Finding ourselves in the thick of a contentious U.S. Presidential election, I found myself contemplating how critical it is, now more than ever perhaps, to teach everyone the realities of media. To accomplish that though, I’ve wanted to expose that reality without stoking the flames of Harris / Trump so having spent some time with traditional news and as luck would have it, one doesn’t have to look far.
Before we go there, let’s explore why this is so critical, beyond what I hope is evident to many, that the 2024 candidates for the White House are very clearly biased for and against through media.
We continually face the challenge of media literacy and the balancing of human rights in communication and influence. A critical question arises: what rights do people have to decide how they use their platforms to communicate information? Can platforms or publishers be used to intentionally spread disinformation or fictions? Disinformation, far from being a sensationalized notion, is a deeply embedded reality in media, seen not just in political arenas but in outlets like The National Enquirer, or satirical publications like The Onion, Babylon Bee, and shows such as Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. These platforms blur the lines between humor, exaggeration, and deception, making it crucial to ask: where do we draw the line between free expression and the societal dangers of disinformation, misunderstanding, and bias?
Media bias is undoubtedly real, but it isn’t simply “fake news.” One could (and frankly, should) argue that bias is a natural and often inevitable experience with news. It’s not hard to see that media outlets tend to favor certain sides. The problem isn’t just that bias exists; it’s that we aren’t properly educated on how to recognize and deal with it. The focus should perhaps shift from fighting bias to teaching media consumers how to critically engage with it.
The relationship between leaders and the media has been tense and complicated. Leaders like Vladimir Putin in Russia, Narendra Modi in India, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil have all dealt with press relations marked by distrust, censorship, or accusations of media manipulation. Disinformation has played a key role in these dynamics. For instance, in Russia, the government has often been accused of using disinformation as a tool to suppress dissent and control narratives, with state-controlled media and online trolls shaping public opinion both at home and abroad.
Similarly, in Brazil, Bolsonaro has frequently attacked the press, labeling unfavorable coverage as “fake news” while using social media to spread his version of the truth. These global examples demonstrate how disinformation is being used not just to distort facts but to consolidate political power and undermine traditional media’s role as a watchdog.
This is not a modern problem. While I just shared are entanglements between world leaders and the press, the reality is that the traditional press is manipulated, manipulative, or complicit with governments far more than anyone wants to acknowledge. Well before the internet and social media, political leaders were leveraging the media in manipulative ways. In the U.S., presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon had fraught relationships with the press. Nixon’s eventual downfall, in fact, stemmed from investigative journalism during the Watergate scandal, where Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein exposed the administration’s illegal activities. Nixon’s paranoia and distrust of the media left a legacy of suspicion toward journalists, a sentiment that persists in global leadership today.
It’s important to recognize that this manipulation of the media didn’t start with even modern era leaders. Take the case of “yellow journalism” in the late 19th century, which emphasized sensationalism over facts—an early version of today’s disinformation. The competition between Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal saw the two media moguls stoking public outrage and, in Hearst’s famous words, “providing the war”—referring to their role in fueling pro-war sentiment that contributed to the Spanish-American War. Yellow journalism, much like disinformation today, didn’t just skew public opinion; it helped lead a nation into conflict. With which recent armed conflicts can you easily appreciate that similar disinformation, or misinformation, fueled our way to war?
Globally, disinformation has similar power. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has been accused of using disinformation and social media manipulation to discredit critics and create a favorable narrative around his controversial policies. Meanwhile, in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government has been accused of disseminating disinformation through state-controlled media, suppressing independent voices, and controlling public discourse.
From yellow journalism to modern-day disinformation, media manipulation has always been a tool of power. The challenge for society isn’t just about combating “fake news” or disinformation; it’s about understanding how media bias, intentional deception, and control over information shape public perception, and teaching citizens to navigate this complex landscape responsibly.
Why the government doesn’t crack down on yellow journalism, sensational penny papers, and fake news
Governments thrive in ignorance and steer people through the use of lies of omission, political rhetoric, propaganda, and let’s be frank, outright lies. The biggest lie told might be the claims they’ll fight this, all while simultaneously contributing to it.
If you look closely at governments today, I’m sure how you can call to mind an incident that appears to have been fabricated. Never mind your own personal bias for a moment (we all have a bias, let’s be frank), as whether you want to pick one side of an issue or the other, you can assuredly come up with something that frustrates you, making you exclaim, “that’s not what happened!” This fabrication of an issue results in something unsolvable but which easily enables you to fault the opposition as the party responsible for prohibiting your solution. In this context, we can use anything claimed about the media lately (e.g. fake news, violating your privacy, influencing you, monetizing your data); they can CLAIM that the “other party,” or more accurately in this case, Facebook, Elon Musk, or the extreme opposites of MSNBC or Fox News, are the problem. This enables a government to pretend to appear to be trying, really hard, to fix this problem that bothers us… “if only it weren’t for them,” dismissing why they aren’t actually solving anything while also making you mad at *their* opposition.
