Subscribe to our Politics & Current Affairs newsletter
Study: Do people trust governments less when ‘fake news’ proves real?
People remember when governments lie to them and it lowers their satisfaction in government officials.
21 September, 2020
Credit: Harry Cunningham on Unsplash
- A recent study measured how the public's trust in government differs when exposed to rumors, government denials, and subsequent verification of the initial rumors.
- The study, conducted in China, also examined whether any changes in trust lasted over a three-week period.
- The results suggest that governments that deem negative information as "fake news" may persuade some people, but over the long term it can cost them in credibility and public satisfaction.
<p>In late 2019, Dr. Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Central_Hospital" target="_blank">Wuhan Central Hospital</a> in China, sent messages to colleagues warning of a potential SARS-like outbreak. Soon after, screenshots of the messages appeared elsewhere online. Li was reprimanded by Chinese officials for "spreading rumors," and he signed a police document publicly stating that his comments "were not factual and broke the law."</p><p>It didn't take long for the public to learn the truth. By early February, at least 600 people in China had died of COVID-19, including Li. The Chinese government later declared him a martyr.</p><p>How much did this reversal cost the Chinese government, in terms of public trust? More broadly: Do governments lose credibility over the long term when what they call "fake news" later proves to be real?</p><p>That's the key question of a new study titled <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0010414020957672" target="_blank">"When 'Fake News' Becomes Real: The Consequences of False Government Denials in an Authoritarian Country."</a></p><p>Both democratic and authoritarian governments have been known to label certain negative information as "fake," the researchers noted. But it's especially concerning when authoritarian governments do it, because their citizens tend to have less fact-checking capabilities, and because it can be a way for violent regimes to silence dissenters.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyODA1Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTQxNzIwOX0.1pIl-bQ-BST4sM20GXWVw7VMpT8qC2RgTD7jALwxuEU/img.jpg?width=980" id="8d583" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e7b8eb93bb99af83deb6d0a6346ceedb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Dr. Li Wenliang memorial" />Reactions In Hong Kong After Death of Coronavirus Whistleblower Doctor
Credit: Anthony Kwan/Getty Images
<p><br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The ability to label claims and explanations that the authorities deem objectionable as fake has long been regarded as a power," the researchers wrote. "Because the revelation of the falsehood of government denials could erode the government's power, it is important to investigate its consequences, particularly in the authoritarian setting."</p><p>In the study, the researchers conducted a survey on three groups of participants. Each group was shown different information regarding a new automobile registration policy, and they were also asked general questions about demographic information and political interests. The study explains:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The first group was exposed to a rumor regarding the government's automobile registration policy (<em>rumor group</em>), the second group was exposed to the government's denial of the rumor (<em>denial group</em>), and the third group was exposed to an event in which the rumor initially denied by the government was verified as true (<em>verification group</em>)."</p><p>Each group then reported how much they believed in the initial rumor and the government denial. The denial and verification groups were also asked to rate their satisfaction with the government's handling of automobile registration.</p><p>The results showed that government denial effectively decreased belief in the rumor, compared to the group that was exposed only to the rumor. Meanwhile, being exposed to a verification of the rumor increased belief in the rumor and decreased belief in the denial. Also, the verification group reported being slightly less satisfied with the government.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyODA1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzA2MzM5OX0.HKyyimeEhn147lp39Q6JxJxJ0lpjZ6VHR4-QOIBMxHE/img.jpg?width=980" id="f7379" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a4f3b19b0c57ac05fd63a713c344ab16" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Design of survey 1
Credit: Wang et al.
