Free Speech, Bias, and Manipulation
Free speech supports better assessment of the situation. Bias is a normal human phenomenon. Manipulation subverts the rule of law based on an objective consensus reality.
FREE SPEECHCENSORSHIPTHE MEDIABIASMANIPULATIONJUROR-MINDSET
6/27/20263 min read
Bias in the media is normal. We all have biases. Some people try to have awareness of their biases, to disclose them, to represent various perspectives, or to use less-polarized language. Some don't.
Problems occur when people try to hide their bias or manipulate others with their choice of language. If the speech of others, in the form of data, observations, and testimonies of their personal experience, is blocked, we are less informed when we make decisions. If our speech is blocked, we feel mistreated and unable to share what we think is important information. When speech is blocked, there are fewer data points available when making decisions. When consuming media, we need to decide whether we are being manipulated. When free speech is censored, we have fewer data points with which to make our assessment regarding manipulation. I think you see the problem.
In a courtroom, the jurors are presented with evidence. When jurors deliberate, they talk about what they saw, what was credible to them and why, and then they try to come to agreement about what really happened, based on the evidence. None of the jurors witnessed the alleged crime. In the mind of the juror before the trial, the event effectively did not exist. It is the job of the attorneys to present enough credible evidence to convince the jury that the alleged crime happened.
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
When we watch video recordings, we are like the jurors, viewing possible evidence. The volume of information available in the social media wilderness is not subject to the same judge-monitored process that unfolds in a courtroom. We watchers see and hear reports about alleged events that we did not directly experience. Unscrupulous people understand this and know that they can get us to believe in events that did not happen, and they can present alleged events in a certain light to incite fear, anger, or any motivating emotion they choose.
We are all biased, that is, we interpret our own direct experience, which is a unique process that occurs within the privacy of our individual minds. Even though we are biased, some of us are manipulative and seek to subvert how others experience the world. Manipulation occurs when the media is controlled, cherry-picking reports, censoring war footage, and presenting opinions as facts. Manipulation occurs when speech is censored, presenting a scrubbed picture that doesn't represent reality. Manipulation occurs when justice is denied.
In considering the subject of free speech, normal bias, and intentional manipulation, what follows is some food for thought. It's for you to decide if you think these common phrases are manipulative. Context matters of course, so this is just a thought experiment.
"Keep the world safe and secure." Translation 1: Set up military bases in the backyard of other nations. Intimidate some nations and kill people in others with impunity. Translation 2: Ensure that the US military and the industries that support it have access to fuel and resources to build weapons. America is safer when we control the resources. Translation 3: Spy on people everywhere. Be so clever that we discover the would-be attacker before they even strike. Kill them without a trial before they commit a crime. Translation 4: Provide a dignified presence of honor around the world that is poised to respond to injustice.
"American energy dominance." Translation 1: Support American oil, green tech, and nuclear companies to freely innovate and provide abundant energy for our democracy, the most fair and just system that guarantees our individual liberty. Translation 2: The US Military is a dog, let off a leash to bite around the world by dropping bombs to take resources and hijack trade routes from the people of those lands. The US military and US corporations aren't subject to the laws of other lands. The US is free to dominate other people and lands outside of the homeland.
"National security interests." Translation 1: We are concerned about people from other countries who might steal what we worked so hard for and deserve. We don't want other countries to bomb us. Translation 2. We want to ensure that the US government and US corporations have access to all of the resources we want, even if that means killing people or stealing what others have worked for and stewarded.
"Nuclear Dust." Translation 1: Enriched uranium. Translation 2: A moniker DJT first gave to rubble while bragging about a US B2 bomber strike on a civilian nuclear power plant and enrichment facility during an unprovoked attack in an unconsitutional war against Iran. (source)
"America first." I leave it to you to ponder this one.
As you assess our safety, security, and the strategies we use to achieve these goals, you could try taking a break from the news for several days. What is your direct day-to-day experience of safety where you live or where you travel? Have you personally experienced a threat? Have you directly spoken with people who have witnessed the many regions in the world that we hear about on the news? What happened to them? Do they think they are secure? How do you know how secure we are? Are we secure? Who benefits if we believe there is an imminent threat?
