update 1: this post is regularly updated with new chapters as they develop. chapters do not develop in a sensible sequence due to the multithreading of conversations that can happen on facebook. chapter 1, however, was (what in retrospect) i will call ‘the beginning’—knowing, of course, all ‘beginnings’ are impure.
update 2: as of publishing chapter 4, I have reflected more on what this post is supposed to be doing, and i have considered the potential harm it could be doing as a work that recontextualizes people’s words outside of their initial form and format. perhaps it is telling that i have decided not to discontinue the project and maintain this page as a repository for these observations (essentially, a kind of data collection). i am doing this because i think there is something about what’s going on in these posts, this project, that is of public interest. this is not the same thing as journalism, but there is something pedagogical in character to looking over people’s shoulders and listening in on how they conduct themselves in civil discourse on the internet in 2016. when most of the nations opinion leaders seem to be suggesting that politics should not be brought to the family dinner table around this Thanksgiving holiday, it seems of the utmost importance, then, to demonstrate other ways of weaving political discourse into the fabric of everyday life. this weaving is not inherently obvious in character or technique, and from conversations with my students in the classroom, there is a general demand for demonstrations of this rhetorical art form in practice. in sum, i see this project as a technological demonstration of sorts: a practical example of how i am using technology in everyday life to have conversations that seem impossible around the dinner table.
what is inherently technological about this practice of conversation is the ways in which Facebook affords a very different kind of conversation than what would normally happen at a family get-together. the space is differently-public, and time is differently-experienced; people speak and reflect in different ways when they write, compared to when they speak. the social pressure points and rhetorical subtexts are different. the process overall of engaging and disengaging from conversation is radically different. if my aunt or anyone else starts to express things that offend me, on Facebook i can walk away from the conversation for a few days, reflect on an appropriate response, type it up, review and revise, and then re-engage in the conversation. in the real world i don’t have those affordances, and the consequences are such that we don’t have political conversations at the table because when someone says something offensive, our instincts kick in and we start to act and behave in ways that both simultaneously shut down conversation and enact strategies for self preservation. in other words, we get defensive, and when we’re defensive, we’re not able to think strategically about the ways in which we can technically continue to engage with the offensive issue.
attenuating to the form and format of technical engagement is increasingly an important aspect of my praxis. i am a white, cis-gendered, educated, employed, able-bodied person who comes from an upper middle-class (6-figure income) family who cares for me and accepts me. i am empowered in ways that help me cope with the ways in which i am not privileged as a queer, depressed, overweight woman. i can leverage that power to take risks, and engage in ways that others may not be able to afford—especially when it comes to having conversations with people in my kinship network. these conversations on Facebook, for example, take up a lot of the time i should be spending on my coursework or teaching, and taking this time to respond has definitely affected my ability to do good work on time for my supervisors. but—this is work that needs to happen. i am lucky enough to also be at an institution, working with generous scholars who know this.
what i hope does not come of this project is the sense that i am doing this to make an example of the people in my family who voted for a fascist. i mean no ill will! this project is in many ways about being generous because generosity is a prerequisite for civil discourse. i am trying to model what generosity looks like in this particular socio-technological context. it is easy, after all, to talk in vague generalities. what i think people demand in a demonstration of civil discourse is a meaningful, concrete example of what an attempt at bridge-building looks like. again—an attempt. this might be a spectacular example of spinning wheels in mud, but i hold out hope that the process and the subsequent effort to document it has a longer-than-average-life in the context of Facebook comments. furthermore, bridge-building, once you have accepted the burden of first conceding time and effort into the project (remember, all beginnings are imperfect, but projects must start somewhere to nurture the phenomenon of duration), requires a strategic assessment of where common ground can be made. it must be a calculated and thoughtful process. generosity is aspirational, yes, and i cannot by myself say for certain if this project achieves its aims.
another one of the many failings of this work as a censored blog post is that it does not characterize the subtexts that characterize power relationships in this kinship network. while i maintain the distinction between when i speak and my aunt speaks, i do so to underscore a very basic power relation that would have probably been self evident anyways from even a superficial assessment of writing styles. i also think this distinction helps make the work more relatable for some people, even if it does seem to compromise an expectation of privacy that may or may not exist for my aunt. this may be where this work transgresses ethical boundaries, but then again—i have many aunts. people who know what is going on in these posts are already privileged to this discourse if they were to read posts on my Timeline. if i am doing something that is transgressive, i hope this regrettable oversight (at the very least) inspires discussion on the unique situation of privacy on Facebook—especially in situations when their proprietary algorithms that govern notifications and ‘News Feed’ content selectively participate in opening up these conversations to people inside and outside my kinship network. this is to say, i think the politics of reblogging censored versions of these conversations differs from what would normally govern a research agenda or formal scholarly project. it is in this sense i feel obligated to characterize this project as an aspect of my work as a community activist.
Continue Reading —>
chapter 1
Thanks for sharing Auntie. This isn’t the kind of news I ever see on Facebook, so it helps to see what is also out there in terms of information that circulates about social justice activism.
I wanted to point out a few things that may not have been obvious when you first read the post, and I want to outline these things because I believe this type of article is exactly the kind of news that circulates on Facebook as “fake news” or misinformation.
