Is the right wing media's manipulation of identity politics actually intersted in the truth?

(Disclaimer: Since I do not know much about the right wing media and I do not much fact checking myself, I am just going to assume that the right wing media is wrong concerning identity politics in this Blog entry.)

I do not know whether the right wing media is actually interested in the truth. Of course, at least in the case of big TV platforms like Fox News, money might be involved in publishing right wing statements. But there might also be another reason for the right wing media to draw the conclusions they draw: The hardships concerning knowing what is true and what is not.

The chance that Fox News is influenced by financial interests is high. Fox News is probably, at least partly, financed by corporations. Furthermore, there are a lot of people in America who have values that are more conservative than those represented by the mainstream media, which makes representing those values in public a lucrative business model.

But the financial aspect might only be a part behind the right wing people's views. Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that people have problems with sorting out what is true and what is not. Today, there are all kinds of different platforms with different opinions, especially on social media and YouTube. One hears all different kinds of claims from all different kinds of sources. And this might not just be a problem for the consumers of the news media but also for the people working in this sector. This possiblility becomes especially important when we do not look at big Platforms like Fox News but on the kind of right wing media that is probably not financed by anybody aside from its viewers (right wing YouTube channels for instance).

The problem with this high number of  different news sources is the following: Almost nobody has the time to fact check everything he/she hears and almost nobody is educated enough to be able to really find out what is 100% true information. This situation makes a lot of people, including some people belonging to right wing, just believe what he/she wants to believe.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Growing up among a generation considering it as a dream job, my idea of a journalist consists of a highly ambitious person that is out to change the world. He (or she) is driven by the urge of seeking the truth and delivering it to everyone. Of course, a good journalist would always try his (or her) best to remain objective.

But then there are also people like the radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. They either see the world from their right-wing perspective and reflect a politician’s utterance in a deformed way so they can believe their own lies in the end. Or they simply alter a politician’s utterance in a way that fits their own biases which suits their manipulative ways of shaping people’s minds. I can not even tell which is worse.

 

So the given question if „the right wing’s media manipulation of identity politics“ was „actually interested in the truth“ somehow gives the answer itself. Where there is manipulation, the absolute truth can not be found. They are enemies. Opposites. Truth and manipulation can not coexist. 

Interestingly, the expression „truth“ is often being used by religious cults that are known for manipulation of their (potential) members. Mind controllers tend to give themselves an image of the only group of people that has found pure truth. But, to say it in the words of Oscar Wilde’s Algernon („The Importance of Being Earnest“): „The truth is barely pure and never simple“.

Finding truth is just as complicated as defining it. Anyways, I dare say that no one who manipulates others is actually interested in the truth. Such a person is only interested in selfish goals or in supporting those of the political parties or other groups they believe in. This is a conclusion which has already caused enormous cracks in my glorious teenage vision of journalism years ago. With freedom of the press comes the opportunity for the so-called fourth estate to use its power for spreading personal ideas concerning political biases. Truth is anything but the right wing media’s interest.

The USA, Land of Immigration

When talking about a topic that touches your heart so deeply, like the so-called “Muslim ban”, it is hard to express all you have to say and at the same time keep it formal and academic.

When I think about the immigration system in the US, what comes to mind are questions that are deeply rooted in the main issue of this topic: What actually is an American? Can you become a real American? These questions arose from a time long before Trump, Obama or Bush. Everybody knows the history of the young continent Amerika. In 1492 Christopher Columbus discovered a land that he thought was India. Soon he would meet the Native inhabitants which he called “Indians”, unaware of the fact that he just named a people that would soon be hunted down and killed in sacrifice of the new population that would soon spread all over the once peaceful ground.

In 1607 the era of immigration, as I want to call it, began. People saw the potential in America to become a land of not only religious freedom, but a place that gives you the chance to live a life where you are free to be who you are. This movement of people starting to immigrate into the free world, calling themselves Americans, posed the question to many writers and philosophers what actually makes an American. They were asking themselves if there were some kind of requirements that have to be met to call oneself an American.

If you want to go deeper you have to ask yourself whether there is actually something behind the distinction between the country you were born and the way your personality was built. Your character is made of experiences, upbringing, education, and many other outside influences that can vary so much depending on the people around. Nobody is better just because they were born in a country like America or Germany etc.

With all that said, I wonder how someone can act so harshly believing that people from certain countries and beliefs might pose a threat simply because they were born in the “wrong” circumstances. The halt on the immigration program in the USA is destroying people’s lives instead of giving people a new chance like it used to after it was first discovered.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by a referendum

The British decided by a narrow majority. But in the end the decision was clear: Brexit comes. This not only raises the question of whether how the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU is to be constructed in the future, but also of how to reasonable use political instruments such as a referendum. Should there have been made a referendum on such a complex issue like the Brexit? It seems like slogans, threats and lies of the populists have influenced the decision of the British population.

The vote on the Brexit clearly shows that the decision of the people deviated strongly from the positions of the representatives. 51,9 % of the population voted for the Brexit. In the House of Commons only 30 % of the representatives voted for it. This difference is remarkable. It demonstrates that a more rational approach can lead to other results.