A word you need to know: demagoguery
That sounds like a classic case of demagoguery. It’s when someone appeals to emotions, fears, or prejudices, riling people up with promises to fix a complex issue that, in reality, can’t be fixed in the way they’re selling it—or at least, not as simply. It’s like the quote often attributed to H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
People in power (or seeking it) often thrive on this tactic, selling certainty in an uncertain world. From where do you think this hyped proposition to wrangle Artificial Intelligence under control comes from? Politicians promise the impossible because it’s easier to inspire through hope or fear than through nuance or reality. It’s manipulative, of course, because the real goal isn’t solving the problem—it’s gaining or maintaining influence. You see this all the time, and here we’re extending the fact of the matter to how the media amplifies it; and how the only way to overcome the fact that this happens is to recognize it in the media.
A demagogue is someone who stirs up emotions, tapping into people’s frustrations or desires, offering false hope or easy answers to win support or gain power, even when the issue is far more nuanced or impossible to resolve.
In a more specific sense, this tactic could also be considered a “false promise” or “populism” when used politically, especially when it involves exploiting people’s genuine concerns without providing a viable path forward. It’s manipulative, and while it might seem empowering in the short term, it ultimately erodes trust when people realize they’ve been misled.
Stop Fighting Bias and Instead Teach Critical Thinking
CNN this past week, let’s get into the article I found to help teach this, “Right-wing influencers say they were dupes in an alleged Russian influence operation. They’re keeping their millions, for now”
What first ticked me off was the last statement in the headline, “They’re keeping their millions, for now,” as my immediate reaction was, “well wouldn’t you?!” And then I thought more critically: there is no clear crime, and presumably no prosecution has yet taken place, so CNN is already fueling our emotions that these “Right-wing” influencers have not only done something wrong, but they’re also keeping the money.
Jon Passantino and Sean Lyngaas, the people paid for this propaganda, are playing the demagogue.
Before I dig much deeper, let me go on record that I’m not defending anyone involved, I’m not supporting whatever it is the Russians did, and I’m not even going to comment on the incident itself; I haven’t spoken to anyone involved and I know nothing more than what this article claims. Moreover, as it seems tensions with Russia are mounting, the perspective I’m about to share has nothing to do with Russia or my opinions of the situation. These are views published as of early September 2024 and as things develop, my take on the article may be proven wrong; none of that matters though, as what I want to explore with you is not the facts of what happened but rather the presentation of information through what some assert is “better” or more credible source of news.
I want to be on that record so that you’re on the same page with me. that we’re looking at this only as an exercise in understanding demagoguery and propaganda. We’re using this to teach everyone how disinformation (or whatever flavor you want to taste it from yellow journalism to fake news) is used against people rather than establishing facts or even offering a respectable editorial.
“The right-wing social media stars who were allegedly paid millions of dollars in a nefarious Russian influence operation to shape public opinion around the 2024 US presidential election are remaining mum.”
Right from the start, let’s just ask questions. This is how to discern News from propaganda:
- Why wouldn’t they remain mum? With such a claim, why would they talk to CNN??
- Who is alleging they were paid millions of dollars?
- How is this nefarious? Why use a term usually associated with wicked or criminal activity?
- And here is a thought-provoking question: does anyone thing the Russians wouldn’t try to influence a U.S. election? Wouldn’t every country try to influence the election? So, what’s the harm so severe that it’s allegedly criminal?
I’m paraphrasing now to remove some of the copy, they go on, “The Justice Department alleged that Russian state media producers funneled nearly $10 million to an unnamed Tennessee-based company, later determined by CNN to be Tenet Media, to create and amplify content that often featured narratives and themes supported by the Kremlin.”
Do it with me again…
Wait… the U.S. Justice Department?? Shouldn’t that be in the headline? Or at least the first paragraph rather than saying ‘allegedly paid millions’ because this is incredibly substantial, if true – the U.S. Justice Department is going after these guys for producing content for Russia. Wow. But slow down, let’s keep the critical thinking going, a company can’t create content for people from Russia?? Why Russia in particular? Why can’t they and what law prohibits this? They did this to supposedly shape public opinion about a presidential election… so it’s not okay for any company to create biased media about an election? Or it’s not okay because it’s Russia? Or is it not okay because it’s “right-wing,” these are “influencers,” or because it’s “nefarious,” and why do we, so far, only have assertions by the authors of this article?
“While the indictment doesn’t directly name or accuse the influencers of wrongdoing, or state that they knew at the time that the money was part of a Russian influence operation”
I hope you’re getting good at this with me… um… the indictment doesn’t accuse them of any wrongdoing?? But it’s nefarious, apparently.
“In the wake of the stunning accusation, CNN asked representatives for Pool, Rubin and Johnson whether they would turn over or donate the money they were paid. None of them have publicly detailed the payments they allegedly received as part of the foreign campaign or responded to CNN requests on the matter.”