First, the author’s argument that protestors have been paid for their effort seems to be evidenced by this article (which they link): http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/
The website that this link takes you is a fake version of ABC News. One way we can tell is by looking at the URL for the website; it contains “abcnews.com.co”—the real ABC News website does not have “.co” in the URL. Another clue that this website is fake is in the ‘footer’ section at the very bottom of the webpage. There is a paragraph of text on the right hand side of the page that spoofs an ‘About Us’ description found on most blogs. It reads: “Thanks to ABC News President & CEO, Dr. Paul “Un-Buzz Killington” Horner for making ABC News the greatest website in the multiverse. We need writers! Contact us! Looking to advertise? Contact us! All trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress, product names, images and logos appearing on the site are the property of their respective owners. Do you have a complaint? We love to hear them! You can call our complaint department directly at (785) 273-0325. Do you have a problem with self-rape? Are you looking to get off the Devil’s playground? Fappy The Anti-Masturbation Dolphin can help! Praise Fappy! We reserve the right to change, modify or delete comments on this website, so post accordingly!” I think we can both agree that an international news website would not likely have “Praise Fappy” associated with their brand.
Second, the author uses screenshots of Craigslist ads to evidence the existence of these acts. We should not consider these screenshots and the accompanying text as valid evidence for the existence of real life activity and real life business transactions going on before protests/rallies. The simple fact is, these things are incredibly easy to fake. Anyone can create these posts, take screenshots, and then delete the posts. We should be very suspicious of the fact that the article does not link the craigslist post, and nor does the screenshot reveal a URL that we could type in ourselves to verify.
Third, the author makes reference to “how the Clinton campaign caused disruptions via ‘bird-dogging,’” and again, the author links to another suspicious blog. The claims made there are also relying on evidence that leads to either other well-known fake-news sites, or to websites that regularly publish white supremacist propaganda.
Fourth, the author cites a single tweet as evidence that protestors were bussed in from other places to inflate the significance of anti-trump protests. Again, if you click on the link that directly references the tweet on Twitter, it takes you to a page that says “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!” While it is not clear why the tweet author seems to have deleted the tweet, we should be suspicious that no other source of evidence is used to verify this account.
While I don’t want you to think I am defending or advocating for the ways in which George Soros spends his time and money—I don’t think he is particularly unique in terms of wealthy businessmen who support grassroots organizations (the same kind of thing happened for the Tea Party not long ago)—what I do want to argue is that articles like this don’t necessarily provide us with the best information about what’s going on with protest movements happening all across the country. Nor do they help us evaluate whether we are in danger. This article belongs to a genre of internet web ’news’ that is designed to provoke strong feelings—one Buzzfeed article on this topic that you might find useful is here: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/can-facebook-trending-fight-off-fake-news?utm_term=.ahXjvwKpD3#.bvldLqPbJ7
As someone who tries to attend protests as often as I can in my local community, and as someone who has studied the Black Lives Matter movement, I think there is a lot more to be learned about what’s going on in our communities when we take the time to show up and listen. When we rely on 3rd party mediators like DaisyLuther.com to tell us what’s going on and how we should feel, we sacrifice profoundly valuable relationships with the people who live where we live, and who share our desires for an inclusive, sustainable, and supportive community for all.
Also, for what it’s worth, here’s a thoughtful thread on Twitter about the history of student protests:
81 min later
Auntie Responds:
Thank you Iris , I know you are sincere in your beliefs . I know not all protestors are paid but the proof of paid Ferguson disruptors were documented. I can look for sources if you like.
As you probably saw today in the news less than 30% of our arrested Portland crowd out of 103 voted and /or weren’t even registered to vote .
I was there as a child in the 60’s and yes , the establishment thought the demonstrators were destroying the world as they knew it and they were ! Fighting for peace and fighting for free love and the right to have long hair as a male . fighting against the values of their time and against war . LSD was a big thing then, dropping acid. Fighting against God. They did win but also lost as divorce was the new thing and more kids than ever had to find out what a broken home meant. Equality , rights, women today do have these things
There is plenty going on behind the scenes not talked about on CNN. I feel the left has completely bullying my voice and gotten into name calling.
There is removal of sites and videos due to their content . The utube video of Dannie Williams is one example that is no longer available , but I watched it. 40 minutes of history . Utube videos regarding The Lolita Express also removed. The names of terrorists are removed from documents because the name mohammad is possible Islamist When they are damning , they get removed and often quickly. I didn’t check the source out on this article and the above un buzz killigton Horner, I agree sounds suspicious.
Your generation isn’t into the free love because now we know about stds like clamydia, aids, HPV but man, what a revolution that was , you sure didn’t want to be a stiff or a square!
You are being taught politics that would make your grandmother roll over in her grave.that big old file in her bedroom was suppose to go to you. Grandma thought you could use her newspaper clipping as you search for truth .
We all have to hope Trump has learned valuable lessons from his past. He picked an amazing wife , one who he will not speak poorly of and had a succession of fails personally and in business after he left her for Marla. Marla did not like the limelight and all the glam, while Trump can’t undo what happened, he had a chance to start over , at least to the American people he didn’t lie for months on end like another candidate . still not perfect Melania and the grabber get their chance now and I hope that things are great. They won’t be if people don’t chill the hell out and try to be helpful instead of disruptive.
Continue Reading —>
chapter 2
2 days later
Hi auntie, I thought you might be interested in this interview with the guy who authored the fake news story about people paid to protest:
He says in the interview, “My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.” When he refers to his ‘sites’ he is referring to abcnews.com.co—but he has many other such sites.
When he was asked why he wrote fake news he says, “Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it. I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].”
I admit that by sharing this, I am implicitly trusting the Washington Post to deliver the truth on this matter. But I don’t want you to think that I’m using this as a ‘got ya’ moment or anything like that. I don’t think this is a game. I don’t think that the truth should be so difficult to know that we have to guess every time we read something new.
So let’s talk strategy. I trust the Washington Post because they have a history of reporting on topics that they research well, and that are corroborated and verified by other sources time and time again.
