Why I Saw Through the Media Manipulation

Revisiting the Introduction of Covid-19 in Early 2020

It’s been 5 years since this big shift in our society occurred. I’ve been piecing together an article like this for a while. I have upwards of 20 articles related to this topic that weren’t finished or shared. What I have to say will never be perfect, and I’ve decided to finally put some semblance of it out there. I could write an article in and of itself as to why I’ve refrained from sharing more about this topic, but I’ll save that for another time.

I find it hard maintaining scope with this topic when writing, hence my process-oriented intro. I get tempted to digress with tangential streams of thought. This topic is vast and seems to be intricately woven into so many things. There are many interconnected threads to speak about, yet I feel the need to be succinct in my approach with discussing this. I’ll do my best to stick to the aims and intentions of this article.

Aims and Intentions for Sharing

My aim is to speak about the personal experiences that led to my perception about what occurred in the media during the earlier months of 2020. My aim is to highlight components of my life experiences that contributed to me not accepting the given narrative around Covid-19 (which I’ll refer to as CV19). In hindsight I look at CV19 as an event. An event that, through most individuals' perception, was thrust upon us.

My intention is through sharing my personal framing, others may see more clearly what someone else’s process looks like. (Particularly someone they believe holds an opposing viewpoint.) My intention is to share this semblance of what influenced my information processing when big shifts in society were prompted, affecting everyone at large. A semblance of components of my life that would determine what I’d get on board with when directed by these external media sources.

Here’s a quick list of those life components before I go into more depth for each one:

My personal media habits

My previous education

My work history

My pattern recognition with regard to information

My contextual default setting

(Then back around to media) My media sensibility

This is not an exhaustive list, but these are the life components that initially come to mind. These are what I find to be very tangible components of how I’ve come to perceive the information around CV19. Using them as an internal sense of guidance during a very confusing time.

---

My Personal Media Habits

I start with my media habits because I believe this is one the most influential factors as to why I’m less manipulated by media. Notice I said less. I’m of the belief that we are all manipulated by media in some way, myself included. Due to the basic fact that media is easy to use as a manipulation tool. Yet for myself, with CV19, I wasn’t easily manipulated. I believe there’s a number of reasons for this.

I haven’t watched what people refer to as the “news” since the early 2000’s (and I rarely watched it in the 90’s). I got rid of my TV in 2007. I certainly watched things from TV - I just did it via a computer or laptop. During most of my adult life, I’ve never relied on reading any mainstream newspapers or publications. Corporate news organizations of any format haven’t appealed to me.

I never really saw “news” from the TV or publications as a way of being informed. I see them as ways of consuming someone else’s opinion. Once again, getting into this can make for a whole other article. To be clear, this isn’t mindless on my part. It’s been a conscious effort to avoid these things. For me, it’s not a matter of choosing to be ignorant. Rather a choice to rely on my independent researching and thinking. Living, working and socializing in NYC most of my life, I felt confident that I’d get my actual news in other ways. And I did.

Intuition and Establishing Trust

Intuitively I knew something was “off” regarding those forms of information dissemination, so I followed my intuition. Mind you, nearly everyone I know pays attention to TV news and publications. I do my best to maintain no hard judgment toward anyone who chooses to consume those media sources. Yet I’ve always found it peculiar that people looked at those things as more truthful than they are. Maybe you can find some truth there, but not without much needed discernment.

Because of my own personal habits around media consumption, I’m not entrained in the same way those who watch it are entrained. The entrainment process primes the individual to be more likely to believe the next thing the media shares. Gradually becoming more accepting of the next thing with little questioning. Which makes it easier to be manipulated by sources that already have already given a green light as being trustworthy. For me, no mainstream media source has an automatic green light.

Interestingly enough, my approach in life is to go into most situations as trusting. I like to start with a higher level of trust, until occurrences give me pause to lose trust. Although leading with higher trust, I have to rely on my continued assessment of what will diminish my trust with someone. (Another way of saying this is to have a pretty good BS detector, ha.) So, for me, when I sense deceit or manipulation, my trust is lowered. Pretty simple.

Internal Assessment vs. Outsourcing Authority

Let’s explore trust with an exercise here. Say you have a similar approach about being trusting, in starting off with a high level of trust. How many times do I have to lie to you, before you reduce your level of trust with me? You may have a specific number come to mind. You also may have some nuanced thought in thinking that not all lies are considered equally, so you may have some leeway when making your assessment.

Now let’s bring this back to media. Let’s pose a similar question here. How many times does a media source have to lie before you reduce your level of trust with it? By media source this could include an institution or publication, a corporate entity or a public media figure. How many passes do you give them before you lose trust?

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that the average individual gives a whole lot more passes to media sources than they would to a person who’s being deceitful to them. Why isn’t the standard the same for media?

Establishing Boundaries with Media

For me, I’ve been aware of my engagement in this process for many years. Due to this process, I personally don’t find any of the major mainstream media trustworthy. I haven’t for decades. So, I choose not to entertain them. And I’m most certainly not going to allow them to entrain me to believe things I don’t believe.

