Season 5, Episode Eight June 11, 2023

 S5EEight

Hello! Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! I’m your host, Bob Woodley. I always wanted to be a mad genius, but it turns out I’m just mad. On this episode, we’ll hear about The Taj Mahal, the frenzy for American Independence, banned books, the place where nothing is banned, and more. Plus, the failure of the media. But first (Not the Headlines)!

Hey, there you are! I had a hard time seeing you through all the smoke coming from Canadian forest fires, blocking out the sun and obliterating the mountains that surround the Susquehanna Valley. It’s good to see clearly again! You look great!

One of the reasons I started the Listening Tube is because of all the media manipulation I saw that I wasn’t sure other people were noticing. Granted, I don’t notice a lot of things when they’re right in front of my face, but my journalism training kept setting off alarm bells about subtle ways the news was presented to us to advance a narrative and skip over anything that was harmful to it. With today’s media, you have to ask your self what they aren’t telling you while you’re wondering if they’re telling you the truth in the first place. But the media doesn’t just stop there. The media uses itself as a catalyst to create perceptions. Now, we all know that President Biden rarely takes questions from the press. Even when he does, they’re scripted. We know this because he’s been photographed with cheat sheets in his hand telling him on whom to call and what the question will be and what the answer is. Biden’s team knows it’s got a problem putting Joe in front of a reporter who might ask a tough question. The public sees it, and we begin to question why he doesn’t take questions. It’s not a good look for a politician to not take questions from reporters, let alone the public. Well, knowing that they can’t coach up ol’ Joe to shake hands and kiss babies again, how can his team use this liability to their advantage? Well, you create the perception that your opponent doesn’t take questions. So when team Biden looks at Joe’s opponents, they quickly realize that strategy won’t work on the guy who’s leading the pack, former President Donald Trump. He loves to take questions from anybody. Reporters, voters, people on the street, hand puppets. Hell, ask Donald Trump a question and there’s a good chance you’ll get tired of his answer before he’s done saying it. He’ll talk your ear off. Clearly, team Biden can’t use the strategy on him. So who’s next? Ron Desantis. It’s not too late to pin the label on him. Besides, the press had already made it seem he was unlikable, even by Republicans. But when it turned out he was likable, the legacy media realized another angle was needed. They had to pull out the “hostile to the press” angle, and they would start by pinning one of Joe Biden’s liabilities on Desantis by declaring him to be the one ignoring the questions of the people. So how do they get the people to think Desantis won’t answer their questions? They get a reporter to ask him why he won’t. And it doesn’t matter what his response is, for the answer to the question is irrelevant. All they need is a reporter to ask the question, then they can claim that had to be asked. They never go on to justify why they have to ask that question, and it doesn’t matter if he’s answered every question anyone ever had. Once one reporter asks a political candidate why he won’t answer the questions from the people, the press can use the question itself to perpetuate the myth and create the desired perception. And it’s reached the point where the press doesn’t even care if it’s obvious. Case in point: A recent story by Saleno Zito highlighted on Media Confidential tells how a reporter from the Associated Press (which, by the way, used to be a very reliable source and the maker of rules via the AP style guide, which was a sort of media Bible) asked Ron DeSantis “How come you’re not taking questions from the voters?” And there it is. The cornerstone on which the false perception will be built. Ironically, on a question that becomes disproved the moment it’s answered. But again, the answer is irrelevant, as long as the question is on the record. 

But in the case of Ron DeSantis, the question was asked in the wrong venue. It’s probably best to ask a loaded question like that in a one-on-one interview, with maybe just a handful of people around. But when you’re in a crowd of people, both citizens and press alike, and the subject of your plot is literally doing press conferences and interviews with different press organizations, literally taking questions from the public, maybe that’s not the right time to ask such an obviously stupid question. A possible set-up to create a perception meant to damage the candidate’s image. It doesn’t matter how obvious it is at the moment of conception, only that the seed has been planted. Because of DeSantis’ reply, the press and the Biden camp will put that on hold for a bit anyway. When the AP reporter asked the question among a large crowd of people, he turned the tables on the reporter with a statement and a couple questions of his own. Looking around at the vast number of voters with which he’d been engaged, he said, “People are coming up to me, talking to me. What are you talking about? Are you blind?”

So, not until the DeSantis opponents, excluding the Trump camp, which hasn’t joined in on this one yet, are done exploiting the “are you blind?” response by claiming DeSantis snapped or lashed out at a reporter for asking a question, will they pick up again on the false narrative that Ron Desantis doesn’t answer questions. It’s the only way they can create the perception that Joe Biden does.

But this isn’t really about Ron Desantis or Joe Biden or Donald Trump. It’s about the media not reporting the news. It’s about the media not reporting the information we need to hear. It’s about the media purposely misleading the American people with the way the news is reported. It’s about the media not waiting for the story to happen. It’s about the media creating the story. That is literally the story line of a James Bond movie. It’s happening before our very eyes, just more subtly than blowing up a submarine or whatever. It’s no wonder the story also cites a recent Gallup poll that shows only 34 percent of Americans trust the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. 

Speaking of fair, I ran across this story from the Cincinnati Enquirer about a college student who’s choice of words got her a zero on a proposal for a final project in a Women’s Gender Studies in Pop Culture class at the University of Cincinnati. Keep in mind, this is just the proposal for a project, not even the actual project. Also keep in mind this is a class on Women’s Gender Studies. So, the young lady is question, who is actually a Chemistry major, submitted a proposal for a project on the history of women in sports. Certainly something with which women have a rich history. From Billie Jean King to Layla Ali, the Williams sisters and myriad Olympic athletes, there are many stories to tell. This young lady’s hope was to include the story of transgenderism, and how it’s effected women’s sports. It might have been an interesting story. While it seems to be a recent issue, there might be a rich, albeit unknown history of people pretending to be the opposite sex in sporting events. I only say pretending because until relatively recently, there wasn’t a way to make those physical changes. But if there’s a story to be told, it won’t be told by the young lady at UC who got a zero on her proposal to do a report on it.

You see, she got the zero because she used the term “biological women” in the proposal. The term biological women was being used as a differentiator between them and transgender women. The reader, after all, will need some way to distinguish one from the other, if comparing their impact on sports is the objective. You need a noun to make the sentence complete. But the professor, while admitting the proposal was solid, said the “terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary. If you’re listening to my voice and not reading the script, this professor said both “biological and women” are exclusionary. I’m guessing no woman want’s to be included in her biology, either. But then she added something that really caught my eye. She said the terms “biological women” are not allowed in the course because they further reinforce heteronormativitity. That’s a word neither I nor my word processor recognize.

Look that up liner

Well by golly, Miriam Webster has a definition of heteronormative! It says it’s “of, relating to, or based on the attitude that heterosexuality is the only normal and natural expression of sexuality.” While most word definitions don’t rely much on attitude, this definition seems to indicate people who believe that heterosexuality is normal are mistaken. Heterosexuality is normal. It’s what populates the Earth and brings us new people with new ideas. Heteronormativity is a very valuable component in the history of humanity. It certainly deserves a place in the history of women in sports. Without heteronormativity, we wouldn’t have any sports at all, let alone women’s sports! But just to make sure this professor covered all his bases (pun intended), he also called the proposal “transphobic.” What title does a person who’s happy in their skin have for an essay in support of transexuals? You can’t call it heterophobic, because people who aren’t transexual have varying sexual preferences. You see, there’s no easily identifiable word to describe those of us who are just people who prefer the opposite sex and have no desire to change anything. The closest you can come to it is to call us normal, so the term heteronormative had to be invented. So now it’s wrong to want to write an essay about heteronormative, but alright to write an essay about any other form of sexuality you want. As long as you don’t legitimize heteronormative. Which now makes being an average person sound like some kind of anomaly.

You might be thinking, “C’mon, Bob. You’re always going on about transexuals.” But this isn’t a story about transexuals. It’s a story about a college girl who wanted to write a story but was shut down because she just wanted to explore the landscape of women’s sports up to the present time. It wasn’t allowed to be done. The proposal was shot down. The reason was very clear. One dare not tread on the issue. There are those who will not tolerate discussion or debate. Just for trying, our college student received a zero on a proposal worth a possible 20 points. 

So now let’s grade the professor. If “biological women” is exclusionary, why isn’t “transgender women’? Once again, this story isn’t about transgenderism. This is about right and wrong. What’s right is that the professor said it was a solid proposal. So, shouldn’t that count for something? Maybe 18 out of 20, with two points off for a poor choice of words? Even though all of the words were factually correct? But to grade the proposal a zero because of a description of a woman who was born with all the parts we typically associate with women, like boobs and vaginas, the entire proposal was deemed worthless, despite it’s solidness. This is obviously a professor who is searching for contradictions to a doctrine he’s been more than happy to accept, except that he’s forcing it upon students in a way that gives them no warning nor defense. How in the world is a student supposed to know she can’t use the phrase “biological female” in an essay that examines the ramifications of transexauls in women’s sports? The fact is, you can’t write an essay on the subject if you can’t use the term, and that’s the goal. If you can’t write about it, there won’t be any studies or evidence of how it effects women’s sports. If there’s no research and no data, nobody can refute it. Those of us who are heteronormative are being denied the opportunity to even learn about it.  It’s another example of how the suppression of information is as valuable as the information itself.  This young women’s right to free speech is being suppressed by a professor who has already decided that she’s in charge of what’s right and wrong. Professors and teachers are good at that, because they have the textbooks with all the answers in the back. But to prevent a student from pursuing the facts and the truth and learning how to evaluate information seems to be the exact opposite of what a college education should be.

