FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Dec 19

Impact of Social Media on How We Perceive Foreign Wars

by bcurry

A very recent poll by the New York Times indicated that American youth are more inclined to oppose President Biden’s handling of the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza.  For example, the poll noted that voters between 18 and 29 years old, traditionally a heavily Democratic demographic, jump out.  Nearly three quarters of them disapprove of the way Mr. Biden is handling the conflict in Gaza.  On the other hand, older voters were far more sympathetic to Biden’s efforts.  Fifty-two percent of registered voters 65 years and older approve of Biden’s actions on Israel, 12 percentage points more than those who disapprove.  Biden’s administration has refused to officially call for a cease fire, while pushing Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

In Canada, the governing Liberal Party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has take a more moderate stance, now calling for a cease fire to allow more aid for Palestinians into the devastated region along with the release of the hostages held by Hamas.  In either case, there is no win-win scenario for President Biden or Prime Minister Trudeau.  Pro-Palestinian protests in both countries are continuing, with a good deal of growing support on university and college campuses.  One of the main factors influencing the youth in both countries is the daily rapid access to scenes in the war zone, especially violent imagery of civilian casualties and hospital bombings, often through social media such as TikTok and Instagram.  Young people who use social media primarily to get their news find such images as being horrific and merciless. 

The same result can be seen in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.  Besides mainstream media, social media is also being used by both sides to influence our opinions of the war.  In some cases, recorded events are most likely going to be used to support allegations of war crimes against the Russian forces.  News media tends to slip between both conflicts, reporting mainly on the most significant and often horrendous events involving loss of life and mass destruction.  Everyday, terrible scenes of innocent civilians fleeing the war zone are propelled across our television screens and onto our tablets and cellphones.  At no other time in history has so much instant coverage occurred, influencing viewers and policy makers alike.  The most affected of course are young people who did not live through 9/11 or the Iraq war.

As more time goes on, the initial causes behind conflicts are often forgotten and become less important than the most recent revelations of atrocities and humanitarian crisis.  The longer the conflicts continue, support for current foreign policy positions will take a hit.  We see this among European Union countries, most notably Hungary, where support for Ukraine may be waning and opposition growing.  The same can be said for the Israeli-Hamas conflict which increasingly is turning into a broader conflict with the Palestinian population, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank.  Israel still retains healthy allegiances in the U.S.  However, as the above noted poll indicated, the future of such sentiments is unclear.  Among young voters, 46 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians, against 27 percent who favour Israel.

There is little doubt that the opposing parties will continue to use social media in order to win over support their causes.  Especially by young people, it’s 24/7 and it’s readily accessible and most often not authenticate or corroborated.  Whether or not you think that it’s a form of propaganda, the use of social media will continue to play a very important role.

Foreign Policy Israel Justin Trudeau Media Social Media The Middle East The News Media US

Leave a comment »
Aug 9

Political Polarizations Has Increased Mistrust in Many of Our Public Institutions

by bcurry

The New York Times in a very recent article (August 7th) notes that Republican (G.O.P.) contenders in the presidential primaries are bent on feeding voter distrust in public institutions such as the courts, schools and the military.  Obviously, most appear to be following the lead of Donald Trump who, for example whenever he has the chance, publicly attacks the U.S. Justice Department and the F.B.I.  During the pandemic Trump even disparaged the Surgeon General, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human Resources.  Now, facing a barrage of indictments by the Justice Department, Trump has further accelerated his personal attacks on these major institutions.  Unfortunately, several other G.O.P. candidates have followed suit in an apparent attempt to appease Trump’s core followers.

All of the rhetoric, including that disseminated by social media and right-wing media, has created an environment where recent polls show that Americans’ trust in their institutions has apparently fallen to historical lows.  Feeding on voters’ already deeply embedded scepticism might have once been seen as politically risky, but social media and the right-wing media have helped change that.  The Republican governor of Florida and a candidate, Ron DeSantis, has led the charge against what he sees as a biased and liberal-influenced education system in his state.  Not to be outdone, another G.O.P. candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, has gone on record that he would shut down the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. as part of his fight against the so-called “deep state”.

My primary question is what would replace all these important institutions in a democracy that claims to need independent bodies to deal with issues like law and order, public health, the environment, new technologies and the role of the military?  In a modern society, freedoms are important, but there still has to be some oversight of those matters as they relate to the public good.  Campaign rhetoric perpetuating conspiratorial themes does not help to ensure a rational and knowledge-based debate on many of the challenges that, as a democracy, we face daily.  It’s easy to argue that things should be eliminated, but no one Republican has yet rationally put forward any ideas about how one would go about replacing these institutions — and with what.

