The Media & Willful Blindness
Two major stories about COVID and the election that are being flat-out ignored by most news outlets
If a tree falls in the woods and no reporter is there to witness or write about it, did it really happen? Did the tree really fall?
And what if a tree falls in the woods and the reporters ARE there, and they ALL see it happen, but choose not to tell anyone about it? Did it really happen? Did the tree really fall?
These seem like silly questions – of course the tree really fell, in both cases! And yet… this is EXACTLY what happens almost every single day in news media right now with stories about both COVID information and post-Presidential election lawsuits / fraud investigations.
Doesn’t matter what any of our opinions are on COVID-19 or the election outcome. The simple fact is that there have been some pretty major, news-worthy developments surrounding both of these topics over the past two weeks, but almost every established media outlet in the nation has largely ignored them all. Even weirder? “Journalists” in established news outlets are increasingly insinuating that people are crazy, or calling them “conspiracy theorists” or – the mother of all insults in media today: CONSERVATIVE! - if they dare to question why the media isn’t reporting these things.
*(name-calling and making fun of people with differing viewpoints, by the way, has been a time-worn method of suppressing independent thought for decades here in the U.S. In 1971, in fact, a man named Saul Alinsky named “Ridicule” the “Fourth Rule of Power Tactics” in his book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky advocated using ridicule as a way of shaming political and ideological opponents into submission, writing: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.” Check out the “Clinton, Obama Associations” section of this article by Reuters to learn why Alinsky’s methods are still pertinent today. And, though it’s disturbing, I also HIGHLY recommend reading Rules for Radicals)
First, let’s take a peek at the almost totally unreported recent news about COVID – the recently-released results of a Danish study, involving nearly 5,000 people, on “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers.” This information came out mid-November and was revealed again last week in the third installment of a series of books by former NY Times reporter and independent journalist Alex Berenson, called Unreported Truths About COVID-19 and Lockdowns. Basically, when you read the results, you see that mask-wearers and non-mask wearers in the study both contracted COVID at nearly the same rates (ie: wearing a mask, per this study, did not seem to protect anyone from getting COVID). This is pretty earth-shattering stuff considering that so many state and local governments here in the U.S. have largely mandated mask-wearing as a defacto way of stopping COVID spread.
To be fair, these are the results of one study in one country. A post on a website I know nothing about called Factcheck.org (which relies too heavily for my taste on some of the typical faux “journalism” ploys this blog has exposed in the past, including citing anonymous sources and trying to discredit other, named sources with unspecified allegations) raised some interesting counter points about it, most notably: “this particular study, under the conditions at the time in Denmark, didn’t find that the face mask intervention had a large protective effect for wearers — not that masks provide no protection at all or don’t offer benefits to others.”
But still - why would the rest of the media not be reporting on this study, either way? Add in the fact that Berenson’s book includes references to other studies showing similar results (including one from 2015, in Vietnam, which shows that cloth masks are not only completely ineffective at blocking the spread of a virus – they may even make it worse), and you might find yourself scratching your head (especially since Joe Biden apparently just today announced that he will request all Americans wear masks during his first 100 days in office) …
I’m not saying anyone has to believe any of those studies as gospel truth. What I AM saying is, if we had a TRUE corps of journalists running our current news media, they would be presenting all of this evidence to you, the consumers, daily, so that you could make up your OWN minds about whether or not masks are an effective way to control the spread of COVID-19. Instead, Alex Berenson is fighting this battle almost solely on his own and almost every major news outlet in this nation is ignoring all of this information, telling us that masks irrefutably work and that we are essentially selfish murderers if we question their authority or mention any evidence to the contrary. Why on earth would they be doing these things when we have just learned about two examples suggesting otherwise? What is their motivation?
******
As mentioned up top, the other major story most established news outlets have largely ignored this past week is about election fraud allegations. Sure, most outlets have acknowledged half the nation’s concerns over election security with half-hearted attempts at objective reporting, like this article from Monday’s Wall Street Journal:
You can read the rest of the story in the link (though it is behind a paywall), but the bottom line is that almost all established media outlets’ news articles on this subject say or insinuate basically the same thing – that Trump’s claims are without merit, or “baseless,” and that neither Trump, nor anyone else, has presented proof or evidence of these allegations of voter fraud. But here are three interesting things I noticed after reading that WSJ piece:
I have rarely seen any factual information to back up that “no proof” claim; it’s almost always just a great big generalization made with no supporting information (see my Story #1 – CNN, on the Mississippi State Flag for why good journalists always support general statements with qualifying factual information; this, remember, is the difference between news and opinion).
