Me me media

One of my Facebook friends used the term “mainstream media” in a derogatory context recently and I just about flipped my freakin’ lid.

Perhaps acting against my better judgement, I jumped into the fray, laying out a case for the importance of journalism in a missive so long it came with a complimentary Garfield bookmark. Pragmatism and reason were the predominant tones I tried to strike, and I was more or less successful; the online exchange ended in mutual “likes” of each others’ final comments. So while no minds were permanently changed, this friend and I at least came away from the conversation with a better understanding of where the other person was coming from.

Still, his initial comment -- and my decision to respond to it -- fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Said wisdom tells us it’s bad form to talk about politics in mixed company, and there are certainly instances in which this advice should be followed diligently. Nobody wants to tick off Uncle Mort over squash and pie at Thanksgiving, unless of course they want to stagger out to their car with a rolled-up Ted Cruz bumper sticker jutting out of their eye. Likewise, the first person to ask “Who follows politics?” at her niece’s wedding reception should be thrown onto the dance floor and kept there ’till the very last note of Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’.” People don’t want to deal with that scene.

Social media is interesting in that it doesn’t seem to fit into the bounds of that conventional wisdom. If you’re burning to know what your lab partner from eighth-grade chemistry thinks about Trump, Sanders, the National Anthem and Robert E. Lee, just log onto Facebook. He’ll tell you within hours. He’ll post a link to an article, or respond to someone else’s comment, and before long you’ll be seething at his perceived cluelessness and neglecting important work. You’ll be laboring over a thank-you card to your grandmother and write, “Dear Grandma, thank you for the wonderful birthday gift and oh my God I can’t believe Kevin Berkman actually likes Trump WHAT AN IDIOT! Love, your dearest Jeffrey.”

So the internet, it seems, is immune to this particular brand of tact. I used to ignore the maelstrom, thinking it better to avoid confrontation altogether and just post pictures of me posing with baseball mascots. I’m doing this less and less. I’m speaking up, and I’m doing it for two reasons.

First off, there’s stuff out there that’s just a flat-out affront to basic logic and common sense. I’m not talking about base ideological differences; Person A favors a strong central government, Person B thinks states should have more power, and neither is wrong, necessarily -- they just have different visions for the kind of country they want to live in. OK, fine. But when someone claims without evidence that Senator X is secretly a space alien who’s using cell towers to brainwash people into wearing American flag underwear … well, I feel some level-headed intervention is necessary. It’s a dirty job, but someone needs to gently remove the tinfoil hat.

There’s a more important reason, though. People who use the term “mainstream media” in a derogatory sense (or the odious abbreviation “MSM”) typically get their news from fringe media sources, and those are the sources spewing the content that’s truly skewed; these outlets are in the business of reinforcing worldviews, not reporting news. I’m talking the Breitbarts, the Drudge Reports and their slimy ilk. Getting one’s news from these sources is like buying a fake Rolex from the inside of some sleazeball’s trench coat.

But the obvious bias coming from these outlets, while problematic, isn’t their most pernicious quality. It’s that they tell people, often falsely or in exaggerated fashion, what those on the opposite end of the political spectrum are supposedly thinking.

Here’s a hypothetical example: Your old chum Tommy Tickletoes, a political conservative, posts a link to a Breitbart article about a GOP Senator who authored a bill that would protect shelter dogs from being euthanized. Based on what I’ve seen just on my own Facebook feed, the comments below the article would read something like this: “About time! You know the snowflake liberals want all dogs to die.” “Way to stick it to the libtards! A rEaL AmErIcAn hero!!!!!” “libruls r hypocrites, tey want 2 kill puppies & r stupid.”

You, a proud liberal, have spoken with your liberal friends about the issue. Not one of them wants dogs to die. So where do these commenters get the notion that liberals are dog-haters? From their safe, comfy media sources, of course. Oh, and if you’re reading this and you’re politically conservative, go ahead and flip the situation around and make Tommy a Democrat. The logic still doesn’t hold up.

You don’t get to know someone, or reach any kind of understanding, by reading about their opinions on opposition websites. You get to know someone by talking to them. So I speak out. I speak out because the means of conquering division is not to retreat into your corner and start throwing grenades; it’s to walk out onto the battlefield with a hand extended. And you know what? It’s hard. When passions run deep, it can be tough to keep emotions in check, and I’d be lying if I said I had a perfect record in this regard. The endeavor, though, is too important to give up. If we’re going to start building bridges, we need to start with the foundation.

This opinion, of course, is being shared in the dreaded mainstream media, so doubters may be wary. If they can at least receive it without donning their boxing gloves, though, that’s a pretty good start.