Finding the Balance Between Staying Informed and Sinking Into Despair

If you ask most people why they interact with news sources, you'll hear some version of the same answer. We do it to stay informed. We want to know what's happening, and that's why we interact with the news. This changed for me a few years ago. I am no longer sure that staying informed is worth the emotional toll I must pay to do it.

I pulled out a piece of paper one evening and drew a vertical line down the middle. On the left side, I wrote "stay informed about what's happening." Yep, that's why I turn to the news. I couldn't think of anything else to add beneath it. That's the big pro, after all. Then I turned my attention to the right side of the page. Before I knew it, I had filled about half the page. I'd written things like "lose sleep," "stress," "despair," and "hopelessness." There were far more cons than pros. I had to will myself to stop.

Did the News Media Betray the Public Trust?

I don't want to blame the mainstream news media in the United States for two terms of Donald Trump. Doing so requires a big shift in how I've viewed the news media for most of my life. I'd prefer to keep believing that they are on the side of the people, serving the public good. I'd like to continue to think that they have a vital role in speaking truth to power. I want to think that they give us the truth, even when our leaders would prefer we didn't have it.

And yet, I haven't been able to escape the suspicion that the news media deserve some blame. After all, they've normalized Trump. Their coverage has given him a legitimacy he never should have had. Perhaps I'm overstating this, but it strikes me as a betrayal of the public trust.

We Need More Fact-Based News and Less Propaganda from News Media

Mainstream television news has been going downhill ever since the corporate owners decided that news divisions should be profitable. It did not take them long to realize that telling people what they wanted to hear and even what they should think was far more profitable than trying to inform the public with fact-based information. As fact-based journalism was quickly supplanted by opinion journalism, growing numbers of us have turned off the TV news in disgust. While understandable, I cannot help wonder whether this might not come at a cost.

Is it possible that we are serving someone else's interests - but not our own - by checking out and paying less attention to what is going on? And is it possible that now could be a time when we should be paying more rather than less attention? I really don't know. I find most of today's mainstream television news so objectionable that I feel physically ill after watching more than a few minutes of it. Despite whatever benefits it might have, it is hard to imagine willingly inflicting it on myself. And yet, I sometimes wonder if it might be helpful to know what those who do watch it are being told to think. That might enable us to make more sense out of what is going on with our neighbors.

Media Coverage of Afghanistan: What's So Bad About the Taliban?

I suppose I'm just old and increasingly out-of-touch, but I can still remember when most of us looked to our mainstream news media to inform us rather than to shape our attitudes in particular directions or feed us propaganda. The ideal was that they'd present the facts, and it would be up to us to figure out how to feel about them. I miss those days. It now seems like much of the mainstream news media, at least much of the mainstream cable news media, serves very different functions.

I've noticed something missing from almost all of the coverage I have seen of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it has to do with the odd title I've selected for this post. We've learned that the Taliban has taken over, much quicker than most seemed to expect, to fill the vacuum left by the U.S. The overwhelming consensus is that this is a bad thing. Why is it a bad thing?

Death Wish 3 is One Heck of a Western

Anybody who grew up watching Westerns will immediately recognize what has to be one of the most commonly encountered plots. A lone stranger rides into town, arousing the suspicion of the townspeople. He encounters someone vulnerable (e.g., a woman, child, older person) who is being mistreated by a gang of villains (and/or he himself is mistreated by the gang of villains). Although he's outnumbered and facing overwhelming odds, he decides to fight back. While he may find some allies, the responsibility for righting the wrongs are primarily his. Of course, he carries this burden well, gunning down countless bad guys along the way. It is little more than a basic revenge scenario, but many of us have been content to watch slight variations on this theme more times than we can probably remember.

Of course, what I have just described is in no way limited to Westerns. Replace the horses with cars, upgrade the Colt "Peacemakers" with modern firepower, and move the whole thing out of the prairie and into an urban location. Now you have a modern Western that doesn't look anything like a Western. You can call it an action film if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is really just a Western with updated set pieces. Want a specific example? How about one of the most awesomely bad action films of the mid-80s: Death Wish 3.

Paranormal Obsession: Should Travel Channel Rebrand?

We have several cable channels devoted almost entirely to promoting various paranormal phenomena as if they were real. It puzzles me how this stuff can be as popular as it is, but I have little doubt that it is extremely popular and that this is why we are seeing so much of it. Sure, some of it is cool, but how does one get to the point of taking it as seriously as many people seem to do? Perhaps it is because they watch lots of these shows.