I know that other people in the family—from a variety of different political viewpoints—post articles and news that aren’t fact-checked. I try to call it out when I see it, but it’s hard to see it when Facebook filters it out of my feed. Just because other people do circulate that kind of information does not make it okay, in my mind, to do so. I personally do not share or circulate information that I myself cannot verify with other credible sources.
For example, two nights ago I was tempted to share this story from The London Economic about how the election was rigged: http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/uncategorised/donald-trump-was-right-the-election-was-rigged-in-his-favour/15/11/
I chose not to share this information because (1) I had never heard of the London Economic as a publication before, (2) I could not verify the source with other credible sources, and (3) even though the author claimed to present verifiable evidence, I myself could not verify their analysis to confirm their conclusion that the election was rigged by Russian hackers.
Since then, however, other people have reviewed the analysis. Other news agencies are starting to report on this story. The story is being heard by elected officials—Democrats, yes, AND Republicans like Lindsey Graham:
This doesn’t mean that the election was rigged; this just means that there is credible evidence suggesting that an investigation is warranted. As Americans we should all be deeply concerned by the possibility that Putin determined the outcome of our election, not The People. As Americans, despite our personal investment in the outcome, we should all advocate for the investigation and a recount of the results.
If it turns out to be the case that wealthy billionaires are paying protestors to show up in the streets, I also think that is something we should be concerned about. But until we can find verifiable evidence to that fact, we should not take these accusations seriously. We should assume that all protestors are there because they want to be. We should assume they are all sacrificing something to be there. And, we should both listen and ensure their personal safety—that’s what American freedom is all about.
Continue Reading –>
chapter 3
Censored: me, tagging my aunt, as i share an article published by the LA Times titled, “Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid”
[First comment:] And unfortunately CNN must be added to the list as it’s proven bias is being proven by the American people
[Second comment:] Bias from the left is significant. It’s not always truth but it’s the “allowed ” truth in media, especially those stations owned by liberals
Note: the next few responses were penned by a friend (who I have anonymized); this exchange that occurred between my aunt and my friend happened while I was offline.
Friend Responds:
CNN shouldn’t be held as a reputable news source, but not because it is even necessarily “liberally” biased as one could argue that assertion was actually challenged quite thoroughly this year given how CNN gave quite a lot of positive press to the GOP and ran stories that undermined the Dems. I’d say they’re more interested in how to hike up viewership, and less on representing a specific point for a specific goal beyond that.
CNN is owned by Charter Communications ultimately (CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting which is a division of Time Warner, which was purchased by Charter Communications recently). People don’t necessarily own the media companies anymore, it’s more that they’re beholden to the profit interests of large, multi-layered organizations. Also, if you’d like to see how such companies spend lobbying dollars here you go: http://gizmodo.com/how-much-money-big-cable-gave-the… It’s a pretty even spread across Dems and GOP. I also really don’t believe that any CEO who makes $2mill (as the head of Charter Comm does) is particularly interested in any radical leftist politics as much of those same politics would challenge such a person’s right to earn so much more than everyone else both in their own company structure, and given the deep income inequality in our country in general.
Just because someone might be registered Dem doesn’t mean they’re liberal, and even a “liberal” democrat is not necessarily likely to uphold or believe in what I think is likely hinted at when people talk about CNN being liberal (it seems when people say CNN is liberal what they seem to intend is a claim that CNN is in forceful opposition to the GOP’s policies and existence–again: the coverage of the GOP this election was uncritical and unserious, so to claim that CNN represents some secretive desire to take down the GOP… in what manner?)
I think CNN is little more than fluff and un-serious reporting, and they lack journalistic integrity because their intent is not to inform but to sell. This would be a legitimate argument for pretty much all cable news networks at this point: they are set up as private companies intent on maximizing profit, and in order to do that they pull in viewers via sensationalized stories, chatter that does little more than purposely avoid intelligent analysis, and gossipy pieces on whatever seems to hold people’s interest that day. But to claim they’re some end all be all liberal news station is deeply incorrect.
Further, I take issue with the idea of truth as existing objectively, but I won’t jump into a whole exploration of social and cultural construction of reality and perception of reality.
Yes, CNN sucks. No it’s not because it’s liberal, as it’s actually just trashy centrist news without clear intent or focus on what’s reported and why.
Auntie Responds:
The media which clearly has an agenda has created the need for counter-news. Catering to the most views and polls is business, but biased news is not news , persuasive journalism has its place in the editorial column…under “our opinion”, not on the front page headlines
Friend Responds:
“The media” is not a functional monolith. I also wonder what you mean by counter-news? Not facetiously, I really am curious as to how one defines news and counter-news.
All news functions with some bias, I believe the issue you’re actually talking about is undue prejudice within news which, I agree, is an issue in general with news, especially currently and with cable news media. However, again, I question how we create a functional and absolute standard for what counts as “news” and what doesn’t especially given the wide breadth of what might matter at a local, regional, state, national, and international level. I’m wary of ever saying “that isn’t news” as I think then that gives people license to ignore at random, and without more reason than “well, that isn’t news,” whole swaths of stories and information that people should have the right to be informed on by a structure (the press/4th estate) that claims to be about keeping “the people” informed.
Journalism that uses persuasion as a tactic is arguably the majority of journalism, as, from a critical communications point of view there is no such thing as pure and absolutely neutral writing. All writing has an intention to inform the reader in a particular way, even if it is not expressly trying to argue a point. Now, journalists who purposely misinform, veil, or otherwise avoid disclosing necessary information for the reader can definitely be argued for being unethical. But to ask all journalists to write without incidentally persuading is a near impossibility as the persuasion happens not just because of what the journalist has written but how the reader chooses to respond.