<p>But do these effects last? After all, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982891" target="_blank">past research</a> suggests that the effects of persuasive communication — say, a negative political ad smearing a candidate — tend to disappear within days.</p><p>To find out, the researchers conducted a follow-up survey three weeks after the first. This time, the survey included only two groups: the verification group from the first survey, and a group of new participants. Both groups were exposed to a rumor and then a government denial.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The difference between the two groups was simply that one of them had previously experienced the revelation of the government's false denial of an online rumor, while the other group did not have such an experience," the researchers wrote.</p><p>The results showed that the verification group — that is, people who had weeks earlier been shown that the government had lied to them — was much less likely to believe in the government's denial. What's more, the verification group was also less satisfied with the government.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyODA2Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjA1MTg5NX0.ooq2CPqDO64TCF_jRte8s0ENFK1SmAJinzOYovIKwXc/img.jpg?width=980" id="35bc4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ef1d08f089d2f4935c5783c69fa92246" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Design of survey 2
Wang et al.
<p>The findings suggest that governments can lose credibility over the long term when they call something "fake news" but it later proves true.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"As discussed earlier, while authoritarian countries can be awash with rumors and fake news, it is less frequent for the government's false denials to be caught due to the lack of independent news media and fact-checking organizations," the researchers wrote.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It is therefore a vivid and memorable experience to see the government's denial bluntly shown to be false. Unsurprisingly, such an experience would make people less willing to believe a new denial from the government, especially if it is somewhat similar to the one that had been shown to be false."</p><p>Ultimately, calling "fake news" on negative information does seem to persuade some people. But it seems to be a costly short-term strategy, one that comes with the added cost of a dissatisfied public.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Live on Thursday: Learn innovation with 3-star Michelin chef Dominique Crenn
Dominique Crenn, the only female chef in America with three Michelin stars, joins Big Think Live this Thursday at 1pm ET.
22 September, 2020
Big Think LIVE
Add event to your calendar
<p>
Having been exposed to mavericks in the French culinary world at a young age, three-star Michelin chef Dominique Crenn made it her mission to cook in a way that is not only delicious and elegant, but also expressive, memorable, and true to her experience. Crenn will share the importance of gaining knowledge and inspiration from what and who surrounds you, building a unified and empowered team, and inventing a business model out of inspiration, as well as necessity.
</p><p>
Ask your questions for Dominique Crenn during the Q&A!
</p><p><strong>Join the live stream at 1pm ET on Thursday, September 24.</strong></p><h2>STREAMING LINKS:<br><a href="https://edge.bigthink.com/live_streams/110" target="_self">Big Think Edge</a> | <a href="https://youtu.be/knx4dWkwmd0" target="_blank">YouTube</a> | <a href="https://bit.ly/3kDXywJ" target="_blank">Facebook</a></h2>
Keep reading
Show less
Malcolm Gladwell: What if presidents were chosen by lottery?
Join Radiolab's Latif Nasser at 1pm ET today as he chats with Malcolm Gladwell live on Big Think.
21 September, 2020
Can voters really predict who will be a good leader? Malcolm Gladwell joins Big Think Live to discuss this how lotteries could, in theory, distribute leadership more effectively, from government elections, college admissions, and grant applications.
<p>In this live stream, you'll learn:</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>How Malcolm Gladwell thinks through the programming for his podcast <em>Revisionist History,</em> and how the coronavirus pandemic affected the show</li>
<li>Why the premise that voters can predict who will be a good leader may be a poor one</li>
<li>How a lottery system might affect government elections, college admissions, and grant applications—in theory</li>
<li>Why the distinction between holding office and running for office is key</li>
<li>About the storytelling value that can be derived from deliberately leaving questions open ended</li>
<li>+ get Gladwell's take on fake news and discover the one book her believes every student should read</li>
</ul>
Keep reading
Show less
Glassdoor lists the highest-rated CEOs during COVID
If you want flexibility, transparency, and decent health policies, it seems like working in tech pays off.
19 September, 2020
Credit: Peshkova/Shutterstock
- The website Glassdoor has released their rankings of the top CEOs and companies to work for during the pandemic.
- The rankings were based on a study of reviews placed on their website by employees which mentioned COVID or CEO performance.
