Of TROLLS and TWEETS

My essay in re: Application to the Reynolds Institute: OF TROLLS AND TWEETS


[Herein I quote from hsj.org’s description of the Reynolds Institute; and I apologize for exceeding the length requirement, but I found I had a lot to say. Thank you for your patience.]

“There is a war going on for your mind; if you are thinking, you are winning.” --Flobots, Fight With Tools, (c) 2008

I used to think that the blinking cursor was the epitome of sophisticated modern life. Now, though, the screens and keyboards have become much smaller; and modern life consists of beeping (or, ahem, bleeping) gadgets—I confess I don’t own one, and don’t even want one. It’s hardly original, but I’ll call it an electronic leash. It is also the narrowest and most restrictive of filters, to get your news exclusively through a little glowing screen. Only so much can fit; you can browse, like a cow loose in a field, only on what you choose. And like that cow seeking out only daisies, or a child who only eats chicken nuggets, such freedom isn’t all that good for you. It’s unbalanced to be sure, and probably not wholesome in the end. The instant connection to news events of the most immediate and raw nature is touted by many as a leveling of the journalistic field; a real and effective democratization of news. But if I may paraphrase The Bard, methinks they do protest too much. Even something as lowly as that chicken nugget requires human planning and cooperation, and (hopefully, theoretically) approval by the FDA, or at least a local health inspector…and finally that peckish toddler. Yet we are losing any such checks on our news media. When anyone with a camera phone or blog is suddenly a newsmaker, where are the gatekeepers? Where is the discernment?

Because media is available for consumption pretty much everywhere all the time, I feel that the education of those doing the consuming is no longer a luxury to be afforded only to advanced or college-bound students, who choose to take Journalism as an elective. Much as it pains me to say it, media literacy is not just the foundation of modern journalism, but a subject more critical to today’s students than my teaching of Literature (my primary job). So I lack formal training in journalism itself, but I’ve been a yearbook adviser for six years, and as for “reporting, writing, editing, photojournalism, layout and design,” I can teach those; it’s the “opinion pages, journalistic credibility, ethics and responsibilities, [and] the future of daily newspapers” that I’m worried most about.

Despite my stance on mobile communication devices, I’m not exactly a Luddite—I get all my news from the Web, haven’t gotten newsprint on my hands in years; and I hope chiefly to create a news site for our school. But you can call me a curmudgeon—at the ripe old age of 32, I’ll still take that as praise, having been weaned on Andy Rooney, and Hunter S., and P.J. O’Rourke. These men, and the inimitable Dave Barry (my personal hero), taught me what good non-fiction writing was. They are Titans in one clear way--all made their habits of mind, their personal lives and preferences, foibles and peeves, and even petty grudges a part of their journalism, inextricably tangling the man in the message. One might say they paved the way for every blowhard blogger out there today, even (sad to say), for every partisan “troll” lurking in the comments section of your local news sites. Three out of four of those aforementioned began by (or ended up) taking swipes at the body politic, proving that social criticism was especially powerful when combined with wit. No doubt they paved the way for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, whether the latter two realize it or not. These men (with their cohorts and off-camera staff, of course) have become gatekeepers chiefly through satire; Jonathan Swift would be proud, and I suppose [H.L.] Mencken would be too.

Indeed, the popularity of these jokers (nay, even legitimacy) is sustained because they clearly provide some discernment to masses eager for it, filling (as they sometimes note) a serious vacuum left by “serious journalists,” many of whom have embraced not simply a personal spin on events, but bias itself (either left or right!), as if it were the recovery of a sacred birthright. It seems to me the news business wasn’t like that even only ten years ago; when Rooney, Thompson, O’Rourke and Barry took a stance, they labeled with a laugh, and won you over with a wink. There was purpose in their punditry, not fear-mongering or shrill scolding. Perhaps this era is simply cycling back to the “yellow journalism” of the early 1900s? Well, I for one want to make sure that things don’t continue in that direction. I’m going to need help, to equip new generations against this; I know it’s a lot to ask of a two-week course, but I see it as the logical first step.

What are the signposts on this return trip to the dark past? Well, this is suddenly an era when every private person gets to decide what is news for him- or herself, setting their feeds, and twiddling with their preferences, or following some stranger’s trail of mental droppings called “tweets.” One can generally (and easily) screen out anything they find unpalatable or uninteresting, even as they all still hope desperately for--and commit themselves to--the Big Lie of Web 2.0: feedback. Feedback used to be provided by Editors; men and women of experience, and judgment, representing the higher interests of the Fourth Estate; occasionally it was offered by citizens both clever and brave enough to send an actual letter to said editors. But now professional news dispensers of all descriptions welcome and even incorporate every half-baked, anonymous comment and opinion they can get, as if the world somehow previously lacked in opportunities for demonstrating ignorance, racism, homophobia, bile and misanthropy. The very worst kinds of conjecture, slander and venom are now freely--and facelessly--distributed across the globe either attached to “news” articles, like so many head lice, or in fact simply such parasites posing as news stories.

As this happens, it actually becomes quite reasonable to imagine ignoring the entire news media the way we used to shun supermarket tabloids. It is hard to argue that these uses (and abuses) of the First Amendment are somehow an improvement of the news business. The ubiquity of the internet, and the 24-hour news cycle on television do suddenly mean that reasonable people might choose to avoid the flood altogether; those still brave enough to wade in usually stay in the shallows, or in fact skim only the very surface. They follow only certain streams, and miss the whole coastline. Lacking discernment, many can’t articulate what it is that is gone.

In time, despite whatever grist the media and the masses provide, they begin to realize that something is lacking. When they go looking for it; many trip down the rabbit holes that litter the blogosphere. These insular little internet echo chambers tell them that, unlike years past, reasonable people cannot disagree, but must be in lockstep on all things. In short, they go looking for news, real news, and end up instead drowning in a cacophony of little demagogues (or big ones, like Limbaugh, Huffington, O’Reilly, Olberman, or Beck, just to name a few). For they have become gatekeepers of a sort too; only what gate that is, I can’t say. I know only that, despite the fountains of self-righteousness contained in each, it ain’t the Pearly Gates they’re manning. Instead of Speaking Truth to Power, these types are merely co-opting power at best, or becoming complicit with it, at worst. Seeing this, is it any wonder that a young person would tune out, or give their trust to comedians instead of newsmen?

So I want to raise up a generation of young people who know that there is a war going on for their minds, who can discern what’s real news for themselves, and defend the gates of our Republic from the (corporate) barbarian horde and the political “Booboisie” both. I want them to know demagoguery and hypocrisy when they see them. In fact, I want them to be able to smell both at a distance of fifty paces, and to know that their calling as Journalistas is to guard the People from these ills. I need to know how better to train them, and if you’ll excuse the reference, to make them Jedi Knights in the fight against all the publishing powers of the Dark Side. They may be “digital natives,” but my students have so little native sense of the Constitution, or the reasons for the enumeration of our rights; what is a king, or an Emperor, or Party Chairman, but the ultimate expression of demagoguery?

And if that tyrant’s name is Rupert Murdoch, well, viva la revolution! It may not be televised, but it may well be Twittered--God help us all.