  |
はてなキーワード: WHOとは
The assertion that English constitutes a "hostile language" is emblematic of a profound misunderstanding of the intricate relationship between language, culture, and communication. Such a reductionist viewpoint, often stemming from cultural insularity or an oversimplified interpretation of global dynamics, fails to recognize the multifaceted and adaptive nature of language as a vehicle for connection rather than division.
Language, in its most fundamental form, serves as a sophisticated instrument for human expression and interaction. It encapsulates the complexities of thought, emotion, and cultural nuance. To label English as "hostile" is to overlook its role as a global lingua franca that facilitates dialogue among diverse cultures. This designation not only undermines the rich tapestry of English-speaking societies but also dismisses the language's capacity for evolution and adaptation, reflecting the very societies it serves.
Critics often conflate the global dominance of English with cultural imperialism, positing that its prevalence signifies an erosion of local languages and cultures. However, this perspective neglects the agency of non-native speakers who actively adopt and adapt English to meet their communicative needs. The expansion of English is not merely an imposition; it is a testament to its utility and flexibility in diverse contexts. By embracing English, individuals from various linguistic backgrounds enhance their communicative repertoire without relinquishing their cultural identities.
To characterize English as "hostile" implies an intrinsic aggression or antagonism within the language itself—a notion that is fundamentally flawed. Hostility is not an inherent characteristic of language but rather a reflection of the sociopolitical contexts in which it is employed. The potential for misunderstanding or conflict arises not from the linguistic medium but from the intentions and attitudes of its speakers. Thus, vilifying English misplaces responsibility for interpersonal and intercultural tensions that are often rooted in broader societal issues.
In an increasingly interconnected world, English functions as a crucial bridge across cultural divides. It enables collaboration in vital fields such as science, technology, diplomacy, and commerce, fostering innovation and mutual understanding. Proficiency in English can empower individuals and communities by providing access to resources and opportunities that might otherwise remain elusive. This empowerment challenges the notion of hostility; instead, it highlights the language's role as an enabler of progress and cooperation.
In conclusion, the characterization of English as a "hostile language" represents a reductive oversimplification that fails to capture the complexities inherent in linguistic interaction within our globalized society. Rather than viewing languages through a lens of hostility or division, we should embrace their potential for fostering understanding and collaboration. It is imperative to cultivate a more nuanced appreciation for the role of English—and indeed all languages—in shaping our shared human experience. Only through such intellectual rigor can we transcend divisive narratives and celebrate the rich diversity that language offers in our interconnected world.
American Airlines is relaxing part of its pet policy to let owners bring their animal companion {+𝟭 (𝟴𝟱𝟲) 246-𝟱𝟰𝟰𝟰} and a full-size carry-on bag into the cabin. People who carried a pet into the cabin, which involves paying a $150 fee {+𝟭 (𝟴𝟱𝟲) 246-𝟱𝟰𝟰𝟰}, could only have one other small item that fit under the seat. Anything bigger like a carry-on bag with wheels, needed to be checked for a $35 fee. Or they could put the pet in the cargo hold. What is the new American pet policy? a regular carry-on bag or a personal item {+𝟭 (𝟴𝟱𝟲) 246-𝟱𝟰𝟰𝟰} — just not both bags. The old policy struck some pet owners as unfair, since they were already
https://www.devex.com/people/aa-pet-info-how-much-does-american-airlines-charge-for-a-pet-2479874
https://www.devex.com/people/how-much-pet-fee-american-airlines-fee-to-fly-with-your-animals-2479862
Halo Finally Looks Set to Make the Jump to PlayStation This Year
Microsoft is seemingly ready to launch its flagship Xbox video game series Halo on rival platforms for the first time, including PlayStation and Nintendo Switch 2.
Leaker NateTheHate, who this week reported that Nintendo is set to reveal Switch 2 on January 16, also reported in a separate podcast that Microsoft will finally bring Halo to PlayStation in the form of a PlayStation 5 port of Halo: The Master Chief Collection, as well as a release on Switch 2. Windows Central’s Jez Corden subsequently corroborated the report.