- The study isn't quite definitive, but offers an insight into what employees want during times of crisis.
<p>The last time humanity faced an airborne pandemic was during the 2009 swine flu outbreak. It was a relatively mild <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#Comparisons_to_other_pandemics_and_epidemics" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">one</a>; it had a low death rate and reproduction number just above that of the seasonal flu. To find a globe-spanning, airborne pandemic of a more intense <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/forgotten-pandemic-offers-contrast-to-todays-coronavirus-lockdowns-11587720625" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">nature</a>, one has to look back to the Hong Kong Flu of 1968. </p><p>With so much time between today and that pandemic, it is little wonder that some people outside the health care field were unprepared to deal with COVID-19. Despite this, many serious attempts were made by institutions, both public and private, to make it possible to remain safe while also still working and living with some degree of normalcy. The results have been <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/10-highest-rated-ceos-during-the-coronavirus-crisis-glassdoor-ranking.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mixed</a>. </p><p>In an attempt to gauge how different companies did, the employer review website Glassdoor analyzed reviews of large companies' leadership during the pandemic. Their list of the top 25 employers in the United States and the top 10 in the United Kingdom offers a glimpse at what employees wanted from corporate leadership during the crisis, and who managed to provide it. </p>
How to succeed in business when times are very trying
<p>The <a href="https://www.glassdoor.com/research/highest-rated-ceos-coronavirus/" target="_blank">survey</a> considered recently submitted reviews about working for large companies that also included assessments of their leadership. Only reviews left between March 1 and July 31 were considered, with particular attention paid to high-quality reviews that focused on leadership's actions during the pandemic. Using these reviews, a scoring system was created to rank the companies and order them.</p> <p>A quick review of the top companies shows about a third of them are in <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/glassdoor-the-top-8-tech-ceos-during-covid-19/" target="_blank">tech</a>, with representatives from the world of finance, health care, and insurance also making appearances. Among the top-scoring companies was Zoom Communications and its CEO Eric Yuan, the company behind the video calling application that many people have recently turned to. The highest scoring company was Mercury Systems, an aerospace and defense technology company, and its CEO <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/glassdoor-names-mercury-ceo-mark-131500203.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mark Aslett</a>.<br><br><strong>The top ten</strong>:<br></p><ol><li>Mark Aslett — Mercury Systems </li><li>G. Brint Ryan — Ryan, LLC </li><li>Michael Weinstein — AIDS Healthcare Foundation </li><li>Eric S. Yuan — Zoom Video Communications </li><li>Stanley Middleman — Freedom Mortgage</li><li>Aaron Levie —Box </li><li>Corey Schiller & Asher Raphael — Power Home Remodeling</li><li>Ben Salzmann — Acuity Insurance</li><li>Jim Kavanaugh — World Wide Technology</li><li>Michael Schall — Essex Property Trust</li></ol><p>Few, if any, of the CEOs on the list are well known to the casual reader. The most famous is undoubtedly Mark Zuckerberg, who came in eighth on the list of UK employers. Only one woman made the list at all (BrightStar Care's Shelley Sun at number 17), perhaps reflecting the low percentage of large companies helmed by <a href="https://econlife.com/2020/02/fewer-female-ceos-2/" target="_blank">women</a>. Likewise, only a handful of non-white men were to be found either, likely for similar <a href="https://247wallst.com/investing/2020/07/07/only-11-of-sp-500-companies-have-ceos-of-color-and-it-gets-worse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reasons</a>. </p><p>In an interview with <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-09-17/eight-tech-execs-one-woman-on-top-ceo-list-video" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bloomberg</a>, Glassdoor's Chief Economist Andrew Chamberlain explained that the reviews suggest that many of the top-rated companies shared "clear and transparent communication with employees about what is going on during a pandemic. Second, providing flexibility: work from home, giving workers the tools they need to keep doing their jobs. And third, polices that support health and safety of employees first." <strong></strong></p><p>A glance at the reviews used to compile the study supports this view, with many explicitly praising commitments to transparency and flexibility. </p>And now, the grains of salt
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iMM3zxVoGZc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>This survey considered only companies with more than 1,000 employees at the end of the review period, leaving out many excellently run but smaller operations. Of these larger enterprises, only those with more than 50 upper management (25 for firms based in the UK) were analyzed. Reviews made by interns were not counted towards this minimum. Companies that performed well, but with employees who didn't feel the need to write reviews of their employer on the internet, were left out of the running.</p><p>Despite these limitations, the study does offer an insight into what employees wanted from corporate leadership during the pandemic and who could provide it. Companies hoping to do better during the next public health crisis would do well to consider the choices made by these executives. Those looking for greener pastures might also consider applying to work at these places. </p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1086f3a5efb729a71200629c525dfc2e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kjo3p0vGz68?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Keep reading
Show less
Study: Private prisons result in more inmates, longer sentences
The Labour Economics study suggests two potential reasons for the increase: corruption and increased capacity.
18 September, 2020
Politics & Current Affairs
After adopting strict sentencing laws in the '80s and '90s, many states have turned to for-profit prisons to handle growing prison populations. A new study in Labour Economics found that privately-run prisons correlate with a rise in incarceration rates and sentence lengths. While evidence is mixed, private prisons do not appear to improve recidivism or cost less than state-run facilities.
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>The '80s and '90s witnessed a rash of strict sentencing laws. Voters who lived through the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates" target="_blank">rise of violent crime in the '60s and '70s</a> offered full-throated support for such laws. Anxious to woo such voters, legislators hawked <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">tough-on-crime</a> rhetoric and passed ever-punitive legislation, such as Reagan's creation of mandatory minimum sentences through <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986</a>.</p><p>In hindsight, the consequences are as obvious as they are unsettling. Stricter laws gave judges less latitude in sentencing, and prison populations skyrocketed across the country. By 1990, state prison populations reached <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf" target="_blank">115 percent of their highest capacity</a>. Unable to house their new charges, nor garner equally enthusiastic support for the taxes necessary to fund building new facilities, some states turned to for-profit prison companies to manage the influx. As of 2019, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/1/20989336/private-prisons-states-bans-califonia-nevada-colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 states</a> incarcerate people in for-profit prisons.</p><p>Given this history, it's not without irony that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537120301123" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a new study published in Labour Economics</a> found privately-run prisons don't help states manage incarceration. The presence of such prisons may actually increase the number of incarcerated individuals as well as their sentence lengths.</p>
Cool hand rebuke
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjY1NTYyOH0.0MCPKN3If94mYCNf3mMNrnTvJXjXN_bKLhgk9203EXk/img.jpg?width=917&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=453" id="1627b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d76421ba1ea0de4b09956b97e80c384" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />A chart showing prison population rates (per 100,000 people) in 2018. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
<p>Researchers at Washington State University sought to determine how the availability of private prisons affected rates of incarceration in the United States. To answer that question, they performed a regression analysis on state and individual data from 1989 to 2008. Their analysis revealed a positive correlation.</p><p>As the number of private-prison beds increased per capita, so too did sentence lengths and the number of incarcerated people per capita. All told, the increase was 178 prisoners per million population per year. That comes to a taxpayer-funded bill between approximately $2-10 million annually—assuming those additional prisoners are housed in privately-run facilities. When it comes to increased sentence lengths, Gregmar Galinato, a professor in WSU's School of Economic Sciences who co-authored the study, notes that not all crimes are judged equally.</p><p>"For crimes like property damage, fraud, or non-violent drug crimes—crimes where judges have more leeway in sentencing—states saw higher sentencing rates and significant increases in sentence lengths when private prisons were established," he <a href="https://news.wsu.edu/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/" target="_blank">said in a release</a>.</p><p>The researchers advanced two potential explanations for this interstate discrepancy. The first is good old-fashioned <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/mississippi-closes-private-prison-walnut-grove.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">corruption</a>. In states where they operate, for-profit companies can incentivize legislators to push for stricter sentencing laws and bribe judges to inflate sentence lengths.