The Right-Wing Media Ecosystem -- Am I Part of That?

I know it is probably trite to keep saying this, but it's not really my fault.  After all, I am perfectly capable of going on to write about all manner of different things, even topics unrelated to politics.  Like sports, or entertainment, or having to set a production of "The Mikado" in Italy to avoid "cultural appropriation."  But I have to say it, because the news is what the news is.

Hillary Clinton refuses to go away.

Now she is back -- OK, she never goes away, so "back" may not be the right word -- but appearing once again, in front of something called the PEN World Voices conference, with yet a new message for the unwashed masses who dared to pull a "Not Hillary" lever in 2016, and presumably for those who pulled one for "Her" as well.

It has become a joke to rename all the excuses she has given since November 2016 for losing the election -- Barack Obama, James Comey, Fox News, CNN, stupid people, smart people, her campaign manager, her husband, Superman, Otis Redding and Chiquita Banana.

And now we get to add a phrase I had not heard before, but which I did find, in a search, as dating back right after the election.  That would be the "Right-Wing Media Ecosystem", which I will abbreviate to "RWME" because I'm old and don't feel like spelling it out three more times.  According to Hillary, "mainstream political coverage was influenced by the right-wing media ecosystem and other factors to depart from normal journalistic standards."

I'm not 100% sure that I know what that term, RWME, is supposed to refer to, but I did do a tad of research, and have determined that it has to do with outlets like Breitbart, which last I checked were equally protected by the First Amendment as are all the "mainstream" media, where there was pretty much universal support of Hillary.

Apparently, according to her, there are efforts underway to crack down on conservative outlets to "avoid errors that helped Trump into the White House."  I actually don't know what those efforts are or, more pointedly, who is making them.  After all, the media do not police themselves too much, being protected by the Constitution and all.  They have ombudsmen and the like, but they can pretty much say whatever they want.  But the FBI can't do anything, nor can state or local police.

She also felt that it was vital for people to battle "fake news" by buying newspapers like the Washington Post, which she actually named, presumably meaning newspapers where the editorial policy influences reporting.  That's because the notion of "fake news" applies to the Post as surely as it does anywhere else (see my 5-6 pieces about the fake rape story at UVa, and their unwillingness to publish the name of the perpetrator).

"It can’t only be journalists who stand up and speak out", she said. "We can all do more. We can all subscribe to newspapers. We can support libraries and schools that teach media literacy to young people, and empower them to be thoughtful readers and consumers of news.”  Note: I don't have a handy list of those "libraries and schools" that teach media literacy, but I'm guessing that they're concentrated in New York, California and Massachusetts.

So I'm going to try to get some of that "support" by teaching media literacy  and thoughtful news consumption right here in this column, and hope that many of you who read this will "support" me by sending a fat check or two to make sure this column survives.  And I'm going to tweet this column to Mrs. Clinton herself to see if she will back up her puffy words with hard-earned cash.

Media Literacy Lesson #1

1.  The media LIE.  Constantly.  If their typesetting machines are moving, you can assume that the likelihood of their story being true is next to zero.  Or less.

2.  Most important -- "media" is a plural.  The media are this or that.  Media is the plural of "medium" and should thus always be treated as a plural.  Sorry; had to get that in, but consider it a lesson.

3.  The mainstream media are biased, overwhelmingly to the left -- meaning the news sections at at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, with Fox on the other side.  They are biased that way because people who go into journalism are mostly there because they have nowhere else to go, not being smart enough to major in math or engineering or business or physics.  Lacking the intelligence, they really need that government help that the left promises.  Ironically, they think you are stupid, which is precisely what Jim Acosta of CNN just said in public.  If he thinks Trump voters' elevators "might not hit all floors", as I literally heard him say thirty minutes ago, how can you trust him to report on that president accurately?

4.  Newspapers are very good to line bird cages or litter boxes with, because the media have gotten to the point that you cannot trust the independent thinking of the reporter or the editor to avoid having personal bias creep in.  Extra credit note -- that also affects Hollywood, where 99% of the shows feel the need to preach to you when they should be trying to make you laugh.  Reporters do the same thing.

5.  The people who listen to the news from the "RWME", like Breitbart, are going to vote for conservatives no matter what they listen to.  All those blue-collar types in the states Hillary mostly ignored, like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, didn't vote for Donald Trump because Breitbart told them to, but because Hillary had nothing for them but four more years of what Obama had done to them the previous eight.

There -- I have now taught media literacy and should be entitled to "support."  After all, I was writing this column daily during the election season, and UberThoughtsUSA should definitely be included in the RWME given some of the things I wrote.  But I can also help with that education thing that Hillary was talking about, and surely she expects that support should apply to all voices, right?  Diversity of opinions?

Look -- she lost the election and simply won't go away.  Worse, instead of going off to build houses for the poor like Jimmy Carter, she is on a non-stop whine and cheese tour, ostensibly to sell her book about -- guess what, troops -- why she lost the election.

Can you imagine if she had won?  Gag.

Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton