Sunday, January 24, 2021

Open reply to Susana Schuler

Dear Ms. Susana Schuler, President & General Manager, WVTM13:

This is in reply to your TV news editorial last Friday on WVTM13.

Your editorial
Your editorial started with your quoting Joe Biden's inaugural words:

We have much to do in this winter of peril, and significant possibilities. Much to repair, much to restore, much to heal, much to build, and much to gain.

Your editorial then referred to Joe Biden beginning "in a time of incredible division and too much hate across our country."

You then said Joe Biden is not the first President to face division and pledge unity, and you quote the inaugural words of two other Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and George H.W. Bush.

You promised that WVTM13 would hold the new administration, and Alabama leaders, accountable for their promises.

You concluded your editorial by urging viewers to absorb the many memorable words they heard and pledge ourselves to be part of the solution. You particularly refer to the words of Amanda Gordon "to see the light, and be the light."

My reply
Just about everyone agrees about the need for more national unity to overcome the crises of health, the economy, race, and violence that the country faces. 

Many think that a huge impediment to increasing unity is that the two sides do not talk to each other, each side has its own set of facts, which is different from the other side's, and that greatly impairs the ability to have the unity that is gained from agreements and compromises and that impairs the government in legislating and taking action. 

(Note: I use the word "facts" but the foregoing applies to "characterizations" and "opinions," which either have some reasonableness, or which are grossly unreasonable and effectively not true. A lot depends on the words a speaker chooses, and how hearers of the words interpret and act on the words. The example that is discussed below will illustrate this.)

A contribution to unity that WVTM13 should make is to counter the foregoing phenomenon by forcing the two sides to appear jointly and test their willingness to say their facts when they know the other side is saying different facts, and, based on what viewers see and hear, viewers will decide whose facts they believe. In this situation, the two sides may back away from the facts they would prefer to say, and say facts that are not so contradictory to the other side's facts.

Take the example of whether the election was stolen from Trump. Many times Trump told his millions of supporters that the election was in the process of being stolen from him and was stolen from him.. 

"Stolen" is better viewed as a characterization (as opposed to a fact) and, as characterization, the world "stolen" is powerfully suggestive to a hearer that the hearer may think justifies certain actions in response. Trump's telling his millions of supporters about the election was being stolen likely contributed to the motivation of the perpetrators of the January 6th attack on the Capitol building as being justified to prevent the election from being stolen.

To build on this stolen election characterization, WVTM13 should press Rep. Gary Palmer and Rep. Terri Swell to look into the station's cameras and answer the questions of "do you think the election was stolen" and "do you think it was wrong for Trump to say the election was stolen." 

If Rep. Palmer tries to evade by saying "there were election irregularities that raised questions, yada yada yada," WVTM13 should answer back,

No Rep. Palmer, no evading the question. Trump used the word "stolen," it is reasonable to think the Jan 6th attackers were motivated by Trump's saying the election was stolen, Trump has been impeached by the House for inciting the January 6th insurrection, and you need to say whether it was acceptable for Trump to have said the election was stolen, or whether that was wrong and it is legitimate for Trump's words about the election being stolen to be taken into account by the Senators in the Senate trial.

If Rep. Palmer refuses to respond WVTM13 should lay out to its viewers what WVTM13 tried to do, and why, and that Rep. Palmer refused to respond. [Edit 3/15/22. Elsewhere I have referred to this as the "empty chair technique."] 

This example of the election being "stolen" illustrates how the two sides having, and saying, different facts (one side saying it was stolen, and other side saying not stolen) contributes to division that impairs the ability of government to do its job.

Very arguably, if Trump had not said that the election was stolen, the January 6th attack on the Capitol building would not have happened, there would not have been a second impeachment, there will not be more division in the country that the Senate trial of Trump is likely to engender, and the government would be more able to do its work for the American people in the coming weeks.

I hope WVTM13 agrees with the foregoing discussion and that it is suggestive to WVTM13 of things that WVTM13 might do to counter the problem of the two sides not talking to each other and the two sides having different sets of facts, and that might help in increasing unity, which the country so badly needs.

9/18/21 Obstructing the prevention of preventable deaths
Gov. Ivey, by opposing governmental vaccine mandates, has obstructed and continues to obstruct the prevention of preventable deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama. https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/09/obstructing-prevention-of-preventable.html

You should do a WVTM-13 editorial at this time to help Alabamians "see the light" on this.

10/3/21
The above tweet is the last tweet in a thread soliciting WVTM-13 to help Alabamians "see the light" that, in opposing government vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey has wrongfully obstructed the prevention of preventable deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama. I don't know whether WVTM-13 has done anything in response to my aforesaid solicitation. Similar solicitations to other Alabama TV stations are appropriate, which I am endeavoring.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Possible attack from within

 

The foregoing will be responded to in due course. 

[response to be completed]

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 17, 2021

What AL can do about Big Tech

While you are waiting for Big Tech to change, are you open to exploring strategies and programs in Alabama that have the potential of reducing the power and influence of Big Tech in Alabama?


The political problems associated with Big Tech are censorship; facilitation of violence and hate; and disinformation and Fake News.

[to be continued] 

4/20/21 Resuming
The political problems with Big Tech are censorship; facilitation of violence and hate; and disinformation and Fake News.

Those problems are very large. 

Possible solutions to one problem may be inconsistent with or worsen another of the problems, or be violative of First Amendment rights of Big Tech. For example, imposing liabilities on Big Tech for  content which contributes to violence or hate or is disinformation or Fake News necessitates greater censorship  by Big Tech to protect itself. Apart from imposing liabilities, regulating how Big Tech censors content may violate First Amendment rights of Big Tech.

Big Tech is politically powerful, and may be an obstacle to Congress providing solutions that a consensus of the citizens desire but that Big Tech object to.

State legislatures may try to address the problems of Big Tech, such as is being attempted by an Alabama bill that seeks to punish Big Tech companies if they engage in censorship.

There is a veritable conundrum for Congress (or a state legislature) to fix the problems of Big Tech, and a veritable political mountain to climb to do so. 

Sen. Phil Williams' article suggest dissatisfaction with waiting on Congress to fix satisfactorily the problems of Big Tech.

If you are a citizen who feels strongly about the problems of Big Tech, in the face of the very little power you have, you need to decide whether to curse the darkness or to light a candle, and, if the latter, what candle or candles you will light or try to light.

My candles
I think the generic candle that citizens can light is in your own actions, conduct and words, and wherever those interface with other citizens, you endeavor to apply your own brain and your own reason to try to determine what is truth and facts. This includes ample engagement with other citizens who are endeavoring to do the same, with a view to reaching agreement about what is truth and facts.

I have tried to light numerous candles to the foregoing end, which included urging others to join with me in lighting the similar candles. See, e.g., Appeal to AL news directors, October 1, 2019, AL Project Veritas - Impeachment, October 6, 2019,  WVTM13 GOP Senate debate, February 27, 2020, Dear Aunie,  May 8, 2020, Open reply to Susana Schuler, January 24, 2021.

Perhaps these other persons think similarly as I do, and they are trying to light their own candles. If so, I wish they would tell me, and maybe we could light candles together.

Others may not believe in lighting candles like the ones I think should be lit, and in fact obstruct the goal I seek in the candles I try to light. Read, for example, Dear Aunie, and judge for yourself.


See also
Alabamians battling QAnon, Sept. 7,2021

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)