</p><p>A haunting modern example is the "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-seeks-close-books-kids-cash-scandal-n408666" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kids for Cash</a>" scandal. In 2007, the Juvenile Law Center began receiving reports that hundreds of Pennsylvania juveniles were being tried and sentenced without defense lawyers present as representation. An investigation revealed that Robert Powell, a co-owner of two private juvenile prisons, was paying off two judges to return guilty verdicts and severe sentences to bolster incarceration at his facilities.</p><p>The second explanation is simply the availability of prison beds. As Galinato explains, judges become more hesitant to send non-violent offenders to prison in states where capacity is a concern. However, privately-run prisons reduce such concerns, making it easier for judges to mete out harsher punishments.</p>Who profits with for-profit prisons?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="97ac37e6c7f6f22ec130ea2d56871701"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dB78NV2WpWc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>The Labour Economics study suggests that privately-run prisons do convicts a few favors at the moment of sentencing. However, proponents of private prisons often point to other benefits when making their case. Specifically, they argue that private prisons reduce operating costs, stimulate innovation in the correctional system, and reduce recidivism—the rate at which released prisoners are rearrested and return to prison.</p><p>In regard to recidivism, the research is mixed. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank">One study</a> compared roughly 400 former prisoners from Florida, 200 released from private prisons and 200 from state-run facilities. It found the private-prison cohort maintained lower rates of recidivism. However, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00006.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">another Florida study</a> found no significant rate differences. And two other studies—one from <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oklahoma</a> and another out of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016813478823" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Minnesota</a>, both comparing much larger cohorts than the first Florida study— found that prisoners leaving private prisons had a greater risk of recidivism.</p><p>The research is also inconclusive regarding cost savings. <a href="https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/economics_of_private_prisons.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Hamilton Project analysis</a> noted that such comparisons are difficult because private prisons, like all private companies, are not required to release operational details. In comparing what studies were available, the authors estimate the costs to be comparable and that "in practice the primary mechanism for cost saving in private prisons is lower salaries for correctional officers"—about $7,000 less than their public peers. They add that competition-driven innovation is lacking as the three largest firms control nearly the entire market.</p><p>"We aren't saying private prisons are bad," Galinato said. "But states need to be careful with them. If your state has previous and regular issues with corruption, I wouldn't be surprised to see laws being more skewed to give longer sentences, for example. If the goal is to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals, increasing the number of private prisons may not be the way to go."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Is this the end of the myth of American exceptionalism?
In his new book, "American Rule," Jared Yates Sexton hopes to overturn a centuries-long myth.
16 September, 2020
Photo: Mike Focus / Shutterstock
Politics & Current Affairs
- In "American Rule," Jared Yates Sexton wants to eradicate the myth of American exceptionalism.
- Since its founding, Sexton writes that America has been constructed to protect the wealthy elite.
- In this interview, the writer suggests that facing up to our tragic history affords us an opportunity to build something new.