I've tended to focus on the History Channel when I criticize this stuff because I fondly remember when they used to offer shows on history, and because they've been at this paranormal trend longer than most of the other channels. I've also noted that there is something that seems more deliberate in their approach. Still, I'm not sure I could say with any confidence that they are the worst offender. There seem to be plenty of good candidates, and I haven't watched anywhere near enough of them to know how they compare.

Delegitimizing Atheists in the Media

Back in 2012, Staks over at Dangerous Talk brought up a great point about how people - especially those in the news media - delegitimize atheism in a variety of subtle ways. He noted that atheists who are interviewed on TV or for print media are often referred to using labels like "a self-professed atheist" and that we never see these same labels affixed to religious believers. I have certainly seen "self-professed" and many similar examples like the following:

…a self-described atheist...
...identifies himself as an atheist
…who says he's an atheist
…who claims to be an atheist

Self Aware Parody of the News? We Deserve Better

The day before Joe Biden made good on his pledge and announced his selection of Kamala Harris as his VP pick, I found myself watching cable news. The pundits were speculating not so much about who he would pick but about what his pick would mean for the election, if anything. And then something happened that would have seemed quite strange just a few years ago. One pundit raised the question of whether Biden and his VP pick would draw any coverage because of how much other news there was (e.g., COVID-19, the relief efforts currently stalled in Congress), and another said something about how it would depend on how the media decided to cover it.

Before this sort of hyper self-aware news media emerged, this would have been quite strange. After all, it wasn't that long ago that reporters at least pretended to report the news rather than trying to shape it. It wasn't that long ago that pundits at least pretended to be offering informed and somewhat objective analysis. And it wasn't that long ago that nobody tasked with bringing us the news would comment on their role in making news. While traces of these old ways can still be found, the new normal appears to involve pundits pontificating about themselves and their industry. The two I was watching addressed this in such a bizarre way that I heard myself yell, "But you are the goddamn media" just loudly enough to feel stupid for doing so.

Is Cable News Partially Responsible for Violence at Protests?

Suppose we were to conduct an experiment where we assembled a group of somewhere between 6 and 10 14-year-old boys. We ran the same group of boys through two conditions. In the first condition, we observed the boys covertly during some unstructured time. We made sure none of them knew they were being observed. Whatever cameras were in use were not detectable. In the second condition, we observed the boys overtly, making sure they knew they were being observed. Imagine someone with a big video camera pointing it at them right out in the open. What do you suppose would happen? I think we can confidently predict that the boys would behave very differently when they knew they were being observed. At least, I think any of us who were once 14-year-old boys or who has spent any time around 14-year-old boys could be confident in making such a prediction.

Do you suppose that this might offer some valuable lessons for our mainstream news media with respect to how they cover protests? I think so. At a minimum, I think it probably makes sense to predict that many people are going to act differently when they know the cameras are on them. But the lessons probably go well beyond that. For example, I suspect that most protestors are well aware of the fact that the mainstream news media are far more likely to cover protests that do not remain entirely peaceful. The more violence there is, the more coverage there will be. To guarantee coverage, there needs to be at least a perception that violence might occur. Could it be that media coverage shapes what happens at least some protests?

Cable News Propaganda is Toxic to Democracy

Our cable news media love to talk about how deeply divided the U.S. has become. They present us with an endless parade of pundits who decry the negative consequences of this division, speculate about its causes, and offer dire warnings about what will happen to our country if it continues. And yet, the various cable news personalities (i.e., anchors, pundits, guests) rarely acknowledge their role in creating and maintaining these divisions. I, for one, find myself feeling increasingly frustrated with this state of affairs.

Some of us can still remember when most of the news we saw on television at least tried to present facts and appear free of bias. That was before news was largely replaced by opinion journalism. And while Fox News probably started this worrisome trend, followed soon after by MSNBC, I have found myself most disappointed by what I have seen happen at CNN. I think that is because they were once a respectable news outlet and still can be at times. But it now seems like whenever I turn it on, I see one "news show" after another. Each is anchored by someone different, but each repeats the same information over-and-over again in such a slanted way that it is impossible to ignore that we are hearing what someone wants us to think is important and we are being encouraged to form the opinions about it someone wants us to form. This no longer feels like news; it feels like propaganda.

