation would be more authentic and substantial. But let’s be honest, if I went for meals, walks, meet-ups, or gatherings with all my friends online, that would probably become all I would have the time or energy to do – and then there are the issues of distance and COVID. Social media is superficial contact, but it is much better than none at all. 

I rejoice with you when special things happen, empathize with you when there are struggles and losses, and remember our time together. For many of us, we shared school together. I am not the person I was in middle or high school or even college. I am not the cocky kid who started teaching at Deerfield High School thirty-some years ago. It is clear that all of us are growing up and growing old and that is a good thing. I liked you then. I like who you are becoming and it is delightful to get a little glimpse into your present person. 

Yes, there are times when I don’t understand what you post. While this is more often true of my younger friends, it is not exclusively so. I also need to note that my “younger” former students are increasingly closer to my age than I would have thought possible when I started teaching. 

Sometimes, I worry about you. Sometimes, I sent you private messages to check my understanding of what you posted. Sometimes I don’t because I cling to the idea that I probably misunderstood what you posted and I don’t want to pry into the details. I don’t want anyone to think that big teacher is watching. I don’t even have administrators to report to anymore! 

Sometimes, I disagree with you. I don’t often tell you so. I have not found social media to be a good platform for complex discussion. More often, I want to know more. You probably don’t know it, but many of you have sent me researching topics, learning about different points of view, and reading, reading, reading! Thank goodness, I love reading. 

I will admit that I get a twinge when there are significant proofing errors in your writing. I am still a former English teacher. I get much more than a twinge when those significant issues are in your thinking. There have been several times when I have wanted to provide a refresher on logic, critical thinking, evaluation, attribution, credibility of sources, or other topics I am certain we covered in class. The teacher hat never completely comes off, although it does transform. I don’t want to be too “teacherly” online, even if some of my friends still won’t use my first name. 

Like it was when we saw each other in person, our relationship is complex. Because it is primarily expressed in quick snatches of text and images, it has also become somewhat telegraphic. Small symbols may have big meanings. I do read between the lines and I am always trying to figure out if the meanings I intuit are correct. Sometimes I ask. Often, I do not. 

While there may be many people who have been horribly misled by social media, I hope my friends are not among them. I hope you are safe and healthy. I hope you are vaccinated (sorry, that is one of my big worries for my friends - if it feels political to you, that is another conversation). I hope you and the people you hold dear are doing well. I love seeing photos of your special people and sharing the good feelings that come with them. I hope you had a healthy and peaceful holiday season. 

I try not to spend too much time in front of the computer if I can help it. So I know, too, that I miss things. Sometimes I only see a post when someone else comments on it, when it is reposted, or if it is brought to my attention. Please don’t assume that, since you put it online, I saw it. We all know that social media has an odd algorithm that puts some posts higher up than others. If you want me to see something, please send it to me by messenger or email! 

I want to repeat that, for me, social media is social. Seeing you is what it is about for me. I don’t get my news from Facebook. I don’t form or debate my political views online. You know me – I read! I am an RSS-aholic and I am always putting aside articles to read later – even though I am reading a great deal each day. I am never up to date! I share some of the articles I read each month on this blog. 

Finally, thank you. Thank you for making me smile when you pop up on my computer. Thank you for keeping our relationship alive. Thank you for the connection. 

It matters a lot to me because you matter a lot to me. 

The News Is Not Netflix

“Remind me to write a popular article on the compulsive reading of news. The theme will be that most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers.” 

- Robert Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land

There was no cable news, CNN, FOX, MSNBC when Heinlein wrote this. You couldn’t consume news twenty-four hours a day. Now, news is one of the most popular shows on television. 

And therein lies the issue. The pandemic has trapped us in our homes and we turned to our screens: Zooming, gaming, and online communications took center focus, but so did watching more and more and more TV. Really, this was not startling. The trends were going this way since Netflix decided not to send people DVDs. 

It is not surprising that people would immerse themselves in distractions on several screens. People become very connected to the stories and characters in the shows they watch, regardless of the quality of the entertainment. Whether this is enjoying people screaming at each other during daytime talk shows, the exaggerated highs and lows of soap operas or the rush of a good adventure series, the power of the video story can be nearly addicting. 

So why shouldn’t we see the news as just another kind of story? There are fascinating characters, great conflict, high stakes, and engaging visuals. No wonder we like to elect television and movie personalities to public office! Perhaps we don’t see the difference – or we don’t want to see the difference. 

In his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman argues that, by presenting news through a medium that is best suited to entertainment, the gravity and complexity of the issues are diluted to such a degree that he refers to television news as “disinformation.” 

Similarly, in the 1976 Oscar award-winning movie, Network, the same idea is frighteningly dramatized as we see the conflict between journalistic television news, which is not entertaining enough to get good ratings, with an entertainment-focused news show that will do anything, including televising a suicide, to get people to watch. 

We are amusing ourselves to our democracy’s detriment. Today, our narrowcast news sources have gone far beyond what was satire in 1976! We watch the news with the same motives and engagement that we watch Tiger King, Squid Game, or Succession. The news is nothing more than another riveting television show. 

And we are the biggest fans! We look at our world through the perspectives, products, and spin of our news channels. There is no substantive difference in the way we consume the news than the way we interact with other television programming. 

Just as people name their children for media characters and personalities, we shape our choices around the feelings and fluff we get from the screen. We start to believe that the world really isn’t that complex. It can be reduced to a few quick sound bites from the anchorperson, legislator, or commentator. We trust these on-screen authorities for the same reasons we like watching actors in a fictional world: they look good, they sound good, they stroke parts of our self-image and make our drab lives more fun. 

Is that it? Could that be it? It used to be that watching Maury Povitch, Montell Williams, or Jerry Springer was a kind of schadenfreude. We got a perverse pleasure from watching others in pain. Now, our news has taken this a step further. We get that pleasure from seeing our political opponents in pain and our protagonist win every conflict –even if he didn’t really win. It’s all fiction anyway, so what’s the difference?  

It is not that different from following sports teams and, I fear, has about as much weight. Except that this team has far more influence over the fates of millions of people. We see ourselves as Team Republican or Team Democrat in the same way that we root for the Cubs or Cardinals, the Bears or the Packers. 

Political issues are hard to understand, so it is convenient that TV simplifies them for us. Politicians are masterful at manipulating facts and issues, so it is good to use the same tools to judge them that we use with fictional characters played by actors. 

Worst of all, we respond in similar ways: no one is asking you to save the character in danger during the series you are binging. Your vote doesn’t count for or against the fictional detective making an arrest or the lawyer in court on TV. 

But it does in the real world. When we are moved to action by our entertainment news, it is to play our roles in the drama we see unfolding. We get delusions of stardom and see ourselves as a piece of the story; we are characters in the tale, supporting our heroes and helping them vanquish our foes – if we are moved to action at all. 

Except the real world isn’t a story, and our heroes are fallible humans who are far more complex than comic book superheroes. Ultimately, all of the things we see on TV are trying to sell us something. They are not acting in our best interest – ever. By seeing the complicated and ever-changing world as a simple fable, perhaps one with a simple platitude at its heart, we become children again. 

The news is not Netflix. Politics are complicated. It is critically important to be aware of what is going on in the real world – but we have to be able to know what is real and what is just another made-up story. And taking political action is not as simple as posting on social media.