Media: How Dishonesty Distorts Political Discourse

When political socialites hear quotes from the media, we jump into action.  We all know who the political socialites are; they are people like me, who scour the internet seeking information and engaging in political arguments at every turn.  We rely on the 24 hour news cycle for a constant feed to our addiction.  If we see information we agree or disagree with, we Tweet, Digg, Stumble, Facebook, Post, Repost, Forward, Google +, Reddit, Pin It, Press it, Tumble and more it.

The problem is, what if the media who reports this information is inaccurate, or worse yet, dishonest about the information they are reporting?  If the media cannot serve as the filter, then whom can we rely upon? Ourselves and nothing more.  When quotes are taken out of context, it warps political dialogue and accomplishes little other than angering the opposition or firing up your base. Apparently, political socialites have a base as well; they are the followers, Tweeps, Likers, you get the picture.  Before we spread the fire, understand what we are spreading.  There are simple things we can do to improve the flow of information and opinions:

• First, read the entire transcript or watch (if a video is available) to understand the entire context of the speech or interaction being quoted.
• Second, think about what was being said from a non-political perspective and try to imagine the other side of the coin (yes, this is sometimes hard to do).
• Third, if publishing original pieces, consult a trusted colleague of the opposing viewpoint. We need to work together to give accurate information; sometimes our own bias gets in the way. This makes us no better than MSNBC or Fox reporting slanted information that is misleading.

This week has exemplified the struggles our new media age now endures.  Everyone strives to be first to the story, relaying information that is not always fact checked or even reviewed for accuracy. With countless sites flowing and disseminating information to the masses, bad reporting can be like wildfire.  This week both Governor Andrew Cuomo and former Governor Mike Huckabee are the latest casualties.

There is no doubt the each was speaking to engage their respective audiences.  However, opposition media took both of their quotes, out of context and without regard to meaning and unleashed a firestorm on the internet, TV, Radio, etc.  Social Media platforms erupted into hate filled, fiery arguments on both sides of the aisles.  It became a rhetorical war of sorts.  Why?  Each of these men's quotes were taken out of context and interpreted for the worst on each side.

Governor Huckabee, speaking at the RNC's winter meeting, stated the following:

“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them out to be.”

Left leaning media immediately reported that Huckabee had said "women cannot control their libido." This came from the likes of NBC News’s Kasie Hunt and CNN’s Dana Bash, and others such as the Huffington Post’s Sabrina Siddiqui.  All of these journalists are respected in their own right, yet none bothered to clarify the actual statement or context.  It was inferred that Huckabee believed that women cannot control their libido.  In reality, Huckabee was stating that Democrats seem to believe this.  There is a big difference here and it should not have been spread in this way.  A quick Google search shows the magnitude of this misrepresentation of his actual statement.  Add in all the social media and numbers are probably staggering.

Governor Andrew Cuomo was a victim, in his own right, of the same sort of jumping to conclusions. His statement left a little more open for interpretation, but the result was the same.  Cuomo stated:

"Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves," he said. "Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."

Initial reactions included an explosion from the right, myself included.  However, upon further review, it becomes debatable.  Cuomo was stating that far-right politicians cannot win in New York because it is a moderate state.  This, in itself, could be debatable, but that is not the point.  When reviewing this statement within the full context of the interview, it becomes clearer.  Could he have chosen his words more carefully? Absolutely.

The question becomes, at what point do we stop criticizing the rhetoric and move on to the real problems?  At some point, we are just spinning our wheels in a rhetorical mud bog.  As political socialites, we choose the interpretation that fits our needs.  However, it does little to advance political discourse in this country.  If we want to advance our political agenda, the best way is through honest, thoughtful, and enlightened discussion.  Stirring up hatred for the opposition without cause or concern for our own dignity and honesty in reporting, can only serve to undermine the messages we bring to political discourse.