In the same daily edition of the WSJ where that story ran, an editorial by a highly credible and established journalist named Mary Anastasia O’Grady ran as well, discussing a civil action filed in Georgia the day before Thanksgiving alleging “massive election fraud,” and exploring in detail the way deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez utilized similar (and possibly connected) voting software to Dominion’s to force his way into power in 2004.
Independent and alternative news outlets have been presenting proof of fraud for weeks now from literally dozens, if not hundreds of eyewitnesses and lawsuits.
I’m no lawyer – but the following court documents and sworn affidavits might be of interest to any reporters claiming there is “no evidence” or “proof:”
This 75-page civil complaint, filed in Michigan last week, which alleges “massive election fraud” and includes sworn statements by dozens of people who claim to have witnessed such fraud happening on election day last month.
This sworn affidavit from a Dominion contract worker and this sworn affidavit from a nuclear physicist and former state senator, both of whom were working the Michigan polls on election day. Both allege witnessing blatant fraud and/or voting machines connected to the internet when they were supposed to be offline.
This 150-page legal complaint, which Mary Anastasia O’Grady referred to in her WSJ op-ed, that was filed in Georgia the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. It alleges “massive election fraud, multiple violations of Georgia laws… and multiple Constitutional violations” and including statements from “fact witnesses to specific incidents” and “multiple expert witnesses”
Extensive and detailed live testimony from a Michigan city engineer with 30 years’ experience as a poll worker who described firsthand how she witnessed egregious cheating happening amongst fellow poll workers on election night (her testimony starts 35 minutes in; FYI, this is part of a larger clip of FIVE HOURS worth of evidence being presented and questioned in Michigan)
There are dozens more of these kinds of testimonies and legal documents circulating in public bodies and courts of law right now across the country and hundreds of sworn affidavits signed by eyewitnesses to strange behavior at best and chillingly brazen cheating at worst in the polls on election day and beyond. Either way – definitely what most people would call “evidence.”
Will it hold up in a court of law or change the outcome of the election? Who knows, and chances seem slim. But, whether members of the news media agree with these lawsuits and eyewitness accounts or not is irrelevant. Anyone who is an actual journalist, whose job it is to cover actual news, should be reporting on everything happening surrounding the election. In fact, why not ask yourself an easy question? If these lawsuits are as “baseless” as so many reporters claim, why wouldn’t those reporters bring forth their own proof to refute them?
For instance, when a lawsuit alleges someone tampered with the voting machines, why not tell both sides of the story and include a quote from an expert who discusses, in very specific terms, how such tampering is not really possible? (FYI - I made that up as an example - I have no idea if it’s true)
Or, when an eyewitness says she’s seen fellow poll workers tampering with ballots and describes being bullied for not doing the same, why not find some of her fellow poll workers to interview who can describe what happened from a different point of view? These are EASY ways to tell a story and present readers with differing opinions. And yet our media does not even TRY to do any of it. Instead, they ignore almost all of the details, tell you claims of election fraud are “baseless” and send you on your merry way home. Remember the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan telling you it’s “absurd” to want to know both sides of a story? This is that philosophy in action, via omission of key information and facts.
Both this and the suppressed COVID information seem to me like solid examples of a term I only recently discovered, called “willful blindness.” It’s a legal term, but it’s also the title of a 2011 book by Margaret Heffernan, with the subtitle: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril. I haven’t read it yet, but check out the intro on Amazon - I found these statements to be particularly indicative of the mindset of so many working in media today… and, unfortunately, of those consumers who believe and follow the media, without question, as well:
“Whether individual or collective, willful blindness doesn’t have a single driver, but many. We can’t notice and know everything: the cognitive limits of our brain simply won’t let us. That means we have to filter or edit what we take in. So what we choose to let through and leave out is crucial. We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering out whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs. It’s a truism that love is blind; what’s less obvious is just how much evidence it can ignore. Ideology and orthodoxies powerfully mask what, to the uncaptivated mind, is obvious, dangerous or absurd and there’s much about how, and even where, we live that leaves us in the dark. Fear of conflict, fear of change keeps us that way… An unconscious (and much denied) impulse to obey and conform shields us from confrontation and crowds provide friendly alibis for our inertia…
Perhaps it is the sheer utility of willful blindness that sucks us into the habit in the first place. It seems innocuous and feels efficient. But the mechanisms that make us blind to the world also put us in peril… Ideologues, refusing to see data and events that challenge their theories, doom themselves to irrelevance. Fraudsters only succeed when they depend on our desire to blind ourselves to the questions that would expose their schemes… And all the time that these perils go unacknowledged, they grow more powerful and dangerous.”