We Still Don't Hear Enough About Christian Extremism

One of the most common questions I have been asked in the many years during which I have been writing Atheist Revolution is why I focus on Christianity as opposed to religion in general. I have explained why I focus on Christianity, but there is a version of this question that I am not sure I have addressed as clearly as I would like. Since I was just asked it again recently, I thought I'd write a response.

The variation has to do with the tagline for this blog: "Breaking free from irrational belief and opposing Christian extremism." The question is about why I chose to emphasize "Christian extremism" and not "religious extremism." It is a fair question, and I have considered changing the tagline more than a few times over the years. I have decided against doing so because the reason I wrote that tagline in 2005 when Atheist Revolution launched is still true today: we aren't hearing nearly enough about Christian extremism.

Superheroes as Modern Gods

Do you think it is possible that superhero films are as popular as they are because they fill a void left by declining interest in organized religion? Have superheroes become our modern gods? This possibility seems far-fetched, but it might help to explain the popularity of these films and the appetite people seem to have for them regardless of how many Hollywood churns out.

I read comic books for a couple of years when I was a child, and the Avengers were among my favorites. I saw The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, and I enjoyed them both. While I did not care for the plot of either film and was disappointed with the villains in both, the main characters were interesting enough to hold my attention. And yet, I have no interest in seeing any more of them or any other superhero films. Why? Extreme over-saturation. It seems like this is the only type of film the studios are making these days. A few minutes before I started to write this post, I noticed superhero films playing on at least six different cable channels. There's little else on. I've seen most of the superhero films and enjoyed a few of them, but I cannot imagine watching any more of them. Whatever appeal the "Marvel Universe" once had is long gone.

Understanding Why Some Atheists Seem Angry

Suppose that a reporter working for a reputable news source in the United States was interested in helping his or her audience better understand atheists and was particularly interested in figuring out why some of us seem so angry. I think there are almost as many ways one might respond as there are atheists. I have provided a brief version of how I might respond below.

The Pragmatic Democrats

The mainstream news media has been referring to a certain group of Democratic voters as "pragmatic Democrats." Who are these pragmatic Democrats? According to this particular narrative, they are voters who are seeking the candidate with the best chance of beating Donald Trump, regardless of that candidate's progressive credentials. But the interesting thing about this narrative is that "pragmatic Democrat" has quickly become a proxy of sorts for referring to voters who are supporting establishment candidates (i.e., those we might describe as "moderate" or "centrist"). "Pragmatic Democrats" are frequently contrasted with "progressive Democrats," barely concealing the notion that only a moderate or centrist candidate can win.

I had hoped that the Democratic Party would have been wrestling with the centrist vs. progressive conflict ever since 2016 and that real progress would have been made long before now. If that happened, I am not seeing much evidence of it. I realize this will sound a bit conspiratorial, but I sometimes find myself thinking that the media narrative of the "pragmatic Democrat" seems almost as if it was deliberately crafted to undermine support for more progressive candidates.

Put More Atheists on TV to Normalize Atheism

Unless you are over a certain age, what I am about to say is going to be hard to believe. It was not that long ago that millions of Americans never saw anyone who looked like them on television...unless they were White. A few television shows with more than an occasional Black character appeared during the 1970s and 1980s, but many other groups had to wait even longer to see characters who looked like them. And yes, some are still waiting today.

As a White person, it is very difficult for me to imagine what this would be like. It is something I have never experienced. While I have watched some television shows and many (foreign language) movies with casts that did not include any White people, this did not affect me because it was not the norm. The norm was - and still is - predominately White casts. When I try to imagine what it would be like to rarely if ever see someone who looked like me on television, I think it would get old real quick. I think it would be frustrating and that it would make television seem less relevant to my life. I think I'd wonder why nobody who looked like me was deemed good enough to be part of television. I'd also wonder why the world I lived in looked so different from the one I saw on television.

Faith Section In Your Local Paper?

I realize that local newspapers are considered obsolete by many people these days. While it is clear that few of us rely on them for national or world news, many do still provide us with an effective way to get local news. Unfortunately, my local paper is not one of them. It tends to mention local events for the first time after they have taken place, and that does not help much when it comes to identifying those I might like to attend. This is the main reason I no longer subscribe to it.

If you are familiar with your local newspaper, I am curious about whether it has a section devoted to religion. My local paper has a section called "Faith and Values" that appears every Saturday. As might be expected from my location (i.e., Mississippi), it is exclusively Christian and mostly Southern Baptist. Moreover, it clearly and explicitly promotes Christianity in the community. Some of what appears in it includes blatant proselytizing; however, much of it simply involves church-related news.