The Republican Party, just as the Conservative Party in Canada, has long stood for “smaller government in size and role” going back to the days of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.   However, the current G.O.P. extreme rhetoric goes far beyond the past political stances of Republican presidents, from Richard Nixon to the Bushes.  As the Times article notes: “The proliferation of attacks has alarmed both Republicans and Democrats who worry about the long-term impact on American democracy.  Public confidence in core institutions — from the justice system to voting systems — is fundamental to a durable democracy, particularly at a time of sharp political division.”

Just as I am certain that there are a good number of moderate Republicans in the U.S. and conservatives in Canada who oppose such extreme rhetoric, I am hoping that cooler heads will prevail among our electorates in both countries.  Our democracies are closely watched by countries around the world, and defending our democratic institutions has never been more important in the face of the growth of autocratic regimes globally.  These institutions are essential to defending our democratic values and promoting the public good.  We need to strengthen them rather than knock them down as the result of excessive political polarization.  It’s one thing to push for smaller government influence in our lives, it’s another to suggest that one can simply eliminate or emasculate its influence in highly complex modern societies.  Doing so would just replace democracies with autocracies by centralizing political and economic powers under one regime.  We now have checks and balances, including the courts and justice system, to prevent this from happening.  Unfortunately, the Republicans appear more than willing to minimize such oversight.  Ultimately, the current split in their party, led by Donald Trump’s extremism, could greatly weaken their platform in the eyes of the American electorate, and particularly those of independents.

Donald Trump Judicial System Media Populism Populism in Canada Republican Party Social Media US Politics

Leave a comment »
Jul 21

Incredible Scenes of Democratic Representatives in Congress Being Arrested During Protests

by bcurry

Earlier this past week during an abortion rights protest over the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, at least 17 Democratic lawmakers were among the 35 people arrested by the Capitol Police for blocking traffic outside the courthouse.  The arrest of lawmakers in this manner is something almost unheard of in Canada.  Canadian legislators tend to be somewhat docile when outside the House of Commons in Ottawa.  The most that Members of Parliament (MP) will do is to attend peaceful protests on the front lawn of Parliament’s centre block, sometimes to speak in support of some cause or another.  I can’t remember the last time that an MP was arrested as part of any protest in Ottawa.  However, back in March 2018, two federal politicians, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Kennedy Stewart, were arrested at a protest against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain federally approved pipeline expansion in Burnaby, British Columbia.

On the other hand, in Washington, such incidences among House Representatives appear to have happened in other cases.  Indeed, it was reported that Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., was arrested last month outside the Supreme Court for protesting.  In July 2021, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, was arrested at the Hart Senate Office Building for protesting in favor of voting rights legislation.

Protests are protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, but like in Canada, there is still the need for protesters to abide by laws.  In the most recent incident, the U.S. Capitol Police tweeted about the situation: “Demonstrators are starting to block First Street, NE. It is against the law to block traffic, so officers are going to give our standard three warnings before they start making arrests.”  In light of the minor violation, those arrested were later released at the scene, with police telling the ABC News they were likely to face a $US50 ($72.48 Canadian) fine.  Among those arrested was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, who became the youngest woman elected to the House of Representatives, and has rocketed to political notoriety.  The arrests of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and the other Democrats resulted in coverage by a large number of news media outlets and extensively by social media sources.  There is little doubt that this type of media coverage involving lawmakers gives a protest a good deal of press, good and bad.

Former charismatic Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was PM from 1968 to 1979 and from 1980 to 1984, once exclaimed to the house speaker that opposition MPs were nobodies once they were “50 yards from Parliament Hill”.  Of course, that was before social media and daily digital news.  Most recently, several opposition Conservative MPs, including leadership contender Pierre Poilievre, met with the illegal Trucker Convoy which had occupied the streets in front of Parliament for over three weeks in February of this year.  The New York Times wrote that the Conservatives, the only other party to form a government in Canada, were readying for a fight and saw the truckers and their followers not as outcasts but as political currency that can bring in votes — and money.  With his photo-op, Poilievre was depicted as the protesters’ political champion at the time, although as the illegal occupation continued Conservative support was condemned by many Canadians, and most certainly by those living in Ottawa at the time.  No other party MPs met with the protesters, viewing the occupation as being unlawful, eventually being removed by the police and leading to the arrests of dozens of protesters.  The social and economic impact of the occupation ultimately led to the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to facilitate the removal of occupying vehicles from streets within the Parliamentary precinct in Ottawa.