The good news about willful blindness is that it’s 100% self-imposed, and can be self-UN-imposed if a media person or news consumer so chooses. All anyone has to do is be brave enough to want to see - and tell - the other side of the story.
The other good news where news is concerned is that we do not live in communist China, and we as American news consumers have choices – tons of choices, actually – for where to get our news. We absolutely can still read or watch established news outlets, as long as we are well aware of their biases and methods of trying to pass opinion off as fact. It’s becoming more crucial than ever, though, that we supplement information from those outlets with news from other outlets as well.
What are our choices? Thanks to the internet, the sky’s the limit! BBC News? Telemundo? 60 Minutes Australia? EWTN News, for a Catholic spin on things? Do a quick Bing search of “international news sources” and you might find a list like this, from the University of Michigan, which seems like it can connect you to thousands of news outlets worldwide.
Another option is to stop worrying so much about being ridiculed and check out some of the independent news outlets traditional media has labeled as “conservative,” to see how journalists who think outside the typical news media box cover stories. I like National Review and The Federalist, but I’ve also recently been checking out OAN, Newsmax and The Epoch Times (the latter was among the first news outlets nationwide to break the video footage yesterday of Georgia poll workers “Staying Behind, Producing ‘Suitcases of Ballots’”); as long as you remember to look for factual information and steer clear of any stories that include ridicule, sarcasm or name-calling, your choices are almost limitless.
Yet another option is to follow independent journalists for specialized information on specific topics, like Alex Berenson (and, for Ohioans, another persistent COVID reporter named Jack Windsor). Or - right here on Substack - you can read the work of all kinds of other independent journalists as well - former Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald, former New York Magazine writer Andrew Sullivan and author and Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi. There’s also a sort of super-blog on this platform called The Dispatch which I’ve read a lot about as well; I’ve never read any of these but they get a lot of mentions amongst journalists… which may or may not be a good thing ; )
Bottom line? We have SO MANY CHOICES today. Why on earth are we letting the old-guard news media dictate what we do and do not know? Why are we letting them tell us that only “conservatives” or “conspiracy theorists” dare to seek out and understand different points of view? Last I checked, empathy is a trait all Americans can and should embrace, regardless of political affiliation or mental state. Also, last I checked - this isn’t 1965. We don’t have to sit, chained to our TV sets every night at 6 pm, hoping the three big networks will fill us in on what’s happening in the world. The world is at our fingertips, quite literally - just a few keypad taps or mouse clicks away.
Have you ever seen the movie, The Truman Show? It’s about a fictitious man – Truman Burbank – who is completely unaware that he’s the star in a reality show about his own life. Eventually, Truman finds out everyone in his world has been lying to him since he was born, creating the made-for-TV world in which he lives. When he starts figuring things out, his “friends” and “family” (almost all hired actors) try very hard to convince him that he’s crazy, and that his “life” is real, but ultimately, it just doesn’t work. Truman’s life, he comes to eventually realize, has been utterly manipulated from day one to benefit everyone else who watches, works on and produces the “Truman Show.”
This is exactly where we are right now with our current news media (and, I might add, social media). We are allowing ourselves to be made into real-life Trumans. Our established news media, which claims to want to inform us, exists today primarily to gently coax us into willful blindness and turn us into insatiable consumers who cannot tear ourselves away. This manipulation drives advertising dollars that pay the news people’s salaries. This manipulation has also made a whole lot of Americans overwhelmingly angry with each other during the pandemic - about masks, politics, quarantining, travel - you name it.
Maybe the best thing to do right now is to take our cues from Truman. At the very end of the movie, he makes the tough decision to walk away from the “show” – the only world he’s ever known - and see what lies beyond. He climbs in his sailboat, makes his way across the fake ocean (amidst fake “storms”), eventually finds the end of the sound stage where he’s always lived, opens the back door and just walks out into the real world. He leaves the “show” behind.
Thankfully, we don’t have to leave our whole world behind. But we can very easily set aside that copy of the NY Times or USA Today or Wall Street Journal or Washington Post that we always read. We can turn off the nightly network news or cable talk shows that we always watch, too. We can each make a point to explore a new-to-us news outlet each day or week instead - one that doesn’t make fun of anyone who thinks differently and just reports the straight facts, without leaving anything out. Like Truman, we can open up the door to the sound stage and set ourselves free - in this case, free to explore other opinions and ideas that go against the established news outlets’ narratives.