Come on. Why on earth would they “turn over” or “donate” the money they were paid?? Why would they detail the payments for CNN?
There is no accusation of wrongdoing and yet the next paragraph claims, “stunning accusation.”
Stunning accusation of what?
What we can accurately establish so far is only that some people who it would seem live in Russia, and probably don’t care for the left, Progressives, or Democrats, or they just wanted to see Donald Trump elected, hired a private company to produce content for them.
Which happens ALL THE TIME.
Why would a business, doing the business they’re in business to do, turn over details to fricken-CNN because allegedly the payments have ties to the Russian government, particularly while “the indictment doesn’t accuse them of any wrongdoing”?
Please tell me you’re in the weeds with me here on how this is an article completely sensationalized by twisting some facts into nothing more than suppositions, provocative words, and theories.
This is demagoguery minced with propaganda.
After all, the article implies, just leave it to our government to ensure this nefarious kind of thing can’t happen. By doing what though? Notice, emotional claims with false hope in order to influence people.
Unless the U.S. government criminalizes doing business with a Russian citizen, what exactly do they propose would fix this? What the article is asserting is something that actually can’t happen – the prohibition of foreign funded content that doesn’t fit the narrative that the authors (or respective politicians) want. It’s not only not technically possible to stop that from happening, but also arguably unethical to try – this U.S. business and these influencers, have every right to create whatever content they want. The crime is that they were paid in rubles?
Let me remind you of my on-the-record now that I’ve illuminated that this is an article that clearly picks a side of the political aisle, alleging that the propaganda was created to support Donald Trump. I don’t care if the respective candidate was Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, or Kamala Harris! The goal herein is exposing that it happens, and that the only possible way forward for everyone to mitigate the risks that this happens (and has happened for hundreds of years), is to understand that it happens and to learn to identify it. We can’t stop media bias, but we can learn to think critically about that which we read.
So why is CNN alleging implying that maybe they should have done so? Why on earth would a business not obligated to turn something over, not accused of anything, and actually just conducting business as they are in business to do, do anything CNN is demagoguing here??
And then here, here is where we establish that this is disinformation, and that the government actually has no intention of ending anything like this…
“But the secret payments lay bare how susceptible the new media ecosystem is to infiltration, where independent creators operate with few guardrails and little transparency.”
“The payments reveal the figures’ lack of accountability and integrity befitted to traditional journalistic outlets.”
Let’s rephrase what that’s saying. “We believe that traditional journalistic outlets are held to a higher standard of accountability and integrity, and that this reveals that accountability should be put in place to prevent this type of thing, never mind the fact that this is a private business, they’ve kept the payments secret. This new media ecosystem has few guardrails and little transparency. In short, we’re better.”
Okay, so I took a little poetic license at the end there. Follow along, they are asserting that Publishers (news media) are held to a standard of integrity which, I hope you know, is complete b.s., while they are also asserting that a company should be forced to expose their books publicly and transparently because the internet has no guardrails (which we know).
When you practice your ability to think critically, you start to discern one of three things that must be true:
- The parties involved in the story have no idea what they’re talking about
- The parties involved have no problem violating rights or establishing controls
- The parties involved are clearly biased to push a specific agenda
Arguably, in this case, we’re witnessing all three things whereas in many cases, you might only find laid bare that someone is unfamiliar with the issues or they’re pushing a political agenda.
The article continues well beyond what is needed but it starts to use names and quotes as a means of establishing some credibility that the authors investigated the issue. What transpired is that a business was paid to create content paid for from a source uncertain but likely a foreign country – never mind the fact that speech is a protected right in the U.S. and a private business has every right to create advertisements, fictions, and satire.
At the end of the day, you might still feel that I’m in the wrong for seemingly defending these influencers or taking on something that clearly tried to be against Trump, but hopefully you kept coming along with me, that this article cited doesn’t establish anything newsworthy while instead tries to fire you up about something not just claimed but in fact not even established. What this accomplishes is influence over supporters who want something done to stop Russia, stop fake news, or stop Trump, and it has no basis in any “wrong doing.”
Fake news, propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and demagoguery, welcome to how a government manipulates you with the help of the media while simultaneously claiming they;re trying to put a stop to this happening.
re: “Teach people to critically engage with media,”
First we have to teach the people that despite what the Media tells them, the Media is broken and corrupt. Most people can’t see, don’t want to see, will never see it. Their trust is blind. Their comfort level too high. Thinking critically about the media means they will have to admit they’ve been duped in the years prior. That’s not going to happen.
The source has been more informative than the content for some time. Perhaps the biggest change recently is how aware we’ve become that people are trying to manipulate us all the time…. while trying to hide it.
Mark Simchock I heard a profound sentiment this morning, that Government is the new religion
When people just want to be saved, they’ll keep supporting that being bigger and bigger. Politicians are seen as saviors while the opposition is Satan. The media is the pulpit.