A Non-Emotional Response Regarding “Fake News”

This post relates to a recent Tweet by Neil deGrasse Tyson. As an initial matter, I must say that I almost did not respond to this Tweet because I am female. I do not wish for my words to be interpreted as agreeing with Mr. deGrasse Tyson on a personal level. My comments are strictly professional and related solely to the analysis provided herein.

Before I begin my analysis, I wish to state that I share the view that deGrasse Tyson’s decision to reference the recent tragic shootings in his Tweet was a poor choice and insensitive. The victims and their families are still grieving over this senseless loss of life. In mentioning the matter here, I certainly do not wish to add to their pain and suffering. To the contrary, in fact, I wish to extend my sincere and heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families.

_____________

Separate and apart from any reference to these recent unfortunate events, I do wish to offer comments on the analytical aspects of deGrasse Tyson’s statements. On this basis, my professional opinion is as follows:

Similar to deGrasse Tyson, I too believe that emotions frequently prevent an intellectual discussion of important societal matters. I also agree that, in order to permit deep and meaningful analysis of these issues, we must break through the “emotional layer.”

In a very real sense, rampant and unchallenged emotion is blinding people from getting to the root cause of issues and problems. In some of my writing, I have referred to this phenomenon as “emotionalism” — referring to when emotionally-charged words and analysis serve as barriers to deep and meaningful intellectual discussion.

For example, as an African-American woman who does not think along the lines suggested by the polling data for my demographic profile, it is often very challenging to have a non-emotional discussion on a range of political topics. As an example, consider the following issue.

One of my personal beliefs is that the media (as in the media corporations that own and control “the media”) engages in practices to create “big” stories, thereby increasing their ratings and ability to sell more advertising at higher rates.

My view is that, in some cases, some of these big, national, news stories serve as “distractions.” When these big media stories happen, huge segments of the population start paying attention to what’s going on. People are watching, reading, and listening to news reports and news stories all day for for several days.

Considering the financial aspects of “the media,” one could make the argument that “the media [corporations]” have a financial incentive to promote the biggest stories that will generate the biggest audiences.

From a production standpoint, this model makes sense. It allows the news corporations to “feed” the maximum amount of people using the least amount of “product” (i.e., news stories are created, managed, bought, and sold like supply).

Regardless of the title, label, or description, one could argue that the masses are being fed a diet of “profit-driven” news stories by profit-driven media corporations. The “biggest news stories” — the ones that make the big news corporations the most money — are also the ones that incite the most hate, harm, and fear.

I am aware that some people use other terms like “fake news” or “sensationalized news” to express a similar opinion.

In my view, however, referring to these news stories as “profit-driven” is a non-emotional way of expressing the same sentiment. Referring to some of these media tactics as “profit driven” would likely resonate with a broader audience, including other oppressed and underrepresented segments of the population that are also being targeted by this profit-driven media strategy.

In my mind, these “profit-driven” national news stories are like “red herrings” — they are distractions that prevent people from engaging in a deep and critical analysis of the unfortunate conditions taking place right here in our backyards — in our local communities.