With this being my chosen mode of relating to mainstream media for years, it’s allowed me the room for discernment. Allowing me to pause before believing anything related to something like CV19. Now, let me be clear about something. It’s not that I believe everything is a lie from a source that I find untrustworthy. These media sources could be sharing factual things. I’m just saying that it’s challenging for someone to believe something is factual from someone else who has already proven themselves untrustworthy. And yes, this poses a big dilemma.

I bring up this point, because it can be way too easy for those who do watch, listen and read mainstream media to dismiss people like me. It’s not that I ignore it altogether and I’m off somewhere in la la land, I actually do pay some attention to those mainstream media sources - I just keep it at arm’s length and use discernment. My preferred method is to listen to others talk about the information shared by these news sources, preferably by those who are applying curiosity and critical thinking.

Why Sensationalizing Doesn’t Stick for Me

That’s my process. And I didn’t only have this process with CV19 - I have this process with all shared mainstream media content. I choose how to shape the context for which I view their given content. I feel this is an important distinction to make. Regarding this media information lens that I’m speaking of, it doesn’t matter what the WHAT is. I’m not changing my assimilation process because the WHAT that’s inserted here happens to be called “a deadly virus.”

Mind you, I’m not completely unaffected by hearing reference to something like “a deadly virus” when it’s evoked. I want to have space to take such things seriously… when they’re true. But what is “true?” A whole other article and discussion can be had on how one determines what is true. I know I’ve had parts of that discussion with friends over these recent years, and it’s a rather enlightening, perplexing discussion. It’s a discussion that may not have a concise consensus understanding. But I can say this, I most certainly don’t look for truth from mainstream media. For heaven’s sake, why would I look for truth there?

Referring back to CV19, when I did start to consume media around this topic, I was already noticing information dissemination tactics that didn’t align to how my mind was naturally formulating what the best practices would be. My thought process from this having been largely informed by previous education and my work experiences. So let me speak to those things next.

---

My Previous Education

Well, lucky me for having a particular mixed bag of what I’ve studied in college and afterwards. I have a BA in psychology. I minored in business and communication. I studied public health toward a master’s degree. Then I became certified as a holistic health coach. In a nutshell, these are the contributions to the “Education” part of my resume. It’s likely that a type-A job recruiters would see my resume as unfocused and all over the place. But not me, I love the range I’ve chosen to cover with my education.

Although I admit, I’m being a bit sarcastic saying “lucky me.” As it hasn’t always granted me clear direction in one path. Yet I feel it is this mixed bag that provided me access to multiple lenses for what would be the media event known as CV19.

And yes, let me take the opportunity here to clearly state that throughout this article I’m referring to the informational component of the CV19 crisis. I’m not making any claims on the physiological or medical aspects of CV19 or digging into aspects of illness or treatment. That’s not within my area of focus or expertise. And I appreciate those aspects are being discussed critically by others elsewhere. I’m choosing to talk about the media and factors related to our interpersonal communication regarding CV19, particularly how it influenced society in the US.

When You Know Enough to Know that You Don’t Know

Back to my previous education. I knew enough about science and public health to know I didn’t know enough about the exact science or full public health ramifications when CV19 was proposed to us. It sounds funny to put it this way, but it’s true.

I’m reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which notes a cognitive bias that occurs. Basically, the bias suggests how those who have some knowledge on a subject, feel like they don’t have enough expertise to call something true or not. Whereas those who actually know less on the topic, will (often falsely) have more confidence in believing something is true (when they actually don’t know).

So yeah, basically I knew enough baseline stuff in these areas of study to have some understanding, but not enough to make a firm claim that I “know” what’s going on. Yet, there were lots of voices very early on claiming to know some things with certainty about what was going on. Do you remember? Were you listening to those people who claimed to know what was going on? Did you claim to know what was going on?

A Frenzy of a Crisis

I was aware how part of the problem was having the CV19 crisis posed to us as “urgent.” Leading with urgency throws caution to the wind, giving too much airtime to cavalier communication methods. Conjuring a “state of emergency” gives too much credence to those who say they “know” when they really don’t. Reducing accountability when making such claims, because they can excuse themselves for acting in urgency on behalf of the greater good.

Did you notice how most of those figures who said they “know” what’s going on, were media figures? Ok, how was this considered sufficient? Why weren’t their panels of experts from scientific and public health fields on air on a regular basis? I remember questioning this early on. Our established mainstream communication airwaves never once thought to make regular segments for education, providing regular elucidation from experts in these fields. Would that not assist society during such a crisis? Instead, the media sources applied fear and increased confusion.

Careless Exaltation of Media

Did no one question the absence of input from those who might actually know more than the anchor people in the media? Another indication to me that the emphasis wasn’t that this was a medical event, it was a media event.

Now, I know the retort here. It could be both. Especially since media has been such a big part of our lives by the time 2020 comes along. Yes, it could be both a medical event and a media event. But the media themselves emphasized their own part in all of this as it was happening. Why did the media become the authority to defer to? (Who cares what a mainstream media anchor person has to say about a public health concern?! Especially in this day and age. Isn’t it well known by now that they’re the chosen propagandists for their respective networks?)