The Influence of Outrage Media

I suspect that one reason so many people have difficulty prioritizing what to be outraged about and effectively channeling their outrage into something productive (instead of something that may undermine their stated goals) might have to do with the news they consume. If the news media they select emphasizes the wrong things in their coverage, it may help to explain why so many seem to get outraged over less important things. Depending on how pervasive this is, we may not even hear about the sort of issues where outrage is not only warranted but could lead to meaningful action.

Even if it seems like there has been a trend in recent years where "outrage media" (i.e., news deliberately presented in such a way as to provoke outrage among viewers) has replaced much of the traditional news media, I do not think it is fair to dismiss all news media as outrage media. When I listen to NPR or watch the PBS NewsHour, I rarely feel as though I am being subjected to blatant attempts at emotional manipulation. Even a few minutes with the popular Fox News or MSNBC shows makes me feel this way. It isn't that there is no news value here; it is that one cannot help but recognize that one is being subjected to ideologically-driven propaganda aimed at confirming certain viewpoints and maintaining a steady state of outrage.

Ignoring the White Nationalist Rallies

By Anthony Crider [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

It is not difficult to understand why the mainstream news media would choose to devote so much coverage to White nationalist rallies. The presence of open racism and hatred has long been regarded as newsworthy, and one could argue that they are serving a public interest by covering it. If we wanted to be a bit more cynical, we could point out that they know their audience well enough to know that outrage is good for ratings. Either way, I'm not surprised that they have been devoting considerable resources to covering these rallies.

I cannot help wondering, however, if choosing not to cover these things might sometimes be a better option. Assuming that the people organizing these rallies want to provoke outrage and attract media coverage, why give them what they want? If the counter-protestors decided not to show up, there would be a handful of angry White guys in silly costumes, some police to make sure they behaved themselves, and that would be about it. It is hard to imagine there would be many rallies if they were ignored.

Media Bias is Hard to Detect Without Points of Comparison

Yesterday's arrest of Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) was big news today. I turned on CNN for about 10 minutes because I was curious to see how they were covering it. Nothing about the coverage I saw struck me as remarkable. Their reporting seemed entirely fact-based, with no attempt to over-interpret anything and no obvious political slant. They referred to "Congressman Collins" repeatedly without identifying his political party, and there was barely any mention of President Trump aside from the fact that Collins had been an early supporter. All in all, it seemed like how news is supposed to be covered in the sense that they were simply reporting the facts.

I switched over to MSNBC to see how they were treating the story and was quickly reminded of why I have not watched MSNBC for a few years. Breathless pundit after breathless pundit pontificated about the meaning of the arrest for Trump. Would Trump's supporters finally abandon him over this? Some of these pundits appear to be so disconnected from reality that they still seem to think that is going to happen any day now. But perhaps the most striking difference was far more subtle. They did not mention Collins without attaching "Republican" to him. Had I not just switched over from CNN, I might not have noticed this. In fact, I am reasonably sure I would not have noticed it. I'd guess that regular MSNBC viewers wouldn't notice it either.

We hear a great deal about bias in the mainstream news media these days. It can be quite blatant at times (e.g., many of the more opinion-oriented shows on Fox News and MSNBC). It can also be fairly subtle, so much so that the regular viewer probably doesn't notice. The coverage I saw was not one of these opinion-oriented shows; it was about as mainstream news-oriented as anything MSNBC does. And yet, the contrast with the far more objective reporting from CNN made it painfully clear that they were pushing a particular narrative.

Jesus Was a White Man

I know that it isn't even Jesusween yet. And that means I am well aware that Isn't-it-sad-atheists-don't-have-anyone-to-thank Day is still a ways off too. So I get that it may seem strange that I'm posting something having to do with the Let's-blatantly-ignore-our-holy-book season here in October. All I can say is that now is when I remembered I to do so.

This is something I wanted to have here to help preserve it for the record and to make it easier to refer to in future posts without having to go looking for it every time.

In 2013, a celebrated journalist (celebrated by much of the right when she worked for Fox News and celebrated by much of the left since she left Fox News for NBC) by the name of Megyn Kelly claimed on Fox News, "Jesus was a white man too." As if that wasn't crazy enough, she also insisted that Jesus "was a historical figure" and described this as "a verifiable fact."