The bittersweet news is that she’s been given an extension to complete the project she proposed, and a different professor will grade the project. The bittersweet part? The college’s Office of Gender Equity & Inclusion had to give the okay, as if such a sexist committee should even exist. 

Let’s go back liner

1631

Mumtaz Mahal dies during childbirth. Her husband, Mughal emperor Shah Jahan I, will spend the next 17 years building her mausoleum, the Taj Mahal. So, take that every guy who ever bought a diamond ring for their sweetheart. Since then, every man on Earth has had an unbeatable gesture to try to overcome and didn’t. No wonder we feel so insecure.

1770

Captain James Cook runs aground on the Great Barrier Reef. Here’s a brief reenactment of the moment…

SFX D’oh!

1774

Rhode Island becomes the first of Britain’s North American colonies to ban the importation of slaves. Two years before the Declaration of Independence, steps were taken to eliminate slavery. It took almost another hundred years before we fought a war over it. The United States wasn’t the first country in the world to abolish slavery, but nor was it the last, as slavery still exists in other countries. America’s work won’t be done until people around the world have the option of receiving compensation for their work. Sometimes I thing America loses sight of what’s important when we focus on democracy. The right of every individual to chart his or her own destiny is the freedom we desire, not the freedom to vote for who controls our destiny.

1775

American Revolutionary War: the Continental Army is established by the Continental Congress, marking the birth of the United States Army. The United States Army had one illegitimate child called the United States Air Force, and believe me, the Air Force couldn’t wait to move out of the house! Escaping the Army’s helicopter parenting and dedication to outdated rituals was a breath of fresh air when the Air Force became a separate service in 1947.

Independence was all the rage a year later when this week in 1776, The Continental Congress appoints Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston to the Committee of Five to draft a declaration of independence. They would get right to work, but not soon enough for Delaware Separation Day. When Delaware votes to suspend government under the British Crown and separate officially from Pennsylvania. That’s right, Delaware not only seceeded from the British, but also from another colony! How independent is that? Delaware would go on to be recognized as the firs state of the United States of America. Today, it’s where Joe Biden keeps his Corvette and various classified documents. Oh, wait, they’re not there anymore. I wonder who has them? Regardless, it was this week in 1777 that The Stars and Stripes is adopted by Congress as the Flag of the United States.

1893

Grover Cleveland undergoes secret, successful surgery to remove a large, cancerous portion of his jaw; operation not revealed to US public until 1917, nine years after the president’s death. Imagine trying to keep something like that a secret today. The press would have a hayday following every moment, from the discovery to the preparation to the transfer of power to the vice-president while the president was under general anesthesia. The post op and recovery would be covered by the media with a frenzy of medical professionals opining on the implications of the surgery while a frenzy of media professionals opine on the implications of how this might effect the media.

1920

During the U.S. Republican National Convention in Chicago, U.S. Republican Party leaders gathered in a room at the Blackstone Hotel to come to a consensus on their candidate for the U.S. presidential election, leading the Associated Press to first coin the political phrase “smoke-filled room”. We’re to allowed to have smoke-filled rooms anymore. It’s bad for our health! I’m sure there are smoke-filled rooms out there, but with modern ventilation systems and smoke eaters.

1937

Pennsylvania becomes the first state of the United States to celebrate Flag Day officially as a state holiday. Although president Wilson issued a proclamation establishing June 14th as Flag Day, it isn’t an official holiday. However, the President of the United States, according to wikipedia, has the discretion to officially proclaim it as such. 

1963

American Civil Rights Movement: Alabama Governor George Wallace stands at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in an attempt to block two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from attending that school. Later in the day, accompanied by federalized National Guard troops, they are able to register.

1966

The United States Supreme Court rules in Miranda v. Arizona that the police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them. Now they’re called the Miranda rights! You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you don’t have one, we’ll get you one. Anything you say can and will be used against you. The problem is, even though you may have the right to remain silent, you don’t always have the discipline to remain silent! 