Also: I am agreeing with you that CNN is trash. I don’t support it any more than you do, but I also don’t support FOX. I don’t view them as being binary opposites of each other, they actually are fairly similar in function and reporting style–that they try to appeal to certain social sensibilities is true, but I think they do that both with the intention of upping viewership and thus profit at the expense of ethical journalism.
To that end, I don’t support any cable news, and really can only stomach some of MSNBC if rarely. I prefer print and radio media as I find I’m better able to take the information in and make a measured decision. With cable news the visual aspect along with the aural (both speech and sound effects including music) do influence how we’re orienting to what we’re being told; in a neurocognitive/psychological manner that’s just part of being human and how our brains take in and process stimuli. And especially with more serious news I don’t want tense music or images flashing across the screen priming me to respond to what is being said in a particular way. I want to be able to sit and read, and comprehend, and move slowly to understand the full breadth of what is happening, probable consequences, effects that are being felt by those involved.
But I also refuse to rely solely on one news source because I don’t believe any of them are ever 100% solid in how they report. Nor do I really expect them to be. Nor do I view taking in news media from one country source to be a reasonable if I want to be informed and have enough information, given that there’s always an underlying reason for how and why something is presented as it is.
I’m not saying CNN is good. At all. But I don’t think that it’s fair to claim it’s inherently “liberal” or reporting “false news” based on a perceived adherence to a leftist view (which… it really isn’t even leftist, it’s centrist and extremely neoliberal). And I think the conversation placing CNN as some particularly evil company doesn’t consider a lot of historical and current social context of journalism as a whole, and specifically the rise of cable news sources and their power in society. In short: it’s not just CNN, and it isn’t some inevitability that cable news sources function as they do.
Auntie Responds:
I also pay attention to many sources . I have seen networks and our Local paper report differently depending on who is in office. Some of the above classified fake news sources have absolutely reported truth. At times a stretch of the truth and other times false narratives and that’s where you make a judgement call. Just because s professor from a college makes a list doesn’t make it gospel.
Friend Responds:
I think that’s a fair point, that to assume all news from a particular source is false or wrong is problematic and ignores that correctness and rightness (and truth) are often bound by subjective judgements. However, I think the list above is not necessarily of news sources that are wrong, per se. I think the wording on it is not particularly reflective, but I do think that a vast majority of those sources do purposely report on stories in such a manner as to appear entirely unbiased and as though they are always reporting an objective truth.
Now, beyond my own dis-ease re: any assertion of objective truth, I do think that it’s fair to use the term “fake” as a basic assertion that if we took the number of stories those sources reported, did a content analysis, gathered up the both qualitative and quantitative data from said analysis, and could determine how often both the data (in terms of numbers, names of actors, organizations. locations, other absolute, v. easy to determine whether what was written exists in what we know as a material reality–something does or does not physically exist in the world as we purport it to) and the ultimate read of the message in a discursive capacity (that is the intention imbued in how something was written/communicated), we would find that a fair amount of the time those news sources either mis-reported, or purposely skewed writing to make it hard to discern or otherwise lead the reader to a conclusion not supported by actual reality. Again, I’m not talking whether or not something is good, but whether or not something happened as it was reported to have happened.
So I agree that perhaps the term fake, in this instance, feels a bit more like a value judgement like an assertion that the consistency of those outlets’ reporting is so low, and so unmatched to a material, physical, actual reality, that they do pose a danger in that people will not be aware of that. We don’t teach media literacy in this country, and do very much on both sides adhere to an assumption that the news we take in is inherently legitimate or truthful.
I don’t think that the intention of that list was so much to say “there is of no value to these outlets” as that is a hard measure to prove. But more, that given the habit they have of not abiding by certain basic consistency in reporting in adherence to reality, just rote facts like “Ms. Smith appeared in court on a charge of assault” which is a reality: we can check court records and see that Ms. Smith did indeed appear in court, and the reason for her appearance was because she had been charged with assault, they aren’t reporting anything. Because what they are reporting, a vast majority of the time, is not founded in reality.
Now, that doesn’t mean they’re lying straight out. It’s not that they reported “Ms. Smith appeared in court for robbery charges”, or “Ms. Smith did not appear in court.” But rather the way in which they undermine the veracity of their own reports is in how they phrase things, the details left out, the photos used that aren’t from that incident, audio clips edited to purposely convey a message that was not actually the message. Both sides do this. Many news outlets to some degree practice behaviors which questionably do this. And to some extent, creating a narrative requires editing which can convey a message with murkiness in terms of truth.
I think it’s not just or only that this happens, but the repeated, intentional, and high numbers of it happening with these outlets that does render them less useful to the general public than other outlets.
But that’s a long discussion to have (I appreciate you joining me in this discussion, btw). And as humans we like to take long, complex ideas and try to force them into small little casings like words. So instead of saying “these outlets often […] and thus we don’t think they report with enough consistency and adherence to truth of reality to be a good central or reliable news source because of the checking needed after printing for the reader to verify a story themselves.” Because the point of the news, of journalism, is that someone else was supposed to do the fact checking and caretaking of writing something carefully and honestly enough that others can read it and know more about the world in a very real, truthful sense. That doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t reflect a particular standpoint in the world, it does mean they that are not supposed to take what they have and edit it to fit their narrative when it does not. These outlets don’t abide by that standard, and so they fail to meet a standard of rigor. It’s not that they’re reporting wholly false stories, but that lack of rigor and likelihood of containing at least partially, purposely misrepresented information (and it’s important that it’s done purposely as the purpose is part of why people are putting out lists like this: that the intention is to misguide readers) that leads us to deem them fake.
CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, Good Morning America, etc. all can be said to have done this either intentionally in-house, or by not properly vetting an external source for a story (whether that be another journalist/reported story, or a primary source like someone claiming to have witnessed aliens landing or POM juice making your colon better). But the difference is in that intention. I think for a lot of cable news you can claim there is an intention to mislead. I think in print, that intention is easier to see and more immediately recognized. It’s harder to hide it in written reporting (for a lot of reasons I’m happy to go into but don’t want to bore with pedantic discussion of rhetoric and grammatical structure of sentences and discourse analysis).
So then, if it happens all over, the metric we end up having to use to determine any news source as viable for finding information that is reflective of reality is the frequency in which they adhere to that standard of factual as described above.
Finally, there’s an argument to be made, that given social constructions of right/good/healthy/safe/fair/etc. (there are a lot of words that can go in there) in society, we are constantly in a state of creating our world. And I don’t actually find myself as worried when reporting takes on a persuasive tone, so long as it is in an attempt to head towards a socially just world. I don’t want all reporting to do this, as I don’t think that’s useful to devolve to. But I do think that it would be useful for us to perhaps not penalize reporting which otherwise adheres to factuality, for also taking a stance. I don’t think those two things are or have to be mutually exclusive.
Anyhow, I’m writing a veritable novel. But sincerely, I appreciate that your responses have been civil and if you’re reading all of this thanks for sticking through my v. long train of thought.
Continue Reading –>
chapter 4
this chapter gets complicated.
this begins on another family member’s wall,
other family members chime in from time to time.
contributors are given pseudonyms.
my box is black, auntie is blue.
images are abridged. full text follows.
Initial Post
Amanda [pseudonym] Posted: “Now don’t you feel stupid?” [Article Link: Here’s How Fake Election News Outperformed Real Election News on Facebook via Buzzfeed]
Discussion
Bandon Replied: “The truth doesn’t matter. Only the ‘truth’ that aligns with your beliefs is important these days.”
Carter Replied: “Unfortunately, the ends always justify the means. So, sadly, truth and facts really do not matter.”
I Reply: “The truth matters to me and the people around me, and so I’m shocked to so commonly hear this ‘truth doesn’t matter’ refrain from my elders.”
Bandon Replies (to me): “Iris my point is not that the truth doesn’t matter, it does. I’m disappointed in so many people who blindly accept the spins applied to posts or articles in order to intentionally mislead the masses.”
Bandon Replies (to me): “So in spite of actual facts many people make decisions based on their beliefs that are sometimes created by false information that they WANT to believe.”
Auntie Replies: “I still believe weapons did make it into the hands of isis that Hillary Clinton was responsible for distributing . It may have been a big blunder she didn’t intend to have happen. Yet when her right hand assistant is Huma Abedin who has s mother that works with women that support Sharia law who Huma admires and a family with history of supporting people involved in 911 Attack s , well let’s just say things may have happened. I still believe the men that died in Benghazi knew the details and that’s why the stand down orders were given . They had too much information that would be detrimental to Hillary. [Amanda] if you wish to continue to name call and label people stupid , you have no social skills
I Reply (to Auntie): “To suggest, though, that these men died because they ‘knew too much’ without evidence of what they knew is the definition of a conspiracy theory. I think the issue here is a question of how conspiracy theories are used to justify how a person votes, and where these conspiracy theories come from—regardless of whether or not they are true.
The election was not a judicial hearing on Clinton’s political tenure—clearly it was not a judicial hearing for Trump’s many crimes either. To treat it like one is to behave like a mob who wants to skip or suspend judicial due process. Furthermore, it’s not fair to only treat the election like a judicial hearing for one candidate and not the other. I believe the difference between Trump and Clinton, in this regard, is that many Trump-voters were willing to let the courts decide what to do with the prosecution of Trump, and they wanted to use the election as a way of punishing Clinton. They wanted to punish Clinton because they were unhappy with the way the judicial system had already worked to prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law that could be done.”
I Reply (to Auntie): “Over on Twitter people are trying to organize around #AuditTheVote and it’s something you might be interested in: [Link]”
Auntie Replies (to me): “Who is Andrea chapels?”
I Reply (to Auntie): “This is something you can easily Google, but here: ‘Andrea Chalupa is a journalist and the author of Orwell and The Refugees: The Untold Story of Animal Farm. She has written for TIME, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, and Forbes. Some of the institutions where she has spoken include Columbia University, McGill University, and the National Press Club in Washington, DC. She is a founder of DigitalMaidan, an online movement that made the Ukrainian protests the #1 trending topic on Twitter worldwide at a time when the mainstream media was obsessing over Justin Bieber’s arrest in Miami. Her first screenplay, about the intrepid, young Welsh journalist Gareth Jones helping inspire George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the book that made him famous, is in development in Europe.'”
Auntie Replies: “Yes , I don’t believe anyone posting in this thread actually knows the facts , I have stated my beliefs due to the fact that a liar is a liar is a liar unless they take responsibility. Mrs Clinton thinks hours of being questioned is taking responsibility and even with the election results it’s not her fault . We the people have spent millions trying to get the truth out of her and she’s not at fault for anything”
I Reply (to Auntie): “I don’t think we’re talking about facts. We’re talking about evaluating information fairly. If you feel so strongly about lying, how can you valorize a candidate who everyday throughout his campaign, and who continues to lie to this present day? And, how can you take anything seriously that comes from these websites that dramatize conspiracy theories—that knowingly lie about people and events for the purposes of making money through advertising?
