Jul 11th 2017

Faith, Fox and the Failure of Politics

by Jeff Schweitzer

Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist and former White House Senior Policy Analyst; Ph.D. in marine biology/neurophysiology

·          

As the Keanu Reeves title character John Wick said, “Well, yeah, I’m thinking I’m back.” While I do not have Wick’s martial arts skill, good looks or quiet charm (or any of his redeeming qualities, or hair, for that matter), I share with him a deep frustration with the need to confront unpleasant realities after an extended effort to ignore them. One could argue that blogging in the age of Trump is an act of self-flagellation, a futile attempt to clap with one hand. Yet we can find value in having a conversation among the sane by seeking solace with others struggling to understand the absurd, sharing concerns and troubles, and charting our difficult path to a better future, even if without the benefit of dialogue with reasonable opponents.

Our New Reality

Regardless of time or place, all great generals throughout history have recognized the need to cede territory in the face of pending loss in order to survive to fight another day. Wishful thinking and delusional hope never triumph in battle. During some of the most epic battles of the Civil War, both Grant and Lee proved their genius in retreat rather than victory. This lesson is relevant today because we are fighting a new phase of this same war; Appomattox just shifted the nature of the conflict. Those of us who champion a secular world view based in evidence, facts, and reason must be realistic like those Civil War generals and recognize the harsh reality of our circumstances. The one-third of voting Americans who watch Fox News and who continue to support Trump are lost forever. We need to cede that territory, however painful. Our task is to concentrate on the remaining two-thirds of the electorate. Many will recoil at the idea of giving up on the one-third, but cede that territory we must if we have any chance of regaining control. We cannot reason with Trump supporters because reason has no currency in their fact-free faith-based world; we must defeat them. Any hope for reconciliation is delusional, and in these desperate times we have not that luxury of delusion any more than did Lee or Grant. Blogging remains worthwhile precisely because there is a chance that the rest of us can unite sufficiently to end the current reign of hateful ignorance imposed by a virulent minority.

Faith and Fox

Faith is belief in the absence of any demand for objective proof. Something is true simply because one has faith that it is. Secular conclusions are open to modification when presented with contrary data; that is how science advances and why we have rockets and the internet and are not still living in the Stone Age. Einstein built on Newton to create the Theory of Relativity, modifying Newton’s understanding with new insights and new data. Faith is immune to such change or advance because faith makes no appeal to data at all. Faith defined by Webster is the “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” Hebrews 11:1 has faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” There is no evidence or proof we will see our loved ones upon our death; those who believe so do so on the basis of faith alone, having the “conviction of things not seen.”

Faith and religion are not the same thing, but the latter could not exist without the former. Without faith there is no religion. Religion, according to Webster, is “a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Religion and faith are intertwined beyond being conjoined by definition: when confused, or doubting, or angry at god, we are counseled that he works in mysterious way; that we are too humble to understand, that trials and losses are meant to test our faith. Demanding proof of religious proclamations or questioning established doctrine is itself sometimes given as evidence of a lack of faith. So we are told to have faith because we cannot be with god without faith. Hebrews 11:6 says that “without faith, it is impossible to please God. John 3:16 warns that without faith, we cannot be saved. Romans 10:17 declares that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.” Having faith yields divine reward: Matthew 21:22 says that “if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask in prayer.”

So let us agree that Judeo-Christian religions are founded on the very principle that faith is both necessary and sufficient; that proof of divinity is not required or even desirable. Religion without faith is like a waterfall without water; the absence of one precludes the existence of the other.

Yes, of course, each of us has the right to believe whatever we want. Absolutely. To each his own. Everybody is free to believe as he or she wishes. So far, so good, no harm, no foul, and we can throw in a couple of other clichés. But alas the reality is not so benign. The trouble begins when our respective religions give us each the mandate to impose our beliefs on others. This is where faith becomes problematic, because belief, in the absence of evidence or proof, offers no means of arbitrating between competing claims. “I believe therefore it is true” does not yield to reason or an appeal to contrary evidence. Which brings us to Fox News, and no, that segue is not at all abrupt or incongruous, as we shall see.

