Reflections
Does Versace make you think of the weather?
I read a friend’s social media reaction to social media news, and thought of the weather.
When I say the weather, I mean weather news.
My friend had shared the following article asking: Remember when Jennifer Lopez's Grammy Awards dress helped invent Google Image Search?1
My answer was “Sure do! Versace!” I recalled the moment, and therefore the designer. Besides, I work in IT when not selling avocados and lemongrass.
However, my friend’s answer was a question more foundational in nature:
“Why is this considered ‘news’?”
That is a good question. This question is what reminded me of the weather.
I mean, weather news.
You see, the weather is always news, because the weather always affects us. Weather as news is primarily local in nature, but weather appears on all news; local, national, and sometimes international.
Weather is always news, because weather is always relevant.
The weather news is the same, irrespective of what channel you view or website you check or app you use. Everyone agrees on what matters (temperature levels, precipitation levels, wind levels, etc.), providing a standard. Only the format differs while the content of what is happening remains the same.
Weather news content is always the same, because everyone agrees on what is important.
Meteorologists presenting the weather news meet education standards leveling the playing field, and so are formally designated as “expert.” Their information sources are likely the same. People all agree on what is important. Thus, meteorologists are incentivized to be accurate.
All expertise being equal, people likely choose those from whom they get their weather news based on presentation style. It is on that basis that quality is evaluated.
Meteorologists are all accepted as experts, so people evaluate and choose weather news based on presentation.
People all agree that weather is news, people agree on what is important about the weather, and since people accept all meteorologists as experts, people choose source based on presentation.
“Why is this considered ‘news’?”
The literal answer, of course, is that a sufficient number of people within the disparate realms of celebrity fashion and information technology formed a Venn diagram overlap of demographic cohorts that generated some cultural and economic synergy.
But the question asked begs the question of the universality of this news, compared to our “weather news” exemplar.
I do not know of another perfectly “universal news” like the weather. Sports comes closest. There are many people that do not consider sports to be news. However, once one likes sports, sports news is much like weather news.
Within this realm where all people agree that sports is news, differing only by sport, people agree on what is important about sports (following certain rules, scoring points within those rules, etc.), and people accept all commentators, usually ex-athletes, as experts, selecting source based on presentation.
Now consider this new template of “universal news” we’ve created within the context of politics and political news, for example.
Is it valid for us to assume that our prioritization of presentation style for our “universal news” exemplar might indicate we’d prioritize presentation style for political news?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.” Then, is it logical to conclude that this bias towards presentation includes a bias towards those sources mirroring our own views?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.” Then, is it logical to conclude that, appealing to our egos by having the audacity to agree with us, most of us assign these sources “expert” status, lest we denigrate our own position?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.” Then, is it logical to conclude that some people may view those not sharing their views as uninformed?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.” Then, is it logical to assume that we would listen more to and identify more with those people who not only ostensibly share our views but to whom we assign “expert” status in their specific area?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.”
Yes, this states the obvious.
Yet I am at a loss to understand how people find it so easy to identify with people on radio, television, or social media, until I consider the impact of group dynamics, shared beliefs, and that beliefs bind and blind.23
Other than ideology, there is little or nothing in common between those talking politics on radio, television, or internet, and those of us who give these people their jobs.
Income alone illustrates. In 2021, the annual mean wage for Americans was $58,260.4 In 2021 the average news commentator made $48,370.5 However, we do not form our opinions around average news readers; we gravitate to "The Stars."
At $6 and 7 million per year, respectively, Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow have the life problems of people who make $2884 to $3365 an hour.6
For the average American, politics reflect needs; for Tucker and Rachel, politics reflect wants. For the average American, politics is a necessity; for Tucker and Rachel, politics is a luxury.
Given these disparate lifestyles, how likely is it that people on radio, television, or internet would present issues in ways that most of us can relate to in our daily lives? Does the message they convey become the actual terms of our discourse on any issue?
“Why is this considered ‘news’?”
Let us again consider political news within the framework of our “universal news.”
Is it true that people all agree that politics is news?
No, it is not. Within this realm where all people agree that politics is news, like sports, is it logical to conclude that people agree on what is important about politics?
No, it is not.
We now leave the realm of news akin to weather and sports, and find ourselves on more parochial grounds.
Once people agree on what is important about politics, is it logical to conclude that people accept all politicians as experts?
No, it is not. People not only believe politicians range from expert to uninformed, but also deem expert those politicians reflecting their beliefs, and proclaim uninformed those politicians with different beliefs.
If we choose political news that reflects our views because those sources are ones we see as expert, is it logical to assume we will engage with those with whom we disagree because, in our opinion, they are uninformed?
No, it is not.
Given this lack of conversation, is it logical to assume we can know if we are right or wrong?
No, it is not.
“Why is this considered ‘news’?”
We now come to the raison d’être of the question at hand, that of channeling our shared exhaustion.
I suspect that this question was asked, not because entertainment isn’t relevant to my friend, rather because given all that can be considered news, why elevate our visual recollections of a diva? Hence, the turn to political news to illustrate the point.
Again, we know the literal answer: Culture plus Capitalism can lead to Profit. I’m sure many “clicks” were generated, and I contributed my share, feeding an algorithm that generated coin for some business.
But how many of us also feel exhausted, and sigh with a heavy breath as we contemplate more informational pablum presented for our consideration?
“Please give us your attention one more time,” said media.
My friend asked, “Why?”
Our news today has a volume of information flow that is more fire hose than garden hose. We are really only capable of one thing at a time, including paying attention.7
Is it logical to conclude that when one is overwhelmed, one’s decision-making suffers?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.”
Is it possible that for some the reaction to the sheer profusion of information offered as news is ennui?
Let us assume the answer is “Yes.”
“Why is this considered ‘news’?”
Below the level of “universal news,” I believe we all process so-called “parochial news,” and political news in particular, in two ways, sometimes concurrently.
We do decide something is relevant, agree on what is important, accept a set of information sources as expert, and therefore choose source based on presentation.
We also choose political information sources based on presentational style because they agree with us, espouse the positions of conversational gatekeepers since this saves us time thinking given the sheer profusion of news, and lack an understanding of what is important due to self-created ideological echo chambers, the result of our Like-seeks-Like behavior.
Evidently, news is all about presentation. It is the only thing to which we give credence.
Before we externalize blame and consider the impact of tracts, newspapers, radio, television, cable, the internet, or social media on the coarsening of our political discourse, we must first consider that we are hoist by our own innate petard.
This is our fault.
Listening is hard because we all like the sound of our own voices and therefore like to talk (or write).
Listening to others with whom we disagree is harder.
When news is universal, there is concord.
When news is parochial, there is discord. Our shortcomings become revealed. After all, parochial is defined as “…limited in range or scope.”8
Is it logical to assume all of us are a reflection of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in that we know less about politics that we think we do, but don’t think we do?9
THAT is a good question.