Indelible

The Mexican Standoff

[originally posted in "The Mexican Standoff" ]

Staying informed has proven more and more difficult the older I get. Not only are there more readily available news outlets, but my philosophy toward the notions of truth and accuracy has been in constant flux for nearly ten years. I only took what amounts to roughly a year of philosophy/humanities, but it was enough for me to stop and consider the way in which my opinions were formed. I didn't jump on the hyperliberal bandwagon that appeals to so many youngsters. In fact, by some estimates, FIU is considered almost mildly conservative. Sure, the occasional radical would take to the center fountain and spout off (I swear that pun was not intended), but the place never really had rallies or such. It was actually kind of peaceful and makes me glad I ended up there. Anyway, I have spent the last few years looking at the various facets of media and have come to realize that I cannot choose a side when it comes to mainstream versus alternative media. My instinct has been telling me for a while to trust neither one, but I also know that in order to stay informed I have to make the decision when it comes to believing something. As I like to tell myself, thinking is not the enemy. I can keep dreaming about that, though, and I'm here to tell you why.

Many people like to discuss the lies and stunts the mainstream media pulls. This has caused an uptick in interest in alternative media, one that's been incrementally increasing as the internet has evolved. The interest was fairly small back in 2006 (when I first started keeping an eye on any alternative media) but has expanded a good amount as time has gone by. One could say it began its rise with the 9/11 truthers (something I have also investigated), and I certainly can see that angle. The things that's finally gotten me to try to articulate my distrust with the vast majority of media, though, was the Sandy Hook hoax tidbits. It provided a good framework because of its emotional pull on people and the issues that arose from the mainstream's desire to get the story out before the dust settled. That's not to say I hadn't been thinking about the dual sides of the media prior to this. As my Turd of the Year entry showed, I've been expressing my doubts about the tactics used by alternative media. However, Sandy Hook gave me a great opportunity to show that the tactics used by the far left are sometimes similar (if not the same) as the tactics found on the far right. The primary difference I've seen between the two (besides the issues on which they choose to focus) is the tone to employ. The far right likes to invoke fear; the far left goes for guilt. Even so, they manage to generate two diverse types of reactions with very similarly provocative tactics.

Let's take a look at a couple pieces of Sandy Hook hoax pieces. The first is this write up   by James Tracy. I've put in a call to verify that he did indeed post this article, but I've yet to receive a callback. One thing that alternative media reporters and outlets tend to do (in a measure to distance themselves from conspiracy theorists) is make sure their sources have good credentials. The Tracy piece is actually an interesting anomaly in the Sandy Hook truther bits because it's authored by an educator and media critic with a history of more liberal writings, a sound contrast to the notion that the Sandy Hook truthers are predominantly pro-gun fans that may or may not be completely sane or logical. Even with Tracy's unusual position and his eye for careful research, his piece does not hold up particularly well. From a structural standpoint, his argument starts to come apart at the end. It sets Tracy up to get almost defensive in his writing, as evidenced by the following line:

"Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic'and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama's political platform."

First of all, this is the first time the Feds' presence at the school is even referenced. Second, to say that gun control is a key piece of Obama's platform without a source to an Obama speech confirming that notion screams conjecture regardless of the pseudo-caveat "it is not unreasonable to suggest". Additional reading of this article also reveals some weasel words and a use of active voice that is employed to drill a particular idea into a reader's head. While we strive for active voice in fiction to engage the reader, this practice has a different outcome when applied to non-fiction/opinion writing. I could sit here all day and point out issues with this piece (including the fact that Huffington Post was cited as a source three times in the course of the writing, and HuffPo has been riddled with criticism about its investigative/reporting methods since its inception), but it would all boil down to writing that ensnares the reader but ultimately leads them on to a particular opinion without allowing for the reader to form his/her own opinions.