<p>Jared Yates Sexton wants to destroy the myth of American exceptionalism. The associate professor of creative writing at Georgia Southern University began political reporting in 2015, just as the last presidential election began taking form. Covering this beat, he realized how little he knew about our nation's founding, the contours behind the straight line we're taught by default (and intention). So he decided to learn. The result is his exceptional new book, "American Rule: How A Nation Conquered The World But Failed Its People."</p><p>Think of American Rule as a modern companion to Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"—books that, if our public education system was honest with itself, would be required in high school curriculum. Education is not about comfort, and Sexton was certainly discomfited while researching America's origins. </p><p>One example of many: our democracy has been shaped completely by white identity politics couched in evangelical religious language. Trees depend on the mycelium field of the forest; this specific brand of Christianity is the fungus that has nurtured generations of conflicted messaging between what we claim to stand for and who we really are. As Sexton <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpQJfxzLAik&t=2s" target="_blank">told me earlier this week</a>,</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This idea that America is ordained by some sort of Christian god or all-mighty being, or even if we're just carrying out the will of the Universe, that myth was used from the very beginning of this country to paper over a lot of terrible mistakes, terrible treatment, and manipulations that ran counter to our espoused principles. From the very beginning, this has been a weaponized mythology."</p><p>As a boy growing up in conservative southern Indiana, Sexton realized in adulthood that he'd been raised in the "Cult of the Shining City." Ronald Reagan's unforgettable mythos of America's infallible greatness is but one stop along the way of centuries of idealism hiding a genocidal past. </p><p>Obviously, not the history we're taught. Sexton says modern American evangelicalism is rooted in the Christianity of the Confederacy. Discussions about the Civil War tend to focus on generals. Even the current conversation about statues, while important, doesn't sufficiently peel back layers to expose the racism and xenophobia underneath—reparations would provide a better conversation.</p><p>Sexton continues: </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"There's absolutely no reason we don't understand as Americans how the country was founded, except for the fact that we're hiding something unseemly that is used as the basis of control."</p>
Conspirituality 17: Interview with Jared Yates Sexton
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="15ef8bcd30b09c9541cc8d5d51d16893"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XpQJfxzLAik?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>America's leaders were suspicious of the public's intellect well before that war. The founding fathers created our particular system of democracy because they didn't trust common people. The protection and success of white, wealthy landowners has always been the focus, regardless of the generational veneer pained over the top. </p><p>At one point, Sexton had to leave his desk and walk around. The <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/white-settlers-buried-truth-about-midwests-mysterious-mound-cities-180968246/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moundbuilder Myth</a> made him shake his head in disbelief. This conspiracy theory promoted the idea that Native Americans were not sophisticated enough to build mound complexes in the Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys and throughout the Southeast, which must have meant Europeans were on the land well before indigenous people. This myth was so woven into the societal fabric that Andrew Jackson, who Sexton calls "a total genocidal madman," mentioned it during the State of the Union address. </p><p>This isn't the only flummoxing footnote. Americans are particularly primed for paranoia. As he says, "You cannot understand modern America without understanding conspiracy theories."</p><p>The recent horrors of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/09/15/pelosi-calls-for-investigation-into-claims-of-mass-hysterectomies-poor-covid-19-care-at-ice-detention-center/?fbclid=IwAR030JRc9pYvYwvgQMoeBDndZpSbqHkSw16Fn0YLPxwS1O-U2pvmA0DZCgk#4dc1d55e5f7c" target="_blank">hysterectomies performed without consent</a> (not a conspiracy theory) point to another long-standing stain on America's reputation: eugenics. British thinker Francis Galton's bastardization of his cousin Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection fell into favor throughout America. This biologically (and religiously) determined call for selective breeding laid the basis of Nazi Germany, though today few Americans recall how much we inspired Hitler's pogroms. </p><p>The problem, Sexton says, is that we constantly choose to deny or overlook past grievances, which keeps us primed to commit new ones. Germany fessed up to their horrors; so did South Africa. Not so America. Sexton cites Jimmy Carter's "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">malaise speech</a>," an oft-denounced address that was one of the most honest declarations by a U.S. president. Instead of living up to Carter's impassioned call to action, the public chose an actor that spent eight years coddling a nation's ego instead of holding up a mirror. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDM4NTQ0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NjQ4ODcwMX0.AfjpHC3o7H50BA0t04_A5otr8nPbhA6O3htliWBuN0g/img.jpg?width=980" id="a760f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="427d2144e50437c8403674143de1d27d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Jared Yates Sexton