Furthermore, when we’re talking about how Clinton should take responsibility for whatever people think she did, it seems very unfair to talk about what ‘taking responsibility’ looks like without thinking about the failings and mistakes that people before have made in the same position. Why don’t we talk about the gravity of what she did in the context of political blunders made on the part of Secretaries of State who came before her? Making mistakes in office—making decisions that get people killed—is not unusual. It happens all the time, and most of the time the American People do not shell out millions of dollars trying to adjudicate the consequences.
You’re right that it seems unfair and bizarre that Clinton seems to have come out unscathed from such a coordinated and long-standing assault on her character. But there are other ways of thinking about why this must be the case. I’m going to dismiss the conspiracy theory that suggests she paid her way out of the litigation process—there’s no evidence that she tampered with the investigation in anyway.
Suppose this conspiracy theory is just as likely, if not more so: that people with the right political motive have been coordinating this assault on her to strategically direct the conversation about who she is or what she’s done on terms that they can control. Many people within the government and outside of it benefit from attacks on her character that manipulate people into thinking that her mistakes are *exceptionally* egregious.
Either way, can we agree that conspiracy theories should not be the basis on which people determine who is the most appropriate person to vote for in an election? Can we agree that the basis for that strategy makes it incredibly difficult to build consensus?”
Auntie Replies: “I believe Trump wants to help our Country. I don’t think he is an angel by any means. I don’t think he is the same Trump that he was 20 years ago or even 11 years ago with his thinking he had rock star status because he was on tv and had s successful show . I think bringing the childish conversation about girls throwing themselves at him for being s star had to be a character builder for him as the American public clearly were not ok with it as his family. At least he said he was wrong , ms Hillie says things never happened. When people ask her her views about things like LGBT she states they are putting words in her mouth, yet the documentaries show that her views did change. It would be better if she just admitted the change instead of lying , National security is really the issue and she has s track record ., not all the other indiscretions . Who in their right mind would let her continue in the highest position of the land. The unknown risk of Trump is better than the known ways of the Clinton machine. The drama on both sides has been tremendous . These sites often have things dramatized but they also have details in real time . They speak out about the terrorist attacks while the news media changes the narrative. You only here the truth for the first day until redactions , amendments and changes are made to satisfy the narrative they think the ignorant American people will believe or need to speak of so others are not offended”
Amanda Replies (to Auntie): “[Censored]- Trump has the same agenda he has always had – to get money and respect. He is not respected amongst the rich because his daddy set him up. A lot of us would be billionaires by now if someone had given us a million to start with, if we didn’t pay income tax, and if stiffed our contractors, and declared bankruptcy every time we got in trouble. Time will only tell which one ultimately becomes more important and if he is savy enough to realize his only real wealth is how history views him. Right now history has nothing good to say about his moral character. Please show me evidence of one altruistic thing he has ever done. You have let Hillary hatred cloud your reason and Christians aren’t supposed to hate – but you Christian conservative Right-wingers hate better than anyone I know. It doesn’t even matter if she is a crook because so is he. Your thinking that he wants to help the little guy in America is based on what- campaign promises? He PT Barnhamed you my dear.
Bandon Replies: “Respect is the biggest problem I have with Trump. I have none. Zero. And I have no basis to start gaining any respect until I see his actions – to date it’s not happening. I know just a little bit about being a public CEO and I can tell you that when you are in that position you are just the head public servant, and nothing more. The position of US President is never greater than the people he or she serves. I have not seen that he has any humility, which is absolutely necessary if he will have any real success at all. And as he goes, we go.”
Auntie Replies: “I have no desire to argue . You get to believe what you believe. You always have been determined . Good for you , and I hope it works for you , I’m not signing up for name calling. Not seeing clearly in the past 8 years tells me no persuasion will make a difference today, i see Trumps children as an indicator of his abilities to lead. While their mother had a huge roll in making them successful they also have come together in unity. Adult children can more than ever be a reason to do good , to help leave to them A world that has a chance to thrive. So far he has been asking for help from all of us and seeking out a balance in his appointees .Who isn’t for draining the swamp? He isn’t going all knee jerking with healthcare and so many other things that the fearful and name calling hateful anti Trump supporters have been so scared about. Altruist thing challenge- he is feeding the police officers that are protecting Trump Tower where mobs are holding up rape Melania signs. He brought toys and food to flood victims when HRC and Obama did nothing . He is not accepting a salary . He made an apology about his behavior. From 11 years ago.. He has talked about what great citizens the protestors will be with their passion . He is not president yet , He has shown compassion to mothers of murdered children. While this may all be for show , it’s the right thing to do too.”
Dillard Replies: “An interview with one of the creators of many fake news sites, he did it for the AdSense money, and is shocked by the outcome: [Link: “Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’” via the Washington Post]”
Etha Replies: “If you want to know a person’s character, look at who they surround themselves with. What a person says will tell you what is in their heart. Trump had false media on his side and it played right into the fears and biases of his supporters. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor, well, you know. We are not Trump’s concern. As average white citizens, we may be okay for the next four years. I am most concerned about our minorities. It seems that hatred and prejudice have been unleashed, if anything, it affirms what I have been hearing from my black, LGBTQ friends and family. As for Trump and his kind, “You will know them by their fruits” And the environment! We were making steps forward and now it will be an ever steeper up hill battle to protect Mother Earth from those with oil interests. How will our grandchildren ever forgive us? Iris, you are a rock star! Good job [Censored] and [Censored]!!”