1966

The Vatican announces the abolition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (index of prohibited books), which was originally instituted in 1557. You think Florida is banning books? If this were 1965, the Pope would be saying, “Hold my vino!” 

This list of banned books included thousand of titles, including works from Kepler, for whom a space telescope is named, and Kant, who’s Critique of Pure Reason” was banned by the church. When the Catholic Church bans a book, that simply means a Catholic shouldn’t read it. It doesn’t stop anybody else from reading it. Just like the laws in Florida that everybody claims is book banning. It isn’t. If you’re an adult in America, you may read any book you wish. Making certain publications age-restricted is nothing new, and it’s meant to protect young minds from things they have no need for exposure. So, don’t panic. As an adult in America, you’re allowed to buy pornography and all the sexy novels you want. Plus, thanks to a court in Philadelphia, you have access to all the filth or whatever you want to call it on the internet. More on that in a moment.

1992

The United States Supreme Court rules in United States v. Álvarez-Machaín that it is permissible for the United States to forcibly extradite suspects in foreign countries and bring them to the USA for trial, without approval from those other countries. That means you can run, but you can’t hide. We will come looking for you, and if we find you, no country will be able or willing to protect you. Your best bet is to get arrested in another country with which we have no extradition treaty. That way, you’ll be safe in a Peruvian jail instead of a nice, air-conditioned American jail.

1996

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a panel of federal judges blocks a law against indecency on the internet. That’s right! Anything that’s prohibited from an elementary school library is probably available on the internet. That’s why legacy publications like Playboy and Hustler have cut back on printed editions. Too bad for them, but the internet is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, and therefore no laws shall be created that inhibit its content. The judges overturned a law that would result in a fine of 250-thousand dollars or a two-year prison sentence if anyone under 18 could see it or read it. The judges summed it up this way...”Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects,″

2002

Near-Earth asteroid 2002 MN misses the Earth by 75000 mi, about one-third of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. What if an asteroid did collide with our planet? What would happen to us? I can’t help but wonder what we’d turn in to as time marched on without us. The dinosaurs became petroleum, which helped lead an industrial revolution and the mobility of people everywhere to travel to more places and see more things to enrich their lives. Us humans, well, we’ll probably end up becoming some type of pesticide or herbicide because of all of the processed food we eat. That makes me feel sorry for the civilization that follow ours.

Phone and email liner

I continue to be both amused and disgusted by the so-called media today. What used to be an honorable profession has put itself right up there with the first profession. Corporate hacks willing to tow the line. If that’s not the case, then they’re willing participants from the bottom up, released upon the world by liberal colleges that teaches them God knows what. But somehow they’re able to claim to be journalists, working their way to the top by learning what lines can’t be crossed and how to tell a story to get the results you want. Sure, some of these ambulance chasers are conservative, too. How they remained that way through a degree in journalism is a credit to their conviction. Many people you see on television news programs today are lawyers, believe it or not. That’ll come in handy when deciding what you can say about a person without being charged with slander or libel. You might think that being a lawyer would also make you even-handed, like that blind lady with the scales, but being a lawyer is often more about choosing sides. Journalism used to preach looking at a story from as many angles as possible. Journalism used to preach finding reliable sources, and following a story as far as it went. Journalism used to preach being objective, asking logical questions. Journalism was doing research and not being fooled by double talk from slick politicians. The hard part was doing it while showing respect for the subject; the people in the story. It was okay to ask a hard question. A politician often respected a question that made them think. Today, politicians prefer questions for which a response has been prepared, or a talking point rehearsed. Depending upon who’s side you’re on, you may get an easy question or a hard one. If you’re a Democrat, the press is more likely to go easy on you.

So if half the country is liberal and half the country is conservative, is it any wonder that half of the country doesn’t trust the media? You might think, “well, yea. The conservatives don’t trust the media because the media’s full of liberals.” You’re mostly right. But a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press and friends also said almost 75 percent of American adults think the press is helping to increase political divisions. 

By the way, the Associated Press was, at one time, the most trusted news source in the world. When I look at their website today, it’s easy to see the slant on which their stories are written, and the subject matter they choose. The AP leans left, as does all of the major television networks but Fox. Most newspapers are liberal, with notable exceptions such as the Washington Times and the New York Post, as well as the Williamsport Sun-Gazette.

So how did it get this way? Well, there was a time when any political statements made on the news that could be considered opinion had to give equal time to an opposing view. That kept people somewhat honest, as they knew whatever they said would be supplemented by a counterpoint. There were no left or right-leaning news programs on television or on the radio. But politicians had money to spend, and so did the people who supported them. They couldn’t invest it in the media the way the wanted because anything they said would have a law-mandated counterpoint. So the government got rid of the equal time rules, and now we have agenda-driven media instead of information-driven media. Now, the person with the most money to spend has the loudest voice, and those who don’t have money don’t get a voice at all, especially if they disagree with the people who have the loudest voice. 

