John Oliver, Donald Trump, and Media

In the emotional and societal roller coaster that is the week after Donald Trump's presidential nomination, it's hard to pinpoint one particular reason as to how this happened, but many progressives, including Cenk Uygur of TYT, point to the ineptitude of the Democratic Party, and the failure of media. John Oliver focused on the latter of these two aspects when he dedicated his entire season finale to talking about his presidential nomination. During these thirty minutes he makes a few points worth discussing.

First off is the fact that media fails to passionately seek truth in fear of being unbiased. Oliver points out that his show, which is incredibly popular and is a source of news for many despite being a comedy program, takes a clearly defined stance on issues, but still checks every single fact and makes sure that his information is accurate.

Second is the fact that misinformation can spread like wildfire on the internet. Donald Trump constantly backed up his arguments by saying that he "found it on the internet" or he "heard it on radio" - something that many people familiar with the cyberspace can easily dismiss, but others less familiar with the modern world take at face value.

On a personal level, I received this e-mail from my mom earlier this year (bad formatting intact), and it shows how deluded many people in this country are thanks to this spread of misinformation:

This was forwarded to me today and I thought it interesting seeing as I had heard this scenario once before from a different source... I find this hard to believe, but stranger things have happened.

Here’s a very interesting thought

!

 

  

A friend of mine

  had to take 

his 

vehicle to the mechanic the other day for service. The Service Manager, Pete, gave 

him 

 a ride home and on the way he told 

my friend 

 his theory about the upcoming election and the next four years of U.S. government. At first 

my friend

  thought it a bit far 

fetched. But as 

he

  listened to him it began to make sense, scary sense...

“I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the election in November,” Pete began. “Then, sometime between November and January, Hillary will be indicted. The IRS is now investigating the Clinton Foundation and the whole e-mail thing isn’t over yet.”

“Once under indictment she won’t be able to assume the Office of the President in January. Tim Kaine, who will not actually be the Vice President because neither he nor Hillary have been inaugurated, cannot assume the Presidency.”

“The Speaker of the House can’t move up to it because there is already a sitting President and Vice President. So President Obama, in an Executive Order citing “emergency situation,” gives himself another four years in office is the only way possible.”

Pete believes Obama has been planning this for a while now, knowing he has enough on Hillary to indict her. Had the Attorney General indicted her based on evidence from the FBI, this plan wouldn’t have worked because the DNC would have quickly come up with another candidate.

If you think about it, it’s not that outrageous. Many people on the left, including the President, want Obama to stay another four years. The law prohibits him from being re-elected so the only ways he can do it is by declaring martial law and suspending the election (which would be a very negative thing for the country) or to declare himself still President because the elected candidate cannot assume her duties.

The latter makes more sense and is actually more feasible. And since it’s never been done before, it would set a precedent that would be difficult to challenge.

Of course, if Trump wins the election none of this is going to happen. But what if Pete is correct? Four more years of Obama and a mostly useless Republican House and Senate would give Obama the time he needs to continue destroying and changing the country to fit his stated goals.

I thanked Pete for the ride home – and for messing up my day. Now I’ve got more things to worry about!

Oliver continued to talk about what this election means for the next four years and what the consequences could be for not only the American public, but also the future of politics, the future of media, and the future of the Democratic Party.

YouTubers as a Source of News

Recently, Phillip DeFranco beat out The Young Turks and received Streamy Awards for not only Show of the Year, but also News Program of the Year. This is a really interesting development, considering that The Young Turks does a lot of incredible reporting and has an interesting take on broadcast news, while Phil sits in his room and talks about what's trending on Twitter. That most certainly is a gross oversimplification of what these two YouTube enterprises do (and, to be fair, I watch and enjoy both programs regularly) but it really begs the question of where the line is drawn between news and entertainment, and some of the risks of online independent media in that sort of environment.

So how did this happen? What led Phil to win both awards? Well, the Show of the Year award is entirely determined by audience input. People could go to the Streamy website and cast multiple votes every day for the program of their choice. Phil DeFranco consistently plugged the voting in every episode of his program up to the night of the award, while The Young Turks, to my knowledge, didn't mention it once, instead choosing to focus on the more important part of the program: the news. Because of this, it's no wonder Phil won the Show of the Year award because more of his audience knew about the nomination and voting process.

This logic could extend to the News Program of the Year, even though that award isn't determined by audience input. When it comes down to it, personality YouTubers by their very nature have a more vocal and engaged audience, and there's a few reasons for that. First, the audience sees the same face every day. People who watch Phil aren't watching the show for the content Phil delivers so much as Phil himself. One could argue that Cenk Uygur on The Young Turks is the same way, because like Phil, he's a very personable guy that isn't afraid to say what he believes. The difference is that The Young Turks consists of multiple people who are equally personable and bold - it's a show about open discussion about issues between various progressives. Phil's show is a very two-sided show because it is a conversation between Phil and his audience rather than everyone talking with everyone. This also ties into the second reason why personality YouTubers have a more vocal audience, which is that instead of the person being part of a brand, the person is the brand. The Phillip DeFranco Show is called that because it's named after the guy who made the show. The last name "DeFranco" is technically not his birth surname, but later on he legally changed his surname to DeFranco for various reasons. The Young Turks is not The Cenk Uygur Show, and if it was, I'd argue it'd be a worse program for it.

The future of news and news commentary will be interesting as both internet personalities and independent journalists continue to pop up. If we encounter a blog, there's no way to know whether it's more personality-driven or more news-driven unless you really dig into how the publication operates. Phil DeFranco is probably not the best place to get the news, but he is still a means of gaining new perspectives on the news. He absolutely has a place in the internet landscape, but calling him a journalist is just plain inaccurate.

WikiLeaks Statement on the Election

This morning, Julian Assange released a statement on WikiLeaks about the reason why they have been continuing to publish what they publish, despite criticism from the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, and certain liberals who are concerned about the information's affects on the election's outcome.

He writes: "We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications." Essentially, Assange is saying that he publishes what he gets and feels that it is important to release any and all information that meets his criteria. This is not, in his opinion, a political move by any means, but rather a means of disclosure. He continues, saying that had WikiLeaks found or was given information regarding the Trump, Johnson, or Stein campaign, it would have been released, but "we cannot publish what we do not have".

Assange also talks about the risks of not publishing such important information, citing The New York Times for when they withheld information about mass surveillance in the United States until after the 2004 election. He accuses Clinton of painting independent media like WikiLeaks and The Intercept with incredibly broad strokes, treating some of the most important investigative reporters as terrorists who possibly have allegiance with Russia. Assange responds to this by saying: "The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists."

It remains to be seen whether the information released by WikiLeaks will result in a Trump presidency, but facts or facts, and I have to agree with Assange that the primary goal of a journalist is to inform - and all WikiLeaks did was just that.