Auntie Responds: “There has been a coup with the media. A civil war without the use of weapons for majority of it , excluding the terrorism and cop killing, land grabbing. A lot of tongue lashing. Fake news on both sides.”
I Reply (to Auntie): “What do you mean by ‘a coup with the media’?”
Etha Replies: “There most certainly was fake news that influenced both sides.”
Etha Replies: “This election has been the most polarizing I can remember. I think now we have to find ways to talk to each other with kindness and listen with open hearts. We don’t have to agree.”
Continue Reading –>
chapter 5
one aspect of this project that i did not anticipate:
be prepared for people to rally around your words and position of authority. conversations on Facebook oscillate between feeling intimate and public, and it is easy to forget that the conversation is circulating until people start ‘liking’ and coming to bat for you without your prompting. this unexpectedly happens at the conclusion of the thread.
as an aside: while this is a rather predictable aspect of public dialogue, at what point does this brigading put the other party so much on the defensive that they start to think they’re just not cut out for this kind of civic engagement?
[my] original post
Researching the contemporary White Supremacist discourse so you don’t have to:*
Obviously we should all work to incorporate analyses of contemporary white supremacist discourse in our scholarly projects. It just felt like a pithy thing to say.
Link: “Understanding Trump’s 100-Day Plan through a White Supremacist Worldview”
discussion
I comment (tagging Auntie in the post): [Auntie] you might find this interesting. This is authored by several researchers from different institutions, both academic and corporate.
Auntie responds: Do you believe this dialogue and is this what you are learning in college?
I respond: I believe that this analysis confirms what I have read first-hand through primary source research. White supremacist discourse is not difficult to find on the internet. It is also not difficult to find evidence of Trump’s political agenda—the things he says and does in his performance as a politician. I’m not sure what you’re asking about when you ask ‘if I believe the dialogue’—I believe that these are things that white supremacists talk about, and I believe that these are things that Trump has done/said in recent times. Anyone can confirm the evidence they are using in their research.
Perhaps you are asking if I believe that Trump is a white supremacist? The title of this research article, “Understanding Trump’s 100-Day Plan through a White Supremacist Worldview” does not assert that Trump is a white supremacist; rather, the purpose of this article is to understand why Trump is performing the way he is right now from an analysis of what he has already done. They are arguing that his actions and commitments as a politician make the most sense if you consider his primary audience to be white supremacists.
I also don’t understand your question, ‘is this what you are learning in college?’ To what are you referring? If you’re asking, ‘is anti-Trump propaganda part of your regular curriculum,’ I would have to say no. Students who want to study politics and media are regularly instructed in how to identify propaganda and understand its use and functions, but teaching propaganda is not okay. Despite what radio talkshow hosts want to believe about the ‘liberal agenda’ on college campuses, the curriculum in most college classrooms is organized around teaching students how to judge fairly, practice ethically, and reason logically with no so-called political agenda in mind. The subject of those discussions is often negotiated by students and faculty, but the outcome of the process is not judged by some political agenda. I have never been judged, and nor have I ever judged my students, on the basis of their political beliefs. Classroom assignments (when done right) instead test the basis for those beliefs, and challenge students to apply fair, ethical, and logical methods of analysis to their claims about how the world is and how the world should be. This is what it means to develop critical thinking as a skill that can be applied to many different situations in life.
If I have misidentified the intent of your inquiry into my subject of study, I apologize. I don’t mind talking about the subject of my studies in college, but it is a lot to talk about. One of my research areas is about studying both whiteness and white supremacy. If you’re looking for a historical introduction to the topic, I recommend Nell Irvin Painter’s book The History of White People. Much of what I read is more academic, but I think this book is a good historical introduction to the topic. [Link]
Auntie Responds: Wow just wow. I believe as I have served as a service worker for thirty years to the general public that this is an inaccurate portrayal of the world as your book smarts is grooming you to believe. We are all short-sided by being in a limited space and surrounding of those we are associating with on a daily basis so I choose to stay open and I will purchase and read this book if you see it as life changing . The connections in this article don’t connect the dots together. Obviously since in the news there was a small group of people celebrating in a disgusting manner their views on Hitler/supremacy it exists somewhere but when you are in business as our our president elect is, you don’t have time for that bullshit. He denounced this group and giving attention to it feeds it. Businesses run on competent people working together, skin color is insignificant. Keeping illegals out has nothing to do with skin color. There is such a thing as a white mexican if you think the border is about color. The most important thing is to represent yourself and who you are responsibly no matter what color. I believe this is the conversation that needs to be on the front lines , not “who is the victim?”
I respond [Post 1/2]: I don’t know why you think my expertise or world-view is rooted in ‘book smarts’ alone. It is true that I read, and I do read a lot. I also work—I may teach college undergraduates right now, but I have also worked with other dishwashers, sandwich makers, and journalists. I show up to protests. I talk to people who are different than me, who work different kinds of jobs than me, and that live very different lives than I do because they live in a world that classifies them as ‘not-white’. To be clear, I do not think reading makes someone smarter; I do think, though, that reading affords everyone a unique position to make claims about the world outside of what they would normally know and learn from simply working and existing in the world.
There are many different portrayals of the world, and there is no one that is more ‘accurate’ as world-view is in part determined by a person’s social, cultural, economic, and historical situation. To understand and appreciate many world views I read a lot of histories. So while we may be short-sighted because of the nature or structure of our lived experience, we can use history to broaden our perspective and to better understand why and when color *does matter* in society.