That’s not entirely a bad thing. We are a capitalist country, right? If you have the money to make your voice heard, you’re allowed to yell it from the rooftops. If you have good ideas, the people with the money will find you, and help you tell your story. Besides, if everybody has equal time, where does it end? Will the homeless man begging for money outside of the television station get to voice his opinion? Homeless people have a lot of time to think, so we might all learn something. But alas, the homeless man’s wisdom will not be shared by our media for at least two reasons. One: he doesn’t have the money to be the loudest voice, or two, his wisdom doesn’t fit the agenda of the media outlet. Perhaps when the majority of an American city is homeless, they’ll get a voice, too, but it’s not likely. Today’s American media is a hollow shell of what it once was. An outer crust that resembles what it was, but void of any guts, any substance. Maybe the media is as confused as the rest of us, unsure of what’s important anymore. With today’s interconnected world, there’s enough going on to make your head spin. Generally, it was the media’s job to sort all of that out before the evening news, then bring us the stories of the day that mattered to the majority of us. Now, there’s much more to sort through and the majority is smaller than it used to be. The media has fractured us so much that they now can’t figure out how to appeal to all of the factions they helped create by highlighting the lunatic fringe instead of the mainstream. Now, the only way to unite us is to figure out which lunatic fringe is most reviled and promote it. Then everyone who protests will become another group of exclusionary haters hell-bent on promoting normalcy. Well, we can’t have that! And the media will make sure we don’t. It’s no wonder the poll shows only 16 percent of Americans say they are very confident the media will report the news fully and fairly. Sixty percent of us say the media is to blame for spreading misinformation. The sad part is, there are a lot of journalists out there who want to share important information with us. They write stories that are in-depth and well researched. They’re made available in printed publications and on-line. But often, all that effort goes to waste when an editor puts a headline on a story that doesn’t match the content or importance of the story. While most of us appreciate a well-written story, we often just scan the headlines and consider ourselves educated on the subjects. “Inflation Reduction Act caps insulin prices!” Well, nothing more to learn here. “National Guard Troops sent to southern border” Well, I’m sure they have everything under control.

See, if you only read the headline, your missing the entire story. I’m guilty of it myself. Especially on social media, where I don’t believe most of what I see. Many people now rely solely on social media for their news and information. It’s good to have an alternative if you don’t trust the mainstream, or legacy media. The problem is, the news on social media is no more trustworthy. Plus, algorithms have already figured out which kinds of news stories interest you the most, so it will feed you what you want to hear. It will reinforce what you already believe. It will convince you you’re right. All the while the truth is all around you and you’re unwilling to look up from your phone.

I can tell you this with no uncertainty: The world around you is a lot different from the world the media wants you to believe exists. The media is dividing us. The media is dividing us racially, economically, and spiritually. The media is pitting us against each other, painting pictures of scenarios we don’t see in our everyday lives. Instead of being the watchdogs of government, the media is now a lapdog of half the government, and attack dog of the other half. Media is supposed to be a partner to the people, but the people don’t have the money. The media has to go where the money is, and that’s been demonstrated by the fall of the printed newspaper, and the decline of newsroom staffs across the nation in every medium. Not only did the equal time rule changes harm American journalism, so did the media ownership rules. Fewer people own the media companies, leading to narrower points of view along with no rules for allowing opposing viewpoints.

So it seem our United States government and the U.S. based media have conspired to weaken the citizens by controlling what we’re allowed to know, and how the information will be presented to us. This has never been more obvious.

We can fight back. We can overcome the media bias and misinformation. We have to educate ourselves. We have to take everything we hear with a grain of salt and find a way to confirm what we heard, especially if we want to believe it. We have to consider the source. We have to distinguish information from opinion. Well, that’s my opinion, anyway. 

The old adage, “Don’t believe everything you hear” still applies. The difference is that now we have so many different things coming at us all the time. It used to be that we only heard five news stories a day, and we could trust them all. Now, we can hear a hundred news stories a day, and if even 10 percent of them are false, that’s ten lies we heard that we might believe. The sheer volume of information being thrown at us can be overwhelming, even if we don’t realize it. If we hear the same lie enough times, we’ll begin to believe it. We’ll question our very beliefs if we’re tempted enough. It’s okay to change your mind if the facts change, but be careful to separate facts from opinions.

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2023. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! Subscribe today. I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.