In general, Canadian legislators tend to avoid participation in protests, many of which occur in the capital on a daily basis.  Even members of the left-wing NDP are normally careful not to participate in protests outside of the legislature, particularly those involving extremists.  The one big difference in Canada is the more apolitical system used for appointing federal justices, including those appointed to the Supreme Court.  With the highly politicized recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court — comprised of four conservative-leaning justices who were appointed during the Trump administration — it is not surprising that protests have erupted outside the Supreme Court.  What’s surprising is the participation by members of Congress in such protests and their subsequent arrests by Capitol Police!  This is something that is unheard of in Canada — perhaps somewhat regrettably in certain cases.  However, time will tell for our “nobodies”.

Abortion Canada Donald Trump Federal Government Federal Government Media Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
May 9

The Internet Was a Blessing Until It Became a Curse

by bcurry

A judge just threw out Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter that challenged his ban from the social media platform.  U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected Trump’s claim that Twitter violated his right to freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  He simply declared that Twitter is a private company, and ‘the First Amendment applies only to governmental abridgements of speech, and not to alleged abridgements by private companies.’  When Trump’s account (with over 88 million followers) was suspended by Twitter, he went on to set up his own platform Truth Social which apparently has not done very well.  Now, the question arises over whether Twitter’s takeover by Tesla CEO Elon Musk will offer Trump a possible return to the social media platform.

Marshall McLuhan, a well-known Canadian philosopher whose work was among the cornerstones of the study of media theory in the late sixties, coined the expression “the medium is the message” and the term “global village”.  He is credited with predicting the World Wide Web (WWW) almost 30 years before it was invented.  Little did he know, having passed away in late 1980, of the incredible eventual impact on our daily lives of the Internet.  The Internet is this generation’s equivalent to the telegraph, the telephone and the fax machines that allowed us to communication instantaneously and broadly across the globe.  However, as a marvellous communication tool, the Internet has also proven to be more susceptible to the spreading of misinformation and disinformation than any other means in modern times.

When one talks of ‘misinformation’, one is normally referring to suspect, invalid and often poorly researched information passed on by persons to other persons via social media for example.  Often such information is transmitted without real malice, but simply and inadvertently by persons accepting the information as being valid or such that supports preconceived views, referred to a ‘confirmation bias’.  ‘Disinformation’ on the other hand is where someone is deliberately providing false information in support of their causes, goals or conspiracy theories, similar to what we would view as propaganda.  Unfortunately, we are seeing a lot more disinformation being conveyed via the Internet then ever before.  States or organizations that want to control the flow of information for their own purposes are notorious for facilitating the spread of disinformation, especially as a form of mind control within their borders.  One needs to go no further for examples than Russia, North Korea and Iran.

Unfortunately, during the Covid-19 pandemic, certain groups within the U.S. and Canada began disinformation campaigns against the public health measures introduced by many governments to deal with the tragic consequences of Covid on our lives.  The information was used to justify anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown and other public health mandates, regardless of their evident effectiveness in controlling the spread of Covid and reducing the number of associated deaths and hospitalizations.  These campaigns of course led to numerous protests in both countries easily and quickly arranged via social media, often tying up scarce government resources.  In addition, groups have used the Internet to spread ridiculous conspiracy theories, the most notable being that which promoted the belief that the results of the 2020 Presidential election were affected by corrupt voter fraud.  This culminated in a mob of Trump supporters attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, after Trump repeatedly said that he would never concede the legitimate election.

We must do a better job of educating future generations about the potential pitfalls of relying on one or two sources for information, particularly those who rely on non-verifiable and suspect origins.  We need to be much more suspect when assessing the accuracy and validity of our Internet sources, be they found in social media or on websites.  I might suggest strongly that we include mainstream news media and websites provided by objective professional organizations as an integral and regular part of one’s information sources.  Perhaps this is easier said than done.  After all, access to information via social media in particular is quick and dirty.  Regrettably, this is what the purveyors of disinformation and misinformation are counting on.

Canada Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump Mainstream Media Media Social Media The News Media US

Leave a comment »
May 22

The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Once Again Raises the Issue of Bias in Journalism

by bcurry

Back in February 22, 2019, an opinion article in the Washington Post by Jeremy Littau talked about the five myths of journalism.  One of the myths alluded to is the belief that good journalism must be objective.  However, Littau points out that the press in the past was more often than not openly biased.  Indeed, he points out that The American Press Institute says the public has developed a flawed conception of news objectivity by confusing it with lack of bias.  On the other hand, I have read that some believe that younger journalists tend to be more activist, thereby leading to more overt bias in their coverage of news events.  The very terms that they use to describe or portray these events often illustrate such biases.  Some have even demonstrated evident biases through their personal social media outlets.  This can lead to their dismissal by news outlets as it has on occasion in the U.S.

