Perspective

It seems pretty clear that these days people see what they want to see.  I mean, things happen, and there is objective truth.  If you watched the whole thing you would form a given opinion.  The balance of the thing would leave a lot less latitude for impression than most of us are really used to these days.  It is a real shame the way people consume reality these days.

In practice now people don't see the thing.  They see coverage of the thing, or more likely they see commentary about the thing - or sometimes even commentary about the coverage of the thing.  We need more unfiltered thing, less commentary about the thing, and way, way less commentary about the coverage of the thing.

There was a hearing the other day with an FBI agent that has found his nuts in a vice over something he spelled out in text messages.  Folks on one side of the thing would have you believe that he was just boasting to someone he hoped to impress.  Folks on the other side would have you believe that he was the mastermind of a conspiracy to defame the President.

The American system has a belief that average people presented with facts can reach reasonable conclusions.  That's what "jury of your peers" is about.  Probably this is true.  Unfortunately life doesn't work that way anymore.

Mostly I listen to NPR and watch MSNBC.  I've always thought NPR was pretty close to the center in the editorial decisions about their coverage.  MSNBC is pretty clearly on the left, although at least from my POV they don't willfully misinterpret things or make things up.  Watching their coverage of the hearings you would think the committee members on the right were barely able to speak in complete sentences as they were rightfully put in their place by a career professional.

I have a minority of friends in my Facebook feed who watch FOX News and read Breitbart.  Fox is pretty clearly on the right and Brietbart... I don't know what Breitbart is, but it isn't news.  Looking at the articles these friends are reposting on their feeds you would think that the committee members drew and quartered the agent and exposed him to be a liar.

My own evaluation from the testimony I saw was that he was professional, unbiased, and foolish.

But the thing is, mostly, it doesn't matter what he was at all, or how the testimony went at all because the editors on either side of the argument edit what you see to tell the story they want told.  If the answers don't match the narrative they just show the questions, making the person posing the question into a hero regardless of the content of the discussion.  If the question does make the subject look awkward they pick the point in the questioning that looks the most unpolished and portray the questioner as a buffoon.  I even saw one commentator take time out to criticize a committee member's hair.

Facebook is a force multiplier for this kind of partisan editorialization.  Most folks never even see the skewed article.  What they do see is a splashy picture and sensational headline.  These things are great for energizing your team or putting a thumb in the eye of the other team.  What they don't do is get anyone any closer to understanding objective truth.  In a court of law anything like that would face an objection as prejudicial.  It isn't information to be evaluated by a jury of your peers, it is a cheer to be shouted from the sideline of the game.

Except it isn't a game.  We need better information.