Fox and Fantasy

We know that religion exists only in the presence of faith and that this embrace of faith is pervasive. About 85 percent of the world’s population believes in god, a total of about 6 billion people. Humans clearly have a tendency toward belief in the absence of evidence, an innate willingness to accept as true “things not seen.” This tendency is precisely why Fox News can exist. Fox is an extension of religion, which like Fox, can only exist in the presence of faith. Fox News can thrive only if its audience accepts on faith the network’s lies and fabrications with no expectation of any objective supporting evidence; they simply have faith that what Fox says is true and that is sufficient for them. Fox believes therefore it is true.

News based on faith rather than fact, however, is not news at all, but propaganda. We have been here before. Long before Fox News, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels perfected the dissemination of half-truths, innuendo, outright falsehoods, and the suppression of unflattering stories. Goebbels was charged by the Fuhrer with presenting Hitler to the public in the most favorable light, regulating the content of all German media, and discrediting those who opposed the Reich (sound familiar?). Lee Atwater resurrected these strategies, Karl Rove embraced and enhanced the practice, and Fox took them to Nazi-era extremes. Fox is unabashedly the media outlet of the Republican Party, airing only that which supports the right wing agenda. Fox is our version of state television, little different from Goebbels offered his viewing audience or what is available in Russia or China today, with content controlled and guided by a political agenda. 

Let us be clear that liberal media is not the left’s version of Fox. Faith-based news is not equivalent to news reporting verifiable facts, even if that reporting is biased toward the left. This common claim of the far right that Fox is nothing but a response to left-wing bias is the worst kind of false equivalency. Unlike Fox coverage of Trump, CNN was incessantly critical of Obama, including his foreign policy. Obama’s drone war and his policies toward Cuba and Iran were critically scrutinized for example. I challenge anyone to find any Fox News headline critical of Trump or his policies.

The argument we hear in daily conversations that “they all do it” when discussing media bias ignores the form, weight, intensity and tenuous link to reality in the bias we see on Fox News, or with Ann Coulter or Hannity or Limbaugh. Unlike Fox, left-leaning media like CNN or the New York Times are tethered to reality by reliance on evidence and objective verifiable truths. Left wing media is biased, as is right wing media, but the difference is that the left remains a champion of a free press willing to question any administration left or right.

Trump and Fox not only do not support a free press, they actively seek to oppress it. Trump attempted to blackmail journalists in an effort to keep them from airing an unfavorable story. The White House barred media considered unfriendly, including CNN and the New York Times, from attending a news briefing in an attempt to exclude organizations critical of Trump. In his escalating war on free press, Trump warned that critical coverage could cost Time Warner its merger with AT&T. What Trump is doing is unprecedented, even considering Nixon: never before has a U.S. President actively sought to silence the press with a concerted campaign of intimidation. There is no equivalency here. On a regulator basis Trump dismisses legitimate and sourced negative coverage as fake news to discredit the free press, and his audiences cheer. They do so because his supporters demand no proof or evidence of his claim; they accept it on faith.

So yeah, left wing media is biased; right wing media is biased. But on the left there is nothing comparable to the massive, organized, intentional distortions seen on the right, or the coordinated overt attacks on free press unprecedented in modern American history. To see this clearly we only have to look at coverage of Benghazi, an important case because Fox overtly used this as a vehicle to promote Trump’s election. The same of course is true of the Fox obsession with Hillary’s email or any number of Obama conspiracies. But let’s look at Benghazi.

During George Bush’s presidency, the U.S. suffered 13 attacks on embassies and consulates in which 60 people died (some put the total at 87). What is important here: Fox News (or any conservative media for that matter) mentioned not at all or only in passing any of these attacks and deaths. Compared to the never-ending coverage of the deaths of four Americans in Libya, I can find not one single Fox News or conservative media reports on the 8 Americans killed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; not one story of Jim Mollen’s murder, and none on the murder of Edward Seitz.