It is difficult to inform about complex themes. That is why populists have an advantage in a referendum. A person who wants to explain why the EU was built, namely because of avoiding war due to economic, social, cultural and political interdependencies, needs more words and can less play with emotions. However, populists use slogans and imperatives like “Britain first” or “Stop refugees”. They do not need many words, but populists play with the emotions and even more with the fear people have. That strongly influences political decision. We can sadly observe this phenomenon worldwide at the moment.

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with politics any more. People rather trust slogans and even worse lies because they are easier to understand than that they look into a theme more carefully and try to form their own opinion. That is why a complex issues such as the Brexit should not be decided by a referendum.

PPACA

Aaron's Edit:

The PPACA, The Patient Protection and Affordable [W - ^ Care] Act, mostly known as “Obamacare”, is (an extension to) [Exp – ^ a regulation of] the U.S. healthcare system, (enforced) [W - ^enacted into law] in 2010 through [foc - ^the efforts of] President Obama [foc - ^ and Democrats in Congress].

The regulation contains a long list of health-related provisions that began in 2010. Key requirements were intended to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, (that) [Gr – non-identifying relative clause - ^which] (will) [T/Asp - ^would] lower health care costs and improve system productivity, and to eliminate (practices that denial of) [Exp,M - ^the practice of denying] coverage due to pre-existing conditions (. As) [Gr – sentence fragment - ^, as] long as there (is) [T/Asp - ^was] no other coverage provided ((e.g.) [Gr-Reg - ^ for example,] by the employer).

[Exp - awkward transition; requires some transitional phrasing; also, the paragraph is too short] (With-in) [Sp -  ^Within] the reform are different (categories) [W,coh - ^ tiers of coverage for insurance plans]: Silver, Gold and Platinum status. Of course all categories offer the essential health benefits, just the costs vary. [E – actually this is misleading/ambiguous; the plans do indeed provide all essential benefits, but the percentage of out-of-pocket expenses s higher for the lower-tier plans, meaning that someone who cannot pay for extra benefits out of pocket will indeed not receive all of the benefits that someone with a higher-tier plan would]

Additionally [P - ^,]  PPACA assures Medicaid for people that live (below a defined poverty line.) [E,foc - ^ 133 percent above the federally defined poverty line.] [No new paragraph]

Furthermore, people (, who are above that defined line, but with low incomes) [Px2-no commas, restrictive clause; Gr,E - ^ whose income is above that threshold but still low] have benefitted through subsidization (,) [P] and (with the co-insurance of children) [Prep; Exp, M - ^ through the opportunity to co-insure their children until they reach  26 years of age].

(But not just families, this Act provided also advantages for workers this Act. Because) [Exp; P,Gr – sentence fragment – ^ Not just families but also workers have benefited from this Act, as] companies/employers that (had) [T/Asp – have] more than fifty workers have to provide the lowest (insurance minimum) [WO - ^minimum insurance] (bronze-level) (for) [Prep - ^ to] their employees. If they (reclined) [W,T/Asp;P – ^ refuse,] those companies (would) [T/Asp] get charged with a tax that is used for financing the PPACA-reforms.

 (Another advantage for the U.S. citizen is , that also the insurance companies are forced to change their program, as long as someone needs insurance and can pay for it, they have to take them. No matter to medical constitutions or pre-existing illnesses.) [Rep -  you metion this benefit earlier]

Although this Act (was) [T/Asp - ^has been] a success, as it [T/Asp - ^has] helped millions of people and reduced the number of uninsured (citizen) [Gr-ag - ^citizens], still the population is not completely happy with it. (It has until today been) [Exp - ^ Even today it remains] highly controversial. So in the end [P - ^,] we [T/Asp - ^ will] have to wait and see how [St/Reg - ^President] Trump (will change) [T/Asp - ^changes] this Act and (destroy) [Gr-ag - ^destroys] America. [This ending is inappropriately caustic and politically charged; even if you wish to unequivocally state your opinion in an academic text, there are standards of decorum that should prevent one from making such a blanket accusation. Especially as President Trump, his policies—or potentially the dearth thereof—have not been discussed at all in this entry, nothing merits disparaging the man or the policies as you do here.]

Original Post: 

The PPACA, The Patient Protection and Affordable Act, mostly known as “Obamacare”, is an extension to the U.S. healthcare system, enforced in 2010 through President Obama.

The regulation contains a long list of health-related provisions that began in 2010. Key requirements were intended to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, that will lower health care costs and improve system productivity, and to eliminate practices that include rescission and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. As long as there is no other coverage provided (e.g. by the employer).

With-in the reform are different categories: Silver, Gold and Platinum status. Of course all categories offer the essential health benefits, just the costs vary.

Additionally PPACA assures Medicaid for people that live below a defined poverty line.

Furthermore, people, who are above that defined line, but with low incomes have benefitted through subsidization, and with the co-insurance of children.

But not just families, this Act provided also advantages for workers this Act. Because companies/employers that had more than fifty workers have to provide the lowest insurance minimum (bronze-level) for their employees. If they reclined those companies would get charged with a tax that is used for financing the PPACA-reforms.

Another advantage for the U.S. citizen is, that also the insurance companies are forced to change their program, as long as someone needs insurance and can pay for it, they have to take them. No matter to medical constitutions or pre-existing illnesses.

Although this Act was a success, as it helped millions of people and reduced the number of uninsured citizen, still the population is not completely happy with it. It has until today been highly controversial. So in the end we have to wait and see how Trump will change this Act and destroy America.