MEDIA MONOPOLIES-We have faced tough times before. World wars, famines, pandemics, economic ruin.
But in each of these disasters, the majority of people thought they had somewhere to turn for knowledge and advice.
We had trusted authorities to tell us what to do, to counsel us how to handle these seemingly insurmountable disasters.
The fact that just six corporations own 90% of the media outlets in the country skew coverage to what's in the best interests of big business.
Today many of us face the COVID-19 pandemic feeling there are few sources to believe in – and that more than anything else – is why we are having such a difficult time coming together to overcome this crisis.
The media, government, science, religion – none hold a central place of confidence in most people's lives. So when tough decisions about health and safety come into play, many of us aren't sure what to do.
This wasn't always the case.
Look back to World War II.
Not only did we defeat fascism but new vaccines put a wallop on illness and disease.
When we entered the fray, the U.S. government organized new research initiatives targeting influenza, bacterial meningitis, bacterial pneumonia, measles, mumps, neurotropic diseases, tropical diseases, and acute respiratory diseases.
And because there was an immense trust in government – after all, as a nation we had been attacked together as one at Pearl Harbor – there was enormous trust in these initiatives.
Before World War II, soldiers died more often of disease than of battle injuries. The ratio of disease-to-battle casualties was approximately 5-to-1 in the Spanish-American War and 2-to-1 in the Civil War. In World War I, we were able to reduce casualties due to disease through better sanitation efforts, but we could not protect troops from the 1918 influenza pandemic. During that outbreak, flu accounted for roughly half of U.S. military casualties in Europe.
Much of the groundwork for innovation in vaccinations had already been laid before WWII. However, it was the organization of the war effort and the trust both the civilian and military population had in government that catapulted us ahead.
I'm not ignoring that some of this trust was misplaced. The U.S. government has never been fully trustworthy – just ask the Asian American population forced into internment camps. However, the general feeling at the time that the government was a force for good, that we were all in this together and we all had to do our part had a vast effect on how we handled this crisis.
Today that kind of trust is gone.
In some ways that's a good thing. It could be argued that "The Greatest Generation" put too much faith in government and the following years showed why too credulous belief in the good will of our leaders was unearned and unhealthy.
From Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal to Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct to George W. Bush lying us into a war of choice to Barack Obama's neoliberalism to Donald Trump's gross mismanagement and blatant racism – we can never go back to a WWII mentality.
Skepticism of government is kind of like seasoning. A certain amount is a good thing, but the inability to trust even government's most basic ability to take care of its citizens and function in any meaningful way is hugely detrimental.
And this earned distrust has seeped into just about every source of possible certitude that might have helped us survive the current crisis.
The media used to be considered the fourth estate–one of the most important pillars of our society. After all, the freedom of information is essential to the free exercise of democracy.
However, the erosion of impartiality has been going on since at least the 1980s when the FCC under President Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Since 1949 this had required the media to present both sides' of opinions. In 1987 a Democratic Congress passed a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by Reagan.
This, along with the rise of talk radio and the insistence that news departments turn a profit, lead directly to the creation of more biased reporting skewed to a particular audience – Fox News and Sinclair Broadcast Group being the most prominent.
The fact that just six corporations own 90% of the media outlets in the country skew coverage to what's in the best interests of big business. These corporations are GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS.
Finally, the loss of local newspapers and the purchase of those few that do exist by large media conglomerates further increase bias.
Few people feel they can trust the news anymore. They turn to the Internet, social media, Twitter, and other sources that often are just echo chambers for what they already believe.
The irony is not lost on me that you are reading a blog by a public school teacher, not a professional journalist. But my aim is to use my experience in education to inform the debate.
It's just too bad that I'm often forced to report the news when traditional news sources drop the ball.
Again, skepticism of mass media is a good thing, but we should at least be able to count on the press as a reliable source of facts. However, these days few facts are free from bias, spin, and editorial comment.
Even science is not immune.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) made several blunders handling this pandemic which hurt the organization's credibility.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the organization refused to acknowledge and later emphasize the airborne spread of the virus. It took until May 2021 for the organization to fully recognize that fact.
Another blunder was the guidelines on what counts as "close contact." It went from "within 6 feet" to "within 3 feet," and the duration went from 30 minutes consecutively to 30 minutes cumulatively. It's not so much that the evidence changed, but that political pressure forced the CDC to lower its standards.
World scientific consensus now is that the coronavirus is capable of airborne spread without close contact between two people. Airborne droplets can linger in the air indoors and infect any number of people from one superspreading host subject.
The CDC's advice on close contact is based on old scientific research that just isn't as good as modern experiments.
And the organization has misjudged so much more from the importance of masking (at first they said it wasn't important, now they say it is important), whether children can catch the virus (at first they said this was unlikely and now they admit it happens but is often asymptomatic), whether Covid spreads in schools (they used to say the limited protections in place at schools made this unlikely and now they admit it is happening), etc.
One could argue that these were simple mistakes that have changed as better science comes in. However, in each case they appear to have initially been politically motivated and justified with limited or flawed studies that could not continue to be supported as new data came in.
At first the CDC told us that masking wasn't important not because it was true, but to hide a shortage of masks that needed to be prioritized for medical staff. These needs are understandable but hiding the truth and then changing your messaging doesn't engender trust.
Misinformation about the impact of COVID on children was an attempt to keep schools open and stop the economy from shutting down as parents were unable to work. Not only did this put children at risk for economic gain, but it has also contributed to the current refusal of so many people to follow CDC guidelines about reopening schools.
Why do so many people refuse to have their children wear masks at school? Why is there so much vaccine hesitancy? Why anxiety about reopening plans that focus on close contacts?
The CDC owns a lot of the responsibility because it has repeatedly earned our distrust.
This isn't to say everything coming from them is dubious. I think the guidelines the CDC has put in place for the current school year are supported by the facts.
I think there is evidence that people need to wear masks in schools. I think we need to vaccinate as many people as possible.
But these are just bare minimums.
I think the CDC is still focusing too much on the economic impact of its guidelines when it should be solely focused on the health and safety of students, staff, and the community.
This is not a time for scientists to be playing politics.
We need them to be as transparent as possible–as trustworthy as they can be.
Unfortunately, the erosion of institutional credibility at so many levels has become a cycle to itself.
At multiple levels, sources that should be bedrock have become wet sand.
The federal government has not taken enough action to keep people safe. State governments have not taken enough action–and some have even taken action to prevent safety.
Even at the local level, many school boards have cowardly refused to put in place mask or vaccine mandates.
It is the systematic breakdown of a society.
We have few places left we can trust.
And that is why we are fractured and scared.
We don't know what to do to keep our loved ones safe.
People seem forced to choose between taking the virus seriously and ignoring it.
Many refuse to admit that it could hurt them. They think it's just the sniffles. Few healthy people die, and they discount the potential long-term effects of catching it.
That's not a coincidence.
In large part, it's because we don't know how to combat the virus because we don't know who to trust.
And the resulting credibility vacuum has enabled unscrupulous politicians, agents of chaos and other charlatans to position themselves as experts.
When all information is equal, disinformation is king.
The solution to the pandemic may end up being easier than this riddle.
How our institutions can regain their credibility.
Especially when our politics doesn't allow them to be honest, and fewer people are even listening to them every day.
(Steven Singer is a husband, father, teacher, blogger and education advocate. He often writes at his own blog, gadflyonthewallblog.com. This story was featured at CommonDreams.org.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.