Nowhere was the nature of journalistic integrity challenged more then during the reporting in both the U.S. and Canada on the recent Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  In some cases, choice phrases were borrowed from implicated groups to describe Israel’s attacks on Gaza, such as “indiscriminate airstrikes”.  The phrases “ethnic cleansing” and “forced expulsions” emerged to describe what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories, phrases often employed by some human rights groups.  Of course, it didn’t take long to discover that input about the conflict on social media was by far more favourable to the Palestinian cause than to Israeli justification for its military actions.  Heartbreaking videos being released and viewed by millions provided clear evidence of the resulting destruction within Gaza.  Not only did these appear on social media, but many were selectively used by news outlets to describe the scene, especially those depicting injured women and children.  The emotive term “humanitarian disaster”, whether justified or not, was repeatedly used to describe the tragic situation on the ground.  Moreover, one would have to do a more in-depth study to assess whether and how many biases did occur among reputable news outlets.  How were journalists influenced in their accounts and by whom?

As Andrew MacDougall, a communications consultant, pointed out: “It’s one thing for an opinion journalist to make such an incendiary claim; it’s another for a straight-news reporter to do the same.”  Despite what journalism schools may proclaim on the need for objectivity, MacDougall sees younger journalists increasingly identifying themselves as activists as much as they do practitioners of the news craft.  Furthermore, this cohort views journalism as a means to an end, a tool to produce the changes it wishes to seek in society.  There is little doubt that journalists can be influenced by accounts of events on social media, but by how much is another story?  It cannot be easy to maintain objectivity in an era of the me-too generation, Black Lives Matter, indigenous issues, systemic racism against minorities, etc., etc.  Activism is most often encouraged on campuses and its influences upon journalism faculties are just as certain to be found on most campuses.

Israel Media Social Media The News Media

Leave a comment »
Jan 21

Issues Surrounding Daily News Now Being Absorbed Electronically In Bits and Bytes

by bcurry

In 2008, I read an interesting book by Mark Bauerlein entitled “The Dumbest Generation”.  In it, the author discusses how the Digital Age stupefies young Americans, asserting that this jeopardizes our future.  The results may be particularly problematic given that many Canadians, Americans and others get the majority of their local, national and international news through electronic media.  As asserted in the past (Finally the American mainstream media got it right – Oct. 26, 2020) there has been a significant decline in mainstream print media.  There also has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation put out by online sources trying to appear to be reliable sources of news.  Unfortunately, way too much of this situation occurred during the Trump era, as witnessed by conspiracies surrounding the 2020 presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic. 

How many people really take the time to consult mainstream media outlets in print, on the radio, on television and through the Internet?  When researching a story, I like to have as many facts as possible and sometimes several interpretations of those facts from several reliable sources.  By reliable, I mean that the reports have been vetted a number of times and the dependability of the sources has been confirmed.  Unfortunately, this is frequently not the case with many Internet sources.  In addition, while we all have our opinions about a subject matter, we should try to obtain as many viewpoints as possible before reaching too quickly any immediate conclusions.  Failure to do so leads us to what is referred to as “confirmation bias”.  This is where one attempts to confirm one’s beliefs and viewpoints by selectively seeking out those sources which simply reinforce our preconceptions.

Unfortunately, this is what a lot of extreme right-wing or left-wing proponents do in order to justify their interpretations of news events.  The extreme right has for years festered in a variety of places on the Internet, including 4chan, Parler, Gab, CloutHub, etc., etc.  Of course, then there is the Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News) which is an American far-right syndicated news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007.  Breitbart has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories as well as intentionally misleading stories, including claims that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration supported the ISIS.  Breitbart columnists love to attack The Washington Post and The New York Times as being “the mortal enemy of conservatism” (Joshua Klein, Breitbart, 25 Dec. 2020).  Normally, it is rare for mainstream media to attack another media source in this manner, but not for Breitbart.  Breitbart also spent an inordinate amount on its election news coverage, especially anything dealing with unfounded allegations that the Democrats stole the election from Trump.

More has to be done to alert young people in particular about the need to seek out news from different sources, including mainstream print media.  It is just not good enough to have them be informed by too conveniently accessing bits and bytes.  There is a real danger that they will be influenced by conspiracy theories and could become radicalized in one form or another.  Want to know about historical events, read a book or view documentaries on the History Channel.  Even better, talk to some informed people who actually witnessed the events in real time.  The truth is out there, one only has to take the time and make an effort to find it.