Consider now that the deaths in Benghazi were covered in saturation nearly non-stop for almost two full years after the attacks. According to MediaMatters, Fox News ran 1,098 segments on the Libya attacks, at least 20 per month, with a peak of 174 in October 2012. Of these, 281 segments alleged a “cover up” by the Obama administration, without offering any evidence for the claim, and pushing the story long-past when the claim was proven false. There is and was no cover up. The House Armed Services Committee report concluded that the Obama administration was “not guilty of any deliberate, negligent wrongdoing.” Fox failed to report this. The GOP panel confirmed that “no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order” was given to the military. This is a Republican majority report. The bi-partisan Senate report on Benghazi came to the same conclusion that there was no cover up. Fox failed to report this as well.

Equally corrupt, Fox aired 100 segments pushing the blatant lie that the Obama administration issued a “stand-down order” before there was any evidence for the claim and even after the accusation was known to be false. So Fox aired hundreds of segments on an alleged cover up and stand-down order that they knew to be wrong. Compare this blitzkrieg of false accusations concerning four American deaths to the complete lack of coverage or investigation into the 60 deaths suffered during 13 attacks under Bush. There is absolutely nothing in liberal media remotely comparable to this onslaught of blatantly biased coverage and these accusations fabricated from thin air. This misinformation campaign could only be sustained if the audience accepts on faith what Fox News airs; even the most cursory critical review would shatter the myth.

Fox’s success in getting Trump elected by promoting lies about Benghazi, emails, health care and Obama’s heritage relies upon the strategic implantation of a news propaganda cycle. The toxic brew begins with isolating viewers with “us versus them” tribalism, for example pounding relentlessly the idea that the “liberal media” is undermining Christian values. This proceeds to creating specific enemies through character assassination, innuendo, false accusations and scapegoating. We are now united against them, a common enemy (liberals, atheists). From there we advance to an appeal to fear, never far from the old standbys of immigrants and stereotyping, with Muslims a favorite go-to. With these three areas of propaganda firmly established we go for the big prize, creating an alternate reality (Obama will take your guns, liberals want to abolish Christmas) using misinformation, outright falsehoods, half-truths and the suppression of anything contradictory.

Such suppression is seen with the story of Trump’s collusion with Russia. This is mentioned on Fox only in the context of examples of liberal bias. Fox coverage here is the inverse of what happened with Benghazi, killing a real story instead of airing ceaseless attention to fabricated news.

Like its predecessors in Germany, Fox has with this cynical cycle of deception and suppression perfected the art of “dark propaganda” which masquerades as news and information but has the intent of persuading, not informing. Inversion is a favorite technique, like calling real news fake and embracing fake news as real. Unlike more benign advertising, dark propaganda seeks to convince an audience of “something false, half-true or unsubstantiated, using deceit to deceive” to promote a political agenda. This can only be done if the audience does not demand evidence for dark claims; that is, if the viewers rely on faith to establish authenticity. Hence Fox’s success in advancing (easily disproved) lies about immigrant crime rates, illegal voting, unemployment figures or Obama’s birthplace. In spite of overwhelming contrary evidence, with faith as their guide the audience can dismiss Trump’s collusion with Russia as a hoax or liberal conspiracy. With faith, with believe in the absence of proof, the Fox audience is willing to accept Trump’s lies that “I won the popular vote” or “Obama had my wires tapped” or “I had the largest inaugural crowd ever.” These claims are easily proved false, but faith does not yield to fact.

Dark propaganda is effective only if the audience wants to believe the big lie, and is willing to exclude incompatible data when reality conflicts with deeply held convictions. The dark propaganda of Fox News thrives on the nourishment of faith, serving up manna to an audience that accepts as true all that is presented with no challenge or skepticism. The suppression of negative stories about Trump, the bizarre birther charade, and the obsessions with Benghazi, and Hillary’s email can all be manipulated only because facts no longer matter with an audience embracing the conviction of things not seen.

Fox is a cancer on our society, and the disease can only spread when sustained by faith. Once we no longer demand evidence or proof, we have no limits on crazy with brakes of reason; anything goes, we believe whatever we want with no boundaries, and we get Trump and Fox. Belief in god, or that Obama is a Muslim, or climate change is a liberal hoax are all based on faith, a belief in the absence of evidence and the willingness to reject convincing evidence that does not comply with previously held beliefs. Fox represents a faith-based worldview immune to reason or any appeal to objective verifiable truths. Fox cannot exist without faith any more than could religion.