<p>And so here we are, a failing empire foolishly gripping onto the myth of a time that we were supposedly great. In fact, Reagan asked us to make America great again; so did Bill Clinton. With this myth comes the proliferation of conspiracy theories, most notably QAnon, though dozens persist. And they all point back to the founding myth in some capacity.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If America is so special, how are we failing right now? Within the myth is the idea that we're being sabotaged from beyond and from within. Nationalistic conspiracy theories are what happens when a country's mythology starts to wane." </p><p>While critical, Sexton is not without optimism. Our failures shouldn't not erase the incredible progress we've made. Right now, however, that mirror Carter tried to wield is needed. Otherwise, we could be reliving the end of the Cold War. The dismantling of the Soviet Union destroyed Russian optimism, which the government used as a wedge to attain absolute power. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"After the Cold War, they became as a people and a culture incredibly depressed, and incredibly oppressed. It reached a point where they knew their leaders were lying to them. But it was met with a big shrug. Eventually that apathy and powerlessness breeds more apathy and powerlessness."</p><p>Which is where America stands today: skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety, as well as the blueprint for a new Civil War—a possibility Sexton calls a probability. Nothing new here: instead of collectively focusing our energy on the accumulation of wealth by the moneyed class, culture war issues and conspiracy theories keep us engaged in turf wars. </p><p>If you think it can't happen here, "American Rule" is a reminder that it has, and likely will. Sexton's advice: to achieve any sort of unity, we have to resist the urge to become apathetic. This isn't a red or blue issue. We're still neighbors, part of a community that stretches sea to shining sea, even if at the moment the seas are covered in smog. </p><p>And the road to healing begins with a recognition that we need to rid ourselves of the greatest myth in the history of the republic. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Once we disabuse ourselves of the myth of American exceptionalism, and we start looking at American history and say it's really problematic and inspirational at other times, it allows us to build something new."</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Jon Stewart: Congress is abandoning veterans exposed to toxic 'burn pits'
Stewart is supporting a new bill that aims to extend health care and disability benefits to veterans who served alongside burn pits.
16 September, 2020
Jon Stewart performs onstage during the 13th annual Stand Up for Heroes to benefit the Bob Woodruff Foundation at The Hulu Theater at Madison Square Garden on November 04, 2019 in New York City
Credit: Bryan Bedder / Getty
Politics & Current Affairs
- Thousands of American veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed to burn pits, which may have caused diseases like asthma and cancer.
- Burn pits were used as a crude way to dispose of waste, including plastics, body parts, dead animals, and hazardous chemicals.
- Despite gaps in the research linking exposure to medical conditions, advocates say the benefit of the doubt should go to veterans.
<p>Plastics, medical waste, rubber, hazardous chemicals, human feces, batteries, dead animals, and amputated limbs.</p><p>These are some of the things that were routinely doused in jet fuel and set ablaze in massive "burn pits" near U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some pits burned more than <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/2013/03/29/burn-pit-at-balad-raises-health-concerns-troops-say-chemicals-and-medical-waste-burned-at-base-are-making-them-sick-but-officials-deny-risk/" target="_blank">140 tons of trash a day</a>, launching into the sky thick plumes of smoke visible from miles away. </p><p>For more than a decade, thousands of American soldiers who served next to these pits have developed serious medical conditions, such as asthma or cancer, that may have been caused by inhaling toxic fumes. Some veterans have filed disability claims, but the Department of Veterans Affairs has denied most. </p><p>One reason is that it's hard for veterans to establish causation: How do they know their illness wasn't caused by something else, like inhaling dust and sand from the desert? And, can veterans prove they were next to specific burn pits on specific dates?</p><p>Some veterans advocates say it's unjust to place such a high burden of proof on veterans in need of medical care. Or, as comedian and advocate Jon Stewart said Tuesday at an event on Capitol Hill, "It's bullshit."</p>