The other piece I'd like to show is is visual. For this, allow me to direct you to Xeroflux  , specifically the second photo after the videos. Warning: Heavy metal music autoplays on this site. I like the song, but most of you will probably want to hit the mute button on your computer first. Anyway, with visual components, thers's a lot more to explore. In fact, when I was analyzing this photo, I opted for a more complicated explanation than what was needed. I thought that photo involved a face swap. When I discussed this over Facebook with Brent (who's worked with the actual Photoshop program since I have not), we determined that the resemblance between Emilie Parker and the girl posing with Obama is a matter of coincidence. They look like they could be sisters, but there are differences. First, the dresses aren't exactly the same (with different shades of red); the hairstyles are different (living girl has a slight bend to the ends of her hair that Emilie lacks); and the eye shapes don't match to be a face swap. One could argue that the face swap was made using a picture that is not readily available. The thing to to keep in mind is that other photo would need to be matched with the lighting and angle of the body in the Obama picture. After all, the picture of Emilie was taken in a studio with what was most likely halogen lighting while the Obama picture appears to be a music room with fluorescent lighting. The lighting sources are different enough to affect the appearance of skin tone, another thing that does not match between the photos. On top of that, the photo on the left would have had some retouching done, so someone doing a face swap would have to know how to undo that kind of work. Face swaps are a mixed bag, and I actually wondered if that's what happened in this case. In my opinion, the eye shape is what makes me think that not only is this not a face swap but also a different child altogether. That's not to say face swaps haven't been employed in Sandy Hook hoax pictures. This is the only photo set I've done any comparison work on, and I can tell you right now that the resizing work done on these pictures makes analyzing them a real challenge. Perhaps resizing is being used to cover any Photoshopping tracks by the truthers? You have to admit that's really good foresight on their part.

So what does this have to do with debating the perks and pitfalls of mainstream and alternative media? This particular case has made me consider what kind of skills it takes to analyze the media. I'm finding it takes quite a bit of skill and a thorough eye, things I've honed in my working life for the last several years and even when reviewing items here on WDC. For written works, an understanding of linguistic traps   and logical fallacies are the two main tools a media critic must have in his/her tooblox when reading anything from a media outlet. Other tools worth having include an expansive vocabulary, a grasp of the fog index/how to calculate it, and a list of sources known to provide accurate and credible information in a consistent manner over a long period of time. Visual analysis is a little different and takes more time to learn. The only reason I'd want to learn anything about Photoshop is for this purpose. Really, any sort of visual arts training is beneficial. Aside from photography, I have studied basic graphic design and have seen different examples of lighting. The other tool to have from a mental standpoint is a good knowledge of facial construction. Yes, I know that most people can figure out the basic features of human faces. What I mean in this case is knowing various eye shapes/sizes; cheekbone structure; skin texture; scar identification; and other more subtle aspects of facial features. This kind of knowledge is great for determining face swaps and other potential changes to photos of people. When choosing to study media at this level, a person decides to accept the consequences of not taking a side and being more neutral than Switzerland. I think this level of accountability must be exercised for the alternative media and those who call themselves media watchdogs along with the mainstream media. To butcher the hell out of an Alan Moore quote, who watches the watchdogs? After all, the watchdogs have just as much of an agenda as the mainstream media players; after all, they get into this business because they often fear they have something to lose.

The big problem arises when one finds something wrong with both the mainstream and alternative media outlets. What was once a debate between two sides becomes a Mexican standoff when the media critic steps into the fray to call out both sides. Making the decision to question this two-sided misinformation campaign is one person's very brave and very lonely entrance into the field where there are already two entities armed and ready to rumble. That dissident will make everyone stop and not want to shoot. It becomes a question of who blinks first before the guns come out, and the critic hopes he/she can duck fast enough to get in a shot without being killed. Who would the critic shoot first, though? In this very general picture, it's hard to say. It would have to come down to the critic deciding who appears to be closer to the truth before stepping into the fray. This takes a measure of faith, a concept that is lacking in these third side critics because such people are few and far between, let alone united. Then again, very few people are willing to take a stand against two groups in the interest of fair implementation of a tactic or law. I remember this past autumn when the constitutional amendment on defining marriage appeared on the Minnesota ballot. There was a church who hung a banner on their walls facing a busy street that stated "People of faith vote no." I convinced mi amor to report it as a potential violation of the separation of church and state to Americans United. AU eventually said it was not worth pursuing, but I still felt compelled to report it because of the banner's use of active voice and the use of the word "vote" (which is a red flag per IRS code for 501(c)(3) organizations). I opted to be the watchdog in an instance where it would not have been popular since many violations of the separation of church and state center on far right displays of such violations.I imagine that being the watchdog of the watchdogs would be a repeat of that situation magnified a couple hundred times. I'm itching to call out the mainstream and the alternative, but I'm not stepping into that battle until I decide what the least of my evils is going to be. Given that I have a lot of trouble with the notion of faith, I'll probably end up arming myself up to my eyeballs with examples of linguistic traps, altered photos and long streams of commentary on the logical fallacies employed to convey a point. Then it will become a matter of hoping to hell and back that my research won't leave so inflexible that I won't be able to dodge the bullets. Still, I see the Mexican standoff in my future. It's not a question of if but when I will jump into the fray.