Fantasy and Failure

Belief in the absence of evidence yields religion and Fox, but the damage is much deeper still. If facts do not matter, if we cannot agree on an objective reality, we have lost the ability to solve problems through reason and dialogue. If we do not accept evidence and robust data as the essential tools that we can use to verify or falsify claims, we have no common language or mechanism to distinguish between fantasy and fact. We cannot arbitrate between competing claims or evaluate the benefits or costs of technological and scientific advances. Hence we have climate change denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. EPA no longer has any scientific advisory board: why would one be needed if facts are irrelevant? Standards for clean air and clean water no longer rely on data but ideology; vehicle and fuel standards are skewed to favor industry rather than where the data lead; pollution standards and enforcement are guided by political contributions instead of measurable metrics. With no appeal to data, we retreat from clean and renewable energy in favor of coal.

For the first time since WWII, the White House has no science input; the Office and Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Presidential Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) are unstaffed. In a world increasingly dependent on science and technology, the United States has cast itself adrift. We have the President of the United States at a G20 meeting isolated and ignored as an ineffective buffoon. With our faith-based policies the United States has under Trump become a laughingstock, a country incapable of leading not only on climate change but on virtually all major issues critical to an ever-connected world in which science and rationalism play increasingly important roles.

The dark side of faith ends not there. Attorney General Jeff Sessions claims that, “The Constitution says we shall not establish a religion — Congress shall not establish a religion. It doesn’t say states couldn’t establish a religion.” When he says religion, he means his brand of Christianity, because he has faith that his beliefs trump those who object to having another religion imposed upon them. Understand this: the Attorney General of the United States, the man responsible our enforcing our laws, advocates for a government-imposed religion. This is the antithesis of everything American, offensive to the ideals of our founding, but fully consistent with having faith as one’s guide. In a state with a Muslim majority Sessions would probably not want to have the government establish religion; only Christianity is good to go. State religion, creationism taught in place of evolution; Christian symbols erected in public spaces; hate crimes against Muslims and Jews; discrimination against the LGBT community; the celebration of ignorance and rejection of science; Fox News and Trump: these are the consequences of faith, the terrible dangers of belief in the absence of evidence. If our Republic is to survive as the country we know and love, the two-thirds who rely on facts, reason, verifiable data, evidence, and objective truth must vanquish the one-third who embrace faith, the conviction of things unseen, as the foundation for all else.

 




To subscribe to Facts and Arts' weekly newsletter, please click here.

To follow Facts & Arts' Editor, Olli Raade, on Twitter, please click here.

If you have something to say that you want to say on Facts & Arts, please

Write to the Editor, or write a comment in the comments section.

