[Will]

One of the problems I've noticed regarding alternative and main stream news on both sides of the isle is news about news or as I like to call it "metanews" Here's an example, a public figure (call them Mr. Public) makes a statement that some medial outlet deems news worthy. Given the status of affairs in the modern media and the alternative media, this is normally a statement that will be a magnet for attention and likely agitate some of our more crude human emotions such as fear, out rage, greed or some other low level emotion. The news media, both mainstream and alternative, will then begin pushing news about the news aka "metanews". The news medial will look for commentary from other public figures (call them Mrs. Public). Here's what it looks like:

Mr. Public made a comment regarding the recent violence in Wisconsin. Mr Public stated that "posters in Wisconsin were thugs". Instead of focusing on the context and intent of the statement made by Mr Public, the news media will now focus what Mrs Public thinks about Mr. Public's comments and what she thinks Mr Public believes about all protestors in Wisconsin, what this means about Mr. Public's political leanings and any other random pontification that Mrs. Public would like to share with the audience about Mr. Public. To an extent this is a natural product of the news media. However, when the audience consuming media begins to care more about what Mrs Public has to say than what Mr Public actually stated in context this audience is very susceptible to manipulation. The
'Metanews" now becomes the news and no one cares about the actual truth.

Politicians do this all the time to spin the narrative regarding their political activity or the activity of their opponent. When I see this happen I always ask myself several questions:

1) What was originally said by Mr. Public in its full and unedited context.
2) Does Mrs. Public have any incentive to deceive me about Mr. Public or does Mrs. Public have a general basis towards Mr. Public.
3) I try to understand the ultimately quality of the information I have at my disposal to fully understand the situation and statements.
4) Who has perfect information about the situation and what have they chosen to disclose about the situation or what have they chosen not to disclose.
5) Does anyone benefit by limiting my access to information regarding the situation and how could this impact my understanding of the situation.

Here's one recent example with a subtle twist. John Brennan was recently subjected to an 8 hour interview by federal attorney John Durham regarding the Russian investigation. Brennan put out a statement through a friendly reporter, Nick Shapiro. Here's his statement: Brennan Statement. In this case Brennan is serving as the ad-hock news media regarding the reporting of his interview with John Durham. If you search for Brennan's statement it is harder to find but you can find a number of articles or headlines that quote the statement or make 2nd order conclusions based on Brennan's statement. All of these news sources take Mr. Brennan's statement at face value. This has now become an example of "Metanews".

I have all sorts of questions regarding why was Brennan interviewed so late in this very long criminal investigation, why did Brennan feel the need to make a statement, what does Brennan know that we don't know, why did Brennan do this through Shapiro but he is conveniently now quoted by Shapiro. I find the fact that Brennan felt compelled to make a statement more interesting than the statement itself. Mr. Durham has not made a statement about his meeting with Brennan and federal prosecutors typically don't comment. I typically look for news sources that will ask these types of questions. I look for news sources that will include the complete source of the statement.

I've got to run now but just some afternoon ramblings regarding the modern media.