Let's Learn From Our Covington Mistakes

As I said when I first weighed in on this, we must do better. You can think any way you want about what happened near the Lincoln Memorial. But as a member of the media for 30 years whose job it is to ensure accuracy and fairness in news articles -- and to speak up when something doesn't smell right -- I would implore you to base your opinions on accurate information. (Yes, I have a serious job away from being a fan of all things Debbie Harry, tennis, cats and hot men.) The Covington Catholic story was never about “defending” anyone. It was about defending my profession -- already under assault in ways I never dreamed possible -- from further fuel against it. If I had to alienate a few friends and lose some followers as a result, it was worth it. I just find it so painfully ironic that so many liberals and reporters repeatedly shared misinformation (disinformation?) on the MAGA boys in the same fashion that put Mr. MAGA in the White House to begin with.

And as my boyfriend wisely asked, can we stop to consider from a political stance that this sort of outrage machine turns off potential allies? How about leading by example rather than mob mentality? Doubling down and moving goalposts should remain the province of the rabid right. (Sadly I can already hear people saying when confronted with the fact that the media never verified that Nathan Phillips is in fact a Vietnam vet, "Well, they were STILL disrespectful to an older gentleman!" -- never mind that this person was the single source of a story that had to be completely rewritten.) The point is the media has a duty to report facts, and consumers should be basing their opinions on correct information.)  Let's focus on common goals rather than targets. (Read Caitlin Flanagan's depressing piece HERE.)

While I have your attention:

Can we please not follow Donald Trump's example of co-opting words to suit our needs? "Fake news" is a real thing for when scumbags in Macedonia and the like write deliberately false news articles (propaganda, disinformation) for the purpose of sharing on social media to influence the outcome of an election, etc. It DOES NOT mean a story that you don't like or a story that puts you in an unfavorable light. What many people do not understand is that it also does not even mean a news story with a huge error in it. A legitimate story with an error gets corrected the moment the error is noticed -- and an explanation of what was corrected remains duly noted on the original piece. Having a mistake does not make it "fake news."

Which brings me to my newest concern. With #Smirkgate I've seen what I imagine are well-meaning people using the term "gaslighting" incorrectly. Gaslighting is defined as "causing someone to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation." When Trump spends three years telling us Mexico will pay for the wall and then starts to say he never said that, one might call this gaslighting.

When two people observe a highly subjective video of people interacting and see two different things, that is not NOT gaslighting. Telling your friend that your opinion and how you saw things is different from what they saw is not gaslighting.

Eyewitness testimony shows that people perceive things in all kinds of ways and they're not doing it to mess with other people's minds -- it's just how the human brain works. Could we please not ruin an extremely useful term by screaming "gaslighting" every time someone doesn't share your point of view? It's a little too you-know-who.

Share this post