Extremism Media Social Media The News Media

Leave a comment »
Oct 26

Finally, the American Mainstream Media Got It Right

by bcurry

For sometime now, both in the U.S. and Canada there have been serious concerns about where people are getting their local, national and international news.  With the advent of social media and nebulous on-line sources of news, the danger of misinformation and disinformation has risen on a number of occasions.  This has especially been the case during national elections.  The confirmed Russian interference in the last American elections highlighted the ability of certain actors to attempt to insert bias and misinformation into news outlets and social media.

In any democracy, the media plays an important role.  In the past, journalism within mainstream media resources, be it in print, radio or television, was a key, reliable and important source of information for citizens.  There was a code of conduct for journalists to research and verify their sources of information before publishing or broadcasting their findings, hopefully based on facts gathered in their investigations.  I would like to think that, when I read articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the National Post and the Financial Post in Canada, etc., etc., the information has been thoroughly vetted to ensure as much accuracy and verifiable facts as possible.

Unfortunately, there are still attempts by some to plant misinformation for political gain.  This appears to have been the case among President Trump’s close advisors inside the White House who believed President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign needed a desperate last ditch rescue mission.  According to the New York Times, this included Arthur Schwartz, a New York public relations man close to Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, and former deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino.  They attempted to concoct a story concerning to Hunter Biden’s work in the Ukraine and the involvement of then Vice-President Joe Biden.  They were hoping that mainstream media would pick up the story and go with it prior to the November election.  However, following further investigative journalism, news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t buy it.  Good for them!

While some unreliable social media sources and right-wing publications love to pursue such stories in an attempt to influence their supporters and possibly some voters, at least the mainstream news media shed light on the President’s attempt to promote “fake news” for political gain.  Trump even tried to raise the unconfirmed collusion story about Hunter and Joe Biden’s involvement in the Ukraine during the final presidential debate.  However, without substantive proof, the attempt was a weak and dishonest one aimed at manipulating public opinion for political gain.  Hopefully, voters will acknowledge Trump’s unfortunate effort to deflect the debate from other important and real issues such as his administration’s absolute failure to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Donald Trump Media US

Leave a comment »
Sep 15

The Press Is Physically Under Attack By Police in the U.S.

by bcurry

On September 11, 2020, five police officers threw a female journalist to the ground and handcuffed her as she repeatedly screamed that she was with a local news network and her press credentials dangled from her neck as they shoved her into a patrol car.  This was all captured on video wherein she can be clearly heard shouting that she was a reporter.  At the time, she was covering an incident between police and a small group of protesters.  Local authorities explained that she was taken into custody for five hours on suspicion of obstruction of justice by “interfering with a lawful arrest.”  However, the same authorities later explained: “There is footage of the incident and an active investigation is underway.”

In late May 2020, two members of a TV crew from Reuters news agency were shot at with rubber bullets while police dispersed protesters defying an 20:00 curfew.  Around the same time, a riot police officer charged his shield at a BBC cameraman covering another protest.  The cameraman was clearly identifiable as a member of the media.  An identified reporter from Germany’s international news broadcaster Deutsche Welle, again covering a protest, was shot with projectiles by police while preparing to go live on air.

These attacks on the media did not occur in Russia or Belarus, but right at home in the U.S.  In June, the US Press Freedom Tracker, a non-profit project, said it was investigating more than 100 “press freedom violations” at protests.  About 90 cases involved attacks.  The Committee to Protect Journalists has claimed that dozens of journalists covering anti-racism protests in the U.S. have reported being targeted by security forces using tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray.  In many cases, the Committee said it was despite showing clear press credentials.  The Society of Professional Journalists has stipulated that this excessive use of force represents a serious threat to the First Amendment guarantee which protects the press, free speech, and the right to protest.

Meanwhile, you have President Trump who continues to blatantly attack the media.  He has tweeted: “The Lamestream Media is doing everything within their power to foment hatred and anarchy.” He also said that journalists were “truly bad people with a sick agenda”.  Statements like these only add to a perceived justification for enforcement officials to harass and even physically attack reporters and their crews.  Such crews are simply carrying out their primary role to provide citizens with the information they need to effectively govern a democracy.  Attempts to prevent the media from performing this role in a safe and secure manner are in itself a deliberate attack on democracy.  Such attacks do not help the image of law enforcement which is primarily to serve and protect members of the community, including those diligently and importantly working within the media.  On-going coverage of the protests cannot and must not be used as an excuse to arbitrarily attack representatives of the media, despite dangerous and unwarranted pronouncements by certain politicians.

Media US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.