On The Media: The ISIS Propaganda Slowdown

This week I listened to The ISIS Propaganda Slowdown. Donald Trump chose to divert attention from his obvious perpetuation of rape culture, which he claimed was just locker room talk, and then center the attention on ISIS. I'm not saying that one is necessarily more important than the other, but I do find it interesting that Trump tries to connect these two totally unrelated topics. For the sake of homeland security, tackling ISIS is obviously more important. However, I personally do not want a president that makes comments and has acted in a way that has spent his lifetime degrading women because I think having him in office sets the clock back on rape culture and equality, which is a big social concern for this country. This was only a small part of the podcast though, so I'll end my tangent there.

What this podcast really focuses on are the changes we've seen with ISIS recently. The propaganda for ISIS has died a lot within the last year though. Not only has the physical spread of ISIS slowed because of loss of territory, but the media servers are doing a lot better at halting the efforts of ISIS online. There have also been some very big names in ISIS that have been taken off the map recently. This combination has slowed ISIS down a lot, but the educated guess in this story is that it is just a game of time now. ISIS might be waiting for a Trump presidency to enact their next major terrorist acts. Hillary Clinton even asserts that Trump's words have been used as pro-ISIS propaganda. While this is not part of any official ISIS propaganda, we still have instances that support this to some extent.

I would agree that ISIS would benefit from a Trump ruled America, but only time will tell. No matter which way the election goes, ISIS isn't going away. I hope whoever our next president is will be able to actively and effectively defend against and take down ISIS. This lack of propaganda, particularly online, is just the calm before the storm.

Well Informed 2.0 Tribalism

This week I chose an article from July of this year entitled "America, we must not give in to tribalism." This article, written by Samuel Rodriguez, talks about race baiting and the racial divides that are currently damaging the United States. It's a fairly short article, but it sums up his thoughts in his last paragraph when he says, "You might have a different skin color, political party, religion, sexual orientation and bank balance than me, but you are not my enemy. You are my brother. You are my sister." I would love for everyone of different backgrounds to get along. Simple. However, I think he oversimplifies what is going on. Rather than addressing specific issues and offering solutions, he gives a bit of a Rodney King attitude - can't we all just get along?
Rodriguez is a reverend, so I'm sure he promotes peace and national unity to his congregation and those he interacts with every day, but I don't think he can reasonably talk about getting along in his news articles without expressing what steps we need to take. I find talking about problems without expressing possible future action to be a pointless endeavor. I'm not saying Rodriguez is wrong, but if a person has the ability to share their voice, I think they should be sharing solutions. The only thing that sounds like a solution to me is when he says, "You see, we must be able to differentiate race baiting and political opportunism from since cries of injustice." I guess that would be the first step - learning to see clearly. But then what?
I'm not saying I have the solutions, but I am saying that with racial tensions very high and divides based on them (tribalism - Black Lives Matter, etc.) we need more steps to take because wishful thinking doesn't equal progress.