 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Jun 25th 2019
"For many of us, eating a meal containing meat is a normal part of daily life. But if we dig deeper, some sobering issues emerge. Every year, 66 billion terrestrial animals are slaughtered for food. Predictions are that meat consumption will rise, with increasing demand for meat from China and other Asian countries as their standards of living increase. The impact of grazing animals on the environment is devastating. They produce 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases, and livestock farming is a major contributor to species extinctions."
Jun 22nd 2019
"Throughout history, people who have gained positions of power tend to be precisely the kind of people who should not be entrusted with it. A desire for power often correlates with negative personality traits: selfishness, greed and a lack of empathy. And the people who have the strongest desire for power tend to be the most ruthless and lacking in compassion."
Jun 21st 2019
"In this era of Trump, it should perhaps come as no surprise to find supposed experts lacking in historical perspective. Yet it is still disappointing to find this deficit in the New York Times, which prides itself on clinging to a pursuit of the truth. So it is a bit sad to read the plaintive cry of Allison Schrager’s op-ed of May 17, lamenting that the domination of art markets by the super-rich will somehow force smaller galleries to go out of business, and imperil the careers of young artists."
Jun 17th 2019
Extract: "ust as an earlier generation resisted the limiting post-War era "white middle class" definition of being American by giving birth to an awakening of cultural pluralism and ethnic pride, it falls to our generation to fight for an expanded view of the idea of being American that rejects the narrow view projected by Trump and white nationalists. The idea of America isn't theirs. It's bigger than they are and unless our national cohesion is to unravel, this challenge must be met by projecting an inclusive vision of America that celebrates our inclusive national identity in an increasingly globalized world."
May 28th 2019
Whatever other attributes Homo sapiens may have – and much is made of our opposable thumbs, upright walking and big brains – our capacity to impact the environment far and wide is perhaps unprecedented in all of life’s history. If nothing else, we humans can make an almighty mess.
Apr 29th 2019
A century ago, unspeakable horrors took place on every continent that were known only to the victims and the perpetrators. Not so today. As a result of advances in communications – from the telegraph and radio to satellite television and the internet – the pain and loss of global tragedies are brought home to us in real time.   Because of this expanding consciousness, the post-World War II era has witnessed the rise of visionary leaders and the birth of countless organizations dedicated to alleviating suffering and elevating the causes of peace, human rights, and tolerance among peoples. Individually and collectively, they have championed the rights of peoples in far-flung corners of the world, some of which had been previously unknown to those who became their advocates. These same leaders and groups have also fought for civil rights and for economic, social, political, and environmental justice in their own countries. 
Apr 23rd 2019

 

“Cursed be that mortal inter-indebtedness which will not do away with ledgers. I would be free as air; and I’m down in the whole world’s books. I am so rich… and yet I owe for the flesh in the tongue I brag with” (Moby Dick, chapter cviii). 

