Well, actually, no. Can we review something, please?

“Fake” and “biased” are not the same thing. They do not mean the same thing in reference to anything, let alone media, and yet they are flung around as though they’re exact synonyms. Can you imagine switching those words out in other conversations?

“You bought a Rolex on the street? Sorry to break it to you, man, but that watch is totally biased.”

Um, no. Not the correct word. And, I hate to break it to you, but even if a news station has a history of bias, that does not make them ‘fake news.’

Fake news means explicitly, blatantly false news stories — stories that, with the rise of social media, have spread like wildfire under the guise of truth. Stories like this one, linking Malia Obama to dog-fighting — a story which originated on a satire website! The author wrote it to prove that people will share fake news. People see a headline, a name they don’t like (“Dang those Obamas!”) and because of their bias, they assume it’s true and share it with their friends.

Part of the problem, too, is that people seem to think that ‘political commentary’ and ‘journalism’ are the same thing. This is in part also because of the rise of social media; every opinionated blogger claims to be a ‘reporter’ when in fact they’re more of a commentator. The two roles are wildly different. A talk show host is not bound by the ethics of journalism. Yes, they are bound by the ethics of media, and should not be presenting fake or false information — but they absolutely will present stories with a political and personal bias. That is literally their job. So when Ellen Degeneres refuses to have President Trump on her show, that is not an example of fake news. That is an example of a talk show personality doing her job. She has a right to refuse certain stories or people; she’s not a journalist, and never claimed to be. You might disagree with her as a person, or like her show less because of it, but she’s not breaking any ethical media laws.

Journalists are supposed to present an unbiased view, a report on all sides of the story. True, that doesn’t always happen. News stations often do have a political bias. Part of that is your fault, you know — people tend to watch and read news that they already agree with, and so stations feel the pressure of their viewership to report in that agreeable tone. They report stories in a way that will make you feel good about the beliefs you already hold, because they want you to keep watching. They have a business to run, after all. But that doesn’t mean they’re lying.

This is the most important fact to remember: Political bias DOES NOT EQUAL FALSE INFORMATION.

Those are two very different things. And presenting them as equal is a serious problem.

If you run around calling every news station that you don’t agree with ‘fake news,’ you’re effectively ignoring the real problem of fake news — the websites that publish purposely false, detrimental information as a way to make money in the traffic those stories garner. That’s the real problem; that reflects a public so full of their own bias they don’t even bother to fact check outrageous stories.

Yes, biased reporting is its own problem, too, and we should hold the media accountable. But check your own bias and make sure you get your news from multiple sources. If you exclusively watch CNN or exclusively watch Fox, you are simply tuning in to the frequency that’s padding your own biased belief system. You’re the problem. Read from multiple sources, watch several different news stations, and when you notice a biased slant, call them out. Compare how different stations run the same story, then do some fact-checking yourself and figure out what you think. Don’t just rely on one station or newspaper to feed you information. Don’t ignore the other side of the story. All that will do is reinforce your own bias and leave you susceptible to actual fake news.

The freedom of the press is one of the core facets of a healthy democracy. Historically, once a government starts to grab for too much power, the press is among the first institutions to go. It’s true we need to hold the media accountable to honest reporting, but shoving ‘political bias’ under the same umbrella as ‘fake news’ is unhealthy, unwise, and detrimental to the reporters out there who are actually doing their best to report fairly and honestly. Those reporters are essential to the health of our society, and if you don’t like what they’re reporting — that’s probably a sign you really need to hear it.

If you want to put an end to the problem of fake news, start by ending your own bias. Listen to stories that make you uncomfortable, and fact-check with the fastidious passion of someone who actually cares about finding the truth (not just proving yourself right). Maybe even engage in honest conversations with people who disagree with you! But please, please, please stop treating journalists as pariahs. They may be imperfect, but we are too — and each of us holding the other accountable is a pillar of the truly free world.

The post The Problem With The War On Fake News appeared first on HER Magazine ™.

Ever since I first heard this quote in my eleventh grade AP Gov. class, I have been dying to fit it into an article. Finally, that glorious day has come!

What do you think? You like it? A quote from a Founding Father definitely gives a piece that certain ‘je ne sais quoi,’ you know? A real sparkle. And it is perfect here, especially in its original context — but I’m getting ahead of myself. You’ll see.