Skin color matters because it has been made to matter, and no amount of individual wishing that it simply go away will change the way people are made to live their socially-determined race. I did not recommend Painter’s book because it was life-changing to me, or that I thought it would be life changing to you. I made the recommendation because it occurred to me that you maybe haven’t read that kind of history book before, and it might interest you if you want to live in a world where race doesn’t matter.
In order to realize that world, people in society must first realize how race matters now in order to make changes that affect people’s experience of race in the future. If we don’t know or understand how race developed as a social construct, we cannot build consensus on issues related to race in contemporary society. We don’t all see the same patterns of behavior if we don’t share the same understanding of history.
Talking about race is not about determining ‘who is the victim’. Talking about race in society is about understanding how people are systematically victimized because of how they are viewed as a person of a particular race. Self-representation is not simply a matter of someone determining for themselves how they are viewed. Self-representation is also about expressing one’s culture, community, and biology in ways that may or may not conflict with norms in society. When you suggest that people should represent themselves ‘responsibly’, how is someone supposed to determine what responsible self-representation is? And what if the rubric for responsible self-representation doesn’t make a difference in the ways in which people treat you? There are many histories shared by non-white folk about the inefficacies of self-representation—looking a certain way does not guarantee that a person won’t be shot, fired, or ignored. In other circles, this is referred to as respectability politics. (Recommended reading on respectability politics: [Link])
Talking about race is about identifying when someone is vulnerable to racism; it is also about understanding how social norms and customs can have a history of affording people the right and way of exercising their race-based prejudices and biases. Immigration reform that only targets the migration patterns of a particular social group operates as race-based discrimination when other methods for curtailing the exploitation of undocumented workforces are not developed and executed by our government. Obviously there are both white and non-white people trying to immigrate or migrate into the US for purposes related to work, but equitable work documentation reform is something you and I would be subjected to on a regular basis.
I respond [post 2/2]: You can make claims until the cows come home that immigration reform is not also targeting people of color, but your claims are not convincing to me when I read about border militias who sound and act like white supremacist organizations—who make judgements based based on an assumed race and nationality, who do not hesitate to enact violence or fantasize about committing violent acts upon people they would never imagine talking to (recommended reading: http://www.motherjones.com/…/undercover-border-militia…). When the conversation around immigration reform does not address these militias as a problem that affects us all, then I’m not convinced the conversation is really about making our nation more safe or stable. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the conversation needs to be more on the front lines’—the ‘front lines’ of policy reform happens in our legislative bodies, it does not happen on the border. Equating the border as the ‘front line’ of the Nation is like saying that the front line of our health is our skin—yes, it is the outermost barrier that holds things together for the body. But skins must be porous and allow for oxygen and other nourishing elements to come into the body. That is why bodies have immune systems (shared social and cultural practices, institutions) and people have doctors (researchers, specialists, experts, politicians)—because the skin barrier cannot simply be a wall that keeps all the bad things out. Bodies grow to depend on certain environments and the existence of certain resources—it is complex. Again, knowledge of history (and in this case, also knowledge of relevant codes, systems, and existing infrastructures) is useful for people in charge of maintaining balance between different things that are networked together.
When we vote, and when we advocate for political and social change, we become those people responsible for knowing history. We cannot appreciate the significance of particular political acts without an understanding of the history those acts have in another culture’s world view. We cannot appreciate the irony of wanting to build a wall along the border of Mexico, for example, without understanding and learning about histories of immigration in the Americas, and how immigration has always been influenced by local farm and factory demands for cheap immigrant labor—labor that is so poorly compensated for that resident Americans refuse to do it. Labor that is so poorly compensated for that the people doing it still suffer immensely from the compound effects of low compensation, high costs of living, harsh work conditions, and more. Recommended reading: [Link].
From my point of view, these businesses that benefit from undocumented labor forces are not simply running on competent people—they operate because they are able to exploit a broken immigration system. It has been this way for decades—as an Oregonian you can read about the history of the Bracero Program to better understand what I’m talking about (recommended reading: [Link]). I think we can agree that the immigration system is broken; I do think it is a significant problem that so many people live in the United States without papers—it means they cannot contribute to the tax system for one. I do not, however, see acts that align with xenophobic beliefs to be valid suggestions for immigration or work documentation reform. And yet, xenophobia is exactly the basis for Kris Kobach’s policy suggestions for immigration reform. For the last 2 years we have heard Trump supporting policy suggestions that are xenophobic. I can only take your claim seriously that Trump does not align with white supremacists if I believe everything he has said and done for the last two years is a complete fabrication, an elaborate televisual performance intended to ‘dupe’ white supremacists into allying and rallying for his presidential campaign. I don’t think that’s the case. I think for decades Trump *as a business man* has relied on the normalcy of white supremacy and normalcy of exploiting people of color to make money. It is absolutely an aspect of how his businesses make money. If you are not willing to listen to the people who have been wronged by him—if they are all liars—then we need to talk about where you’re getting your information about his practices as a business owner. We need to be able to agree on a history of Donald Trump as a person, or we will forever disagree on what he is capable of as a leader of the Nation.
Dillard replies: “Book smarts? Grooming? This thinly veiled ad hominem attack completely missed the mark because you have no clue as to what Iris has had to do to earn her way in the academic world. She actually goes into the field and spends real time with real people to learn and document their stories, and along the way she listens and learns. Here is a link to an original oral history documentary she produced back in 2013. The degree of institutional racism exposed in the oral history was both shocking and undeniable. I know that she didn’t set out with some “Liberal Academic Bias” to uncover this racism – it uncovered itself.
That project wasn’t “book learning”, it was hard work and some personal financial sacrifices were made to produce the documentary. Yeah, she was groomed for hard work, and [censored] extremely proud of her. [Link].