If the medical aspect of this was as severe as stated, why not use the media differently to assist with better understanding? What a huge opportunity lost by not accessing the tens of thousands who’d have some level of expertise in the related areas of studies pertaining to the crisis. There’s no way this wouldn’t be under consideration when faced with a real medical crisis. If I thought of it, then I’m sure others brought the option to the table. Clearly, doing something like that wasn’t part of a preparedness agenda.

When There’s Real Cause for Panic, You Don’t Incite Panic

As I mentioned, my educational studies have been based in psychology and communication. There are far better ways the media could have communicated about a potential public health threat. I also studied public health (which taught me I did NOT want to work in the public health field). That was back in the early 2000s. It informed my awareness that the ethics taught to me as a student weren’t actually reflected in the practices of public health-related organizations.

Sure, I considered how I might be thinking like a jaded NY’er around this perspective. Then fast forward to 2020, witnessing the public health performance around CV19 being such a shit-show. Once again, anyone with knowledge of how public health is supposed to proceed - the response with CV19 was far from it.

Public health is all about best practices. The CV19 response entertained some of the worst practices if you’re assessment is using a public health lens. Part of the response was to give us a figurehead within the mainstream media system (such as Fauci) rather than being informed by any of the thousands public health officials in the US. You’ve got to be joking.

So no, this was not a showing of best practices from an informed public health approach. Although using the lens of a psychological operation, it indeed consisted of the best practices for that approach. Go figure.

So yes, perhaps my educational history with both psychology and public health, allowed me to see the comparison and contrast of the two. From the public health lens the media actions around CV-19 were abysmal. From a psychological lens it was a perfect example of media manipulation for creating hysteria and continued unease for the people.

---

My Work History

Due to some of the jobs I’ve had, I knew some baseline stuff that your average person might not know. From noticing broader trends and patterns to strongly questioning very specific aspects of how CV19 was being handled. One area of the media blitz that sent a red flag to me on both measures, broader and specific, was the emphasis on testing. There was also strong messaging emphasized about cases which was intricately tied to testing by the media.

Of the broader trend concern, this was repeated over and over again. Like force fed to us through the various forms of mainstream media. I knew from studying and working related to psychology and public health, it was the practice of repeating the same message over and over to get people to be compliant. It was clear to me this was one layer of entrainment occurring through media messaging

In the early 2000’s I worked at an HIV organization. Due to this experience, I was well aware of PCR tests and their limitations. I found it perplexing that there would be so much emphasis placed on this kind of test. It was being used to relay such accuracy and validity. Which is does not do such a thing. Yet, mainstream heralded this as an invaluable detector. Could that be because your average person was uninformed about the efficacy of this kind of test?

Can See Through the Script, But Can’t Go Against It

It’s as if just repeating the word “test” with enforced authority would translate it into being more valid than it is. I’ve seen this subject of testing get brought up over the years, and it seems some people have a hard time being convinced of how misleading it is. I didn’t need convincing of its ineffectiveness, as I had prior knowledge of these kinds of tests. I knew they’re level of effectiveness was low, relative to what the media outlets were claiming them to be.

Another thing I learned for the first time at a job like the HIV organization, was that not everything was on the up and up when it came to public health initiatives and the organizations conducting them. Yet another thing I can write more about that at a later date. And yes, let me hold off from sharing what I learned with regard to the pharmaceutical industry (which of course would play a very big part in the next chapter of the CV19 crises).

Something that I did learn at that job, which is very relevant (for those who don’t know) it’s no mistake that Fauci was chosen to be a central figure for the face of CV19 public health administration. He was also a pivotal player during the HIV crisis.

Not that I needed much more reason to have distrust with the media narrative that was being woven, but to have a known criminal being placed in such a position was not a good sign. I’m sure there’s some percent of the population that knew this at the time, but it was small. Even if they mentioned this prior, they were shot down because he had “plot armor” within the chosen narrative.

Your Proof is Your Inner Knowing from Your Own Experience

Having my experience within public health, however limited, really gave me pause when seeing those red flags. It’s truly fascinating how each of those elements will eventually play a part in how you perceive things. I’m so grateful for the cumulative experiences. I understand it within my own head space, but taking the time to describe how each thread has influence can be challenging to do. Especially when things are purposely getting so amped up that we can’t take the time to adequately dissect and explain how we perceive the way we do.

A lot of my work history has involved how we talk about health. Whether from person to person, or professional to client/patient, or media to the masses. In having this background, it was really odd seeing so many of those guidelines thrown out the window for CV19. Nearly anyone working in a health-related position seemed to have to make reformations to their previous protocols. Why weren’t the original protocols sufficient anymore? Those protocols were there for a reason.

They weren’t tossed aside because there was suddenly a novel virus amongst the population. These changes were intentional directives handed down from whatever powers that be. Once again, if you use a different lens, it makes more sense about the chosen design and execution.

Since working in the holistic health field, I’ve privy to using more models and explore these intricacies of perception. It allows me to notice the tole these different systems play. It’s also given me new understanding around pattern recognition with regard to information and communication. Which I’ll get in during the next article. Keep an eye out for Part II. Thanks!