Let’s talk about the EPA, shall we? Aka the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America.  

I can practically hear half of you mutter, “No, um, let’s actually not.” I get that. I hear you. When President Trump signed that executive order last week, most people’s reaction basically reflected how they feel about the EPA in general: that is, a lot of the lingo (Chief of the Chair of the Regulation of the OBM Council for Committee Titles, etc.) and science-ey talk (I am not a chemist, guys) makes for kind of a dense read, so we tend to fall back to the basics (which is usually the opinion of our peers):

“I love the environment and therefore I love the EPA and HATE this executive order!”

Or:

“I love the environment, too, but I hate big government; the EPA has abused its power and I LOVE this executive order!”

Or:

“I hate the environment! Let’s light everything on fire!”

Well, in all fairness, that last one was just the arsonists, and that’s their response to pretty much everything.

Hey, guys, I’m not here to judge (except kind of the arsonists). If you’ve read any of my stuff, I’m sure you can easily guess which camp I fell into. No, I’m not going to spoil it, I’m a professional; you’ll just have to go read all my other work (see what I did there?).

But when I was put to the task of reporting on how much environmental regulations affect businesses, I came to the very humbling realization that I didn’t much understand this new order; I’d formed an opinion without much actual research (*hangs head in shame*)(*implores you to constantly fact-check your own beliefs*).

Thankfully, that can be remedied.

According to their website, the EPA’s mission is to “protect human health and the environment,” which they do by developing and enforcing regulations, giving out grants (which make up about half their budget, according to the site), studying environmental issues, sponsoring partnerships, educating the public and publishing information.

Since they’re a federal agency, they do this across the country; after all, air, water, and CO2 emissions don’t really recognize state lines. If one state messes up the air, their neighbor’s gonna cough. On the other hand, having that much power also means bigger mistakes can happen. When the agency comes under fire for issues like the Flint Water Crisis and the Gold King Mine Spill, they look a lot less trustworthy.

If they’re not seen as trustworthy, then all those regulations (which make things difficult for many businesses) are a lot harder to stomach. Welcome to the second part of that sparkly James Madison quote:

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

This has essentially been our biggest problem since our country’s inception: Men aren’t angels, so we really do need government, but if men are governing, they’re going to need to be monitored, too. How much power should the government have? How should it be kept in check? When will we just put women in charge?

(Kidding.)

(Kind of.)

Rather tricky, that. Hence many folks’ frustration with some of the environmental regulations put in place by the EPA and the Obama administration, leading to the executive order signed by President Trump on March 28th.

The order covers a lot of stuff, but one industry that seems to particularly benefit is coal. Coal, used to produce electricity, accounts for about 21% of our nation’s energy production, and coal miners made up some of President Trump’s most vocal supporters during the campaign. Much of this order is about rolling back regulations on coal: getting rid of the moratorium on coal leasing, dismantling the Clean Power Plan, and reconsidering the carbon standards for new coal plants. While the Obama administration worked hard to step away from coal as an energy source, the Trump administration is building it up in order to save the jobs of those coal miners who supported him.

Unfortunately, many (many, many) critics, and even a coal CEO, argue that nothing President Trump does can save those jobs. The coal industry, according to these sources, is dying because of economics — not regulations. Natural gas is much cheaper, and solar energy is getting pretty cheap, too. While many supporters of the executive order argue that renewable energy (solar, wind, etc) is too expensive to be realistic, the World Economic Forum recently reported that in 2016, solar and wind were cheaper than fossil fuels! (Friendly reminder, ‘fossil fuels’ includes coal and gas) There are even, reportedly, twice as many workers in the solar industry now as in the coal industry. Talk about job growth!

Environmental regulations do put stress on businesses. But guys, a lot of regulations put stress on a lot of businesses. Legal regulations put stress drug barons, okay, but we’re not lifting those regulations to ‘create more jobs.’

CALM DOWN, I am not saying that coal miners are drug barons; I’m saying the government is in the business of regulating stuff for the greater good. That’s kind of the point. The balance, of course, has been — and always will be — figuring out just how much we allow it.

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 51

Like what you’re reading? Access HER magazine’s monthly publication in iTunes or Google Play – it’s where we feature powerhouse women you can learn from and share exclusive content you won’t find here.

The post On The Latest Executive Order: Environmental Regulations Vs. Business Freedom appeared first on HER Magazine ™.