Apr 20th 2019
Economists speak in numbers only, clinging to statistical data and quantitative models. We do so in the hope of looking objective. But this is counter-productive – “data” cannot tell us everything. Other social sciences such as sociology and anthropology use a broader range of methods, and consequently have a broader perspective on society. If we take our societal role of adviser on economic matters seriously, we will need to open up and adopt the insights that these other disciplines bring us about how the economy works.Politics and economics are inextricably intertwined, as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx knew all too well. Somehow this has been forgotten. This does not mean economists need to get political or choose sides. But it does mean that we ignore politics at our own peril – by blindsiding ourselves or dismissing it as “external stuff”, we hamper our understanding of the very system we study.
Apr 16th 2019
Although it is not likely that many visitors who pass by the Giacometti sculptures on their way to Las Meninas will ponder it, the contrast between these works underscores the single greatest transformation in the history of western art, from a regime in which artists tailored their works to the aims of individual patrons, to one in which artists choose their techniques and motifs according to their own concerns, and only then present the products to an anonymous competitive market
Apr 4th 2019
On March eleventh, the world lost someone who was very special, who made a mark and touched people with his voice, as a singer, a humorist and writer..........I had the great good fortune to know him and spend time with him, playing music, talking with him – he was a man of immense culture, fluent in Hebrew, German, English, and Romanian. He loved New York City and Vienna and we would often swap apartments so that he could stay in New York while I lived at his place in Vienna.
Apr 1st 2019
The ongoing controversy over admissions to American universities has overlooked the one of the most telling aspects of the scandal—that it took place with the connivance and active participation of administrative bureaucracies able to act with impunity in the pursuit of their interests. Neither the professoriate, often the target of opprobrium from the left and the right, nor the student body, also the target of criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, bore any of the responsibility.  Current debates over “what ails” U.S. colleges and universities consistently ignore the single most important dynamic of all institutions—their structure of power. I suggest that the way in which power is allocated within American universities is strikingly similar to that of Soviet-type regimes. Presidents, chancellors, provosts, deans, and their bureaucratic apparatuses preside over vast real-estate and financial holdings, engage in the economic equivalent of central planning, have inordinate influence over personnel, and are structured hierarchically, thereby forming an enormously powerful “new class” like that described by the renowned Yugoslav dissident, Milovan Djilas, in the mid-1950s. 
Mar 22nd 2019
When you think of religion, you probably think of a god who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. But the idea of morally concerned gods is by no means universal. Social scientists have long known that small-scale traditional societies – the kind missionaries used to dismiss as “pagan” – envisaged a spirit world that cared little about the morality of human behaviour. Their concern was less about whether humans behaved nicely towards one another and more about whether they carried out their obligations to the spirits and displayed suitable deference to them. Nevertheless, the world religions we know today, and their myriad variants, either demand belief in all-seeing punitive deities or at least postulate some kind of broader mechanism – such as karma – for rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked. In recent years, researchers have debated how and why these moralising religions came into being.
Mar 19th 2019
European food and ingredients have become staple food choices for the British. The use of ingredients such as garlic, peppers, avocados, Parmesan cheese and all those other European ingredients that are now taken for granted are relatively new and were still rare in the 1990s. When I was growing up in rural Devon in the 1970s, olive oil was only really readily available in chemists as a cure for earache – now it is found in most food cupboards. And wine drinking has permeated through all social classes.
Mar 12th 2019
The Guggenheim’s strange and wonderful exhibition of Hilma af Klint’s groundbreaking, yet largely unknown body of abstract art is an important event – one that challenges us to not only rethink the early history of twentieth century abstract art, but to recognize her vision of art and reality as unique, authentic, and deliciously puzzling. 
Feb 25th 2019
Looking at the world today, it's clear that the consequences of this imperial legacy are still with us. If anything has changed it is that we are now beyond just viewing the former "natives" as far-away oddities. They are now living within our borders, having come to find the opportunities they were denied at home. So when I hear the reactions in the West to the influx of South Asians going to the UK, or North Africans going to France, or Central Americans migrating to the US, I can only say "Guys, these are the fruits of your conquest – your chickens coming home to roost."
Feb 25th 2019
Extracts: "The new novel Sérotonine by Michel Houellebecq, the bad boy of French literature, is a saga of depression and death told with such irony and wit that readers seem to love it despite the unsettling themes. Maybe it’s just me but I found myself laughing out loud.......True to form, the French don’t agree on Houellebecq – or anything else, for that matter. The impact of his new novel has divided the readers into opposite love-hate camps with hardly any middle ground. Houellebecq cannot leave you indifferent, notes a literary friend of mine"........Picture: Michel Houellebecq, by the reviewer Michael Johnson. 
Feb 19th 2019
The term “smiling depression” – appearing happy to others while internally suffering depressive symptoms – has become increasingly popular. Articles on the topic have crept up in the popular literature, and the number of Google searches for the condition has increased dramatically this year. Some may question, however, whether this is actually a real, pathological condition. While smiling depression is not a technical term that psychologists use, it is certainly possible to be depressed and manage to successfully mask the symptoms. The closest technical term for this condition is “atypical depression”. In fact, a significant proportion of people who experience a low mood and a loss of pleasure in activities manage to hide their condition in this way. And these people might be particularly vulnerable to suicide.
Feb 19th 2019
Outstanding, experienced journalist Michael Johnson, whose articles, often accompanied by his striking portraits, has now brought his love of music and of pen, ink, gouache and watercolor to create a study of remarkable insight, strong opinions and beauty in this gorgeous book. Written in both French and English the brief descriptions of musicians he has met, studied, interviewed are accompanied by distinctive portraits that, as his title suggests, some may be caricatures. I argue that the author/artist has created insightful studies of the human face engaged in the pursuit of music. The only caricature is his own self-deprecating, slyly wry self-portrait that opens the book—and it is worth the book’s purchase on its own. 
Feb 15th 2019
Only 9% of the overall population in the UK are privately educated, but they occupy an especially high proportion when it comes to positions of public influence: a third of MPs and top business executives, half of cabinet members and newspaper editors, three-quarters of judges....
Feb 12th 2019
There is a fascinating chapter toward the end of Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America titled “What Kind of Despotism Do Democratic Nations Have to Fear?” in which the author attempted something truly extraordinary – to describe a social condition which humankind had never before encountered. We find him trying to put his finger on something which does not yet exist, but which – in his extraordinary political imagination – he was able to foresee with startling clarity.............. we must recognize that Facebook, Google, and Amazon are the new leviathans. In serving users only those posts with which they will agree,