<div id="7c8d8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ec2f6e162d1fe56d46b662f1875f8ba3"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1305864531953037312" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Jon Stewart introduces bill for sick veterans: ’Welcome to another exciting episode of ‘When is America going to st… https://t.co/Fm8Ix0qRJK</div> — NowThis (@NowThis)<a href="https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/statuses/1305864531953037312">1600177340.0</a></blockquote></div><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Welcome to another exciting episode of 'When is America going to start acting like the great country we keep telling ourselves we are?'" Stewart said at the news conference. "Our veterans lived 24 hours a day, seven days a week next to toxic smoke, dioxins -- everything. And now they're being told, 'Hey man, is that stuff bad for you? I don't know, we don't have the science.' It's bulls***. It's bulls***. It's about money."</p><p>The former "Daily Show" host was there to support a new bill called the Presumptive Benefits for War Fighters Exposed to Burn Pits and Other Toxins Act of 2020, sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif. The bill would give medical coverage and disability benefits to veterans who served next to a burn site and now suffer from a condition linked to the inhalation of toxins.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="edbce77a70f3aba65a6f2f429666970b"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ydcifH0SQmI?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Stewart, who spent years pushing for legislation that ultimately extended health care coverage for 9/11 first-responders through 2092, said denying health care to veterans who were exposed to burn pits amounts to "gas-lighting."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist. But, I'm also not an idiot. If you live next to a toxic smoke plume filled with cancer-causing elements, and you're breathing it in day in and day out, it's going to make you sick," Stewart told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/jon-stewart-burn-pit-veterans-relief-capitol-hill" target="_blank">Fox News</a>.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Then, you're going to get home and people are going to tell you, just like they did with the 9/11 community, first, 'It's in your head, you're not really sick.' Second, 'OK, maybe you're sick, but had nothing to do with what that was.' And thirdly, they're going to say, 'OK, it is, but I don't know if we can afford all that,'" Stewart added. "You know, this is money. That's it. And, when you've got an F-35 that may never be battle-ready and it's going to be a cost overrun of about $1.4 trillion, and you're gas-lighting your own veterans on their health conditions because you don't want to pay for it? Criminal, and it has to stop."</p><p>The V.A. says "<a href="https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/health-effects-studies.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">research</a> does not show evidence of long-term health problems from exposure to burn pits" at this time.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Most of the irritation is temporary and resolves once the exposure is gone," reads the <a href="https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">V.A. website</a>. "This includes eye irritation and burning, coughing and throat irritation, breathing difficulties, and skin itching and rashes."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The high level of <a href="https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/sand-dust-particulates/index.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fine dust and pollution</a> common in Iraq and Afghanistan may pose a greater danger for respiratory illnesses than exposure to burn pits, according to a <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13209/long-term-health-consequences-of-exposure-to-burn-pits-in-iraq-and-afghanistan" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2011 Institute of Medicine report</a>."</p>
A lack of evidence?
<p>Conclusive research on the links between burn-pit exposure and medical conditions is lacking. </p><p>But after the Vietnam War, there was also a lack of research on the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange. In 1991, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/agent-orange-act-was-supposed-to-help-vietnam-veterans-but-many-still-dont-#:~:text=In%201991%2C%20Congress%20passed%20the,the%20vet%20eligible%20for%20benefits." target="_blank">Agent Orange act</a>, which extended health benefits to Vietnam veterans suffering from conditions linked to exposure. There was also an <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/911-cancer-study-pits-scientists-vs-first-responders/353352/" target="_blank">initial lack of evidence</a> showing that 9/11 first-responders developed conditions like cancer after inhaling pulverized dust at Ground Zero.</p><p>While scientists continue to study the effects of burn-pit exposure, advocates say lawmakers should err on the side of extending health care to ailing veterans.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If people were injured or affected and there's a plausible relationship or explanation for what's going on, the benefit of the doubt needs to go to the veteran," former V.A. Secretary Dr. David Shulkin said at the event on Tuesday. "To simply let people suffer and go without help from their government is not a satisfactory response."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
