"Your" News

When I take the Roku to Reuter News, they ask how long I have to watch, then have me wait a moment while they prepare "your" news. I need to ask someone (with a Roku and Reuters but very different interests and viewpoints) to check the news the same time I do - and see who gets what stories.

On my Facebook feed today, there was a photo "covered" so I could decide whether or not to look at it. It was a little boy lying on the ground, presumably a dead Kurd. it made me remember the napalmed little girl running down the road in Vietnam - a photo that helped us move to end that war. Would it have had the same impact if we'd had the choice to look only at news we want to see?

Long ago, I had a friend who'd been in the OSS in Eastern Europe right after World War II. (The OSS morphed into the CIA later.) He'd been appalled at the idiocy of people for believing the propaganda and lies in the state newspaper, so he did an experiment. For some weeks he read only the state newspaper. At first he recognized lies for what they were; gradually he started saying the improbable "might" be true (with the knowledge base he was growing by reading that paper); eventually he came to doubt his own view of events he witnessed, when the paper gave a dramatically different account.

When we read only news that leans our way, we're self-propagandizing, which leads to believing the improbable and eventually denying reality. It leads to the polarization that is tearing this country (and others) apart.

It's tough, when so much of what we take in is already chosen as "your" news. But here's my challenge: pick at least two news sources the "other" guys consider reliable and spend as much time with them as you do with "your" news.

If you do this electronically, "your" news may start to be more balanced.

With enough balance, maybe we can work together again.

You Tube as a Vehicle for Good

I'm not a fan of the You Tube channels aimed at getting toddlers to demand particular toys. Not at all. However, there are people posting useful information all the time. Like when I wanted to make sure I was putting my sim card into my phone correctly, of course there was a YouTube of it. In fact, there were several.

Well, it's not just do-it-yourself types. There are also professionals giving away their advice, sometimes with the goal of getting you to buy something else, but sometimes just because they want to make the world a better place.

I think this is one example of the latter - a clear, five minute explanation and suggestion on how to help troubled kids at school:

https://youtu.be/KoqaUANGvpA

And I clicked on the dude's name and went to his about page. This is what he has to say:

"These are some of my thoughts on life, human development, psychotherapy, traumatic stress, etc. I put them out into the universe with the intention of reaching out to people who need help and want to help others grow in their ability to love and be loved. PLEASE SHARE MY VIDEOS! You don't have to ask permission to use them in your own trainings, but I would love to know that you use them and how you use them so I can feel that the work is making a difference somehow. I am a clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, researcher in psychotherapy and epigenetics, and trainer in traumatic stress. I'm an Assistant Professor in Psychiatry and Director of the Center for Child Trauma and Resilience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City and work out of Mount Sinai Beth Israel." www.drjacobham.com

Politicians Being Friendly

This article says research shows evaluation of evidence is skewed by partisanship - not a surprise. If my kid shoplifts a pack of gum, it's a youthful prank that needs a discrete consequence. If a kid from a family I don't like shoplifts that gum, well, you know it's a reflection of the parenting and that kid needs to be nailed hard or he'll end up a serial killer. Unfortunately, our politics have gotten to the same irrational state.

However, the article ended on a positive note:

"... there is some good news. Researchers are finding that there are ways around strong partisan affective polarization — and they don’t even depend upon the two sides coming to an agreement on actual policy. In a 2019 study involving nearly 1,000 political partisans, “warm contact” between political leaders did more to reduce affective polarization and negative opinions about the other party than issue compromise."

Quote from article by Maggie Koerth-Baker.

I consider this good news. Our political representatives have more in common with each other than not. They have to go through the rigors of our election process, spend time away from loved ones, and get blamed for all kinds of stuff they can't control. The moments they're nice to each other aren't making the news when covering conflict boosts ratings.

All we have to do is make every positive interaction between opposing parties go viral! That will nudge the news organizations into giving us more positives, and politicians will see they get more free publicity from being nice to the opposition, so they'll quit hiding friendships and openly hug their buddies across the aisle. It will be self-perpetuating cycle.

And we'll all get back to considering issues more rationally.

It has been done - let's see more of it!

(Update 7/22/2020: COVID's working against this, dang it.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-famous-political-friendships-transcend-party-lines-2018-11

https://www.bustle.com/p/6-photos-of-michelle-obama-george-w-bushs-friendship-that-rises-above-politics-42016