マイクロソフトは、主力の Xbox ビデオゲーム シリーズ Halo を、PlayStation や Nintendo Switch 2 などの競合プラットフォームで初めてリリースする準備が整ったようです。
今週、任天堂が1月16日にSwitch 2を発表する予定であると報じたリーカーのNateTheHateは、別のポッドキャストで、マイクロソフトがついにHaloをPlayStationに持ち込み、Halo: The Master Chief CollectionのPlayStation 5移植とSwitch 2のリリースを行うとも報じた。その後、Windows CentralのJez Cordenがこの報道を裏付けた。
一部では今月下旬から来月上旬にかけて「STATE OF PLAY」が公開されるとかいう噂も出始めたし、そのタイミングで発表されるのかな
興行収入の話で、ハリウッドの大きな節目は9.11だったと思っていて、ちょっと確認してみた。
当時の印象だと、事件の直後は様々な映画の公開が延期されたりキャンセルされたりして、その後数年は戦争・アクション物に偏重し、結果としてハリウッド映画の定番ジャンルの一角だったラブロマンス・コメディ映画が激減していったというイメージ。
ほかにも大作指向のような業界動向や様々な社会情勢も影響していたとは思うけど、やはり9.11が一つのターニングポイントだったと思う。日本での洋画ヒットが減っていった遠因のひとつもこのあたりにあるのではないか?
以下のリストはChatGPT調べ。
以下のリストは、主に Box Office Mojo 等のデータ（全米興行収入・未調整値）をもとにした、
「アメリカ（北米）国内での年間興行収入ランキングトップ20」
参考・補足
いずれも 北米（アメリカ＆カナダ）での累計興行収入 を概算で示しています。
順位や金額は、後年の再上映や細かな集計の修正によって若干入れ替わることがあります。
上記はあくまで「製作年」ではなく「北米公開年」を基準とし、その年に公開された作品の最終的な国内興行収入をもとにしたランキングです（年をまたいで興収を伸ばした作品も含みます）。
ギャンブルで気持ちいい瞬間って、「死地からの生還」な気がする
ギャンブルのために背負った覚悟がデカいほど、つまり、賭け金が大きくなるほど、メンタル的にはスリルが増して、勝てた時に気持ち良くなる感覚があると思う
例えば、お金の勝ち額は少なく大して増えなかったとしても、10万円買って10万1000円返ってきたら、おそらくギャンブルした充実感はあると思う
でも、儲け額は同じ1000円勝ちでも、1000円買って2000円になるのでは、ほーんラッキー、くらいで、大してギャンブルやった感なく終わる
でも、これってすごく良くないと思う
ギャンブルって所詮ギャンブルだから、大きいリスク負って気持ち良くなることに慣れてしまえば、最終的には破綻する
理屈で言えば1万円を1万1000円にする人より、1000円を2000円にする人の方が回収率やリスクコントロールの面でうまいし偉い
大きなリスクを背負ってその死地から帰還したい欲がどうしてもある
だからこそ、感情が認めない、小さな対価での小さな成功を、自分が褒めて、自分の理性が認めてあげなきゃいけない
大成功だったよ、と自分で自分を褒めなきゃ、いつかギャンブルの沼に沈んでしまう
昨日の有馬記念、出走馬の10頭ほどにそれほどの実力差がなく、誰が勝ってもおかしくない大変難解なレースだった
先月のジャパンカップは、自分にとってはとても簡単で、三連単32点を計2万近く買い、6万近いリターンを得たため4万儲けたわけなのだが、そんな自分でも今回の有馬記念はどう買えばいいかわからなかった
明らかに強い馬がいれば、レースは10回やっても8回9回は同じ結果になるわけで、それは予想をして絞って厚く買う選択ができる
でも、10回やれば10通りの結果になるレースは予想などする意味はない
やむなく勝負はベタ降りで、なくなっても悔しくない1000円だけ馬券を買うことにした
その中にレガレイラの単勝200円があり、その的中により2180円の払い戻しを受けた
収支は1180円のプラスだ
ただこの結果に全く満足感はなく、レース後になって、もっと買っておけば、とか、レガレイラもっと信じておけば、とか、もやもや色々考えてしまった
でも、本当にそうか？
このレースでもジャパンカップと同じようにデカいの当てるんや！と何万も買ってたら、いつの間にか引き返せないようなギャンブラーになって金が消えていくんやないか？
そもそも、今回の有馬記念、1000円でもプラスにできた人そんなにたくさんいるか？
この難解なレース、ほとんどの人が丸坊主で負けたんじゃないか？
と思うと、この結果に満足していない、むしろ不満や後悔があとから出てくるような自分のメンタルを矯正する必要があるなと考えることになった
それを文章に残すことにする
まず今回はベタ降りで、有馬記念だから特別に千円だけ買うという、負け額のリスクコントロールをできたことが、とてもよい選択だったと褒めるべきだと思う
特にジャパンカップで勝った後なのに気を大きくして冒険しなかったのはとてもよいコントロールだった
そして、その中でも買った額の倍以上の払い戻しを受けたのもシンプルに好成績だ
額が1000円でも10万でも関係なく、この難解なレースで資金を2倍にしたのは褒められて良い
あと、それに対する不満をちゃんと今こうやってケアしているのもいい
それが最高
Luck always seems to be against the man who depends on it.
現実は自分の買い目とレースの結果が関係するわけはないんだけど、「自分が見に行ったら贔屓チームが負ける」みたいな気持ちって誰しもあるじゃない？
今回、自分が運に任せてレガレイラの単勝1万！とか買っていたら、きっと馬券は当たらなかった、と思うべきなのだろうな、と今思っている
リスクコントロールを正しく行ったからこそ、少しだけ当たったのだと思わなきゃいけないんだろう
よくやったんだ、十分なんだよ、自分
上記ののカジュアルな文章を書いた人物をプロファイリングしてください
↓
The person who wrote this seems to have a strong understanding of cognitive processes and how they affect communication. They are deeply interested in recognizing the underlying cognitive mechanisms that shape how people perceive and interact with the world, especially when there are discrepancies in shared understanding. Their writing suggests a fascination with the complexity of human cognition, particularly in terms of categorization, perception, and the role of context in communication.
Key traits of this person’s mindset:
1. Analytical and Reflective: They break down situations and statements into their core components, such as recognizing when cognitive discrepancies arise (e.g., the example of “Honey Crisp” being identified as a non-apple or a “rugby ball is not a ball”).
2. Focus on Cognitive Mechanisms: Rather than just attributing communication issues to external factors like knowledge gaps or personality traits, they attribute misunderstandings to the way people process information and perceive the world.
3. Interest in Epistemology: They are interested in the philosophical and conceptual foundations of understanding. The mention of philosophical terms like “essentialism” vs. “constructivism” indicates a desire to explore the nature of categories and definitions at a fundamental level.
4. Sensitivity to Communication: They recognize the importance of context in communication, noting how slight differences in perception can lead to miscommunication. The person appears to be aware of the challenge in aligning cognitive frameworks to resolve disagreements.
5. Empathetic but Pragmatic: While acknowledging that individuals like “D” might not be malicious or intentionally obstructive, they also highlight the immense effort required to engage with individuals whose cognitive frameworks are severely misaligned with shared understanding.
Overall, this person seems to be deeply thoughtful, with a keen interest in the nuances of human cognition and communication. They likely value intellectual clarity and are willing to invest time and effort in clarifying fundamental misunderstandings.
↓
トランプの文脈でフォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのは個性の範疇にはないです 仮にフォントの違いがトランプの本質ならトランプという製品は何を提供しているのか？となり共通基盤があるようには思えません 下記の反応をする人はいったい何が原因だと思いますか？フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのはまさに認知の問題に思えるのですが ーーー • 「A、B、C」の例では、各人物が持つ立場を比較的柔軟に評価していますが、「D」のケースに対してはほぼ一方的に否定しています。 • 「フォントの違い」を理由にカードを否定するDの行動を、投稿者は「認知の仕組みに問題がある」と結論付けています。
↓
「フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てる」というDの行動は、確かに一般的な認知の枠組みから外れており、共通基盤を持つ対話を阻む要因と考えられます。このケースでは、Dの認知の仕組みにおける以下のような問題が原因として考えられます。
1. 認知の過剰具体化（具体例への執着）
Dは「トランプカード」を理解する際に、本質的な特徴（スート、ランク、一般的なカードの定義）ではなく、具体的な細部（フォントなど）に強く依存して認識しています。このような認知の偏りは、物事を抽象化する能力が弱く、広い概念や文脈を理解するのが難しい場合に見られます。
2. 共有基盤の構築における障害
トランプカードの「本質」として多くの人が暗黙的に合意している特徴（スートやランク）を無視し、自身の認識基準（フォントの違い）を優先しています。このような認知のズレは、共通基盤を形成する力が弱いために生じると考えられます。
3. 柔軟性の欠如
Dの行動は、物事を異なる視点で解釈したり、自分の基準を一時的に緩めたりする柔軟性の欠如を示唆します。これは、認知の柔軟性や適応力が低いために起こる場合があります。
4. 認知特性や発達的な要因
場合によっては、発達障害や特定の認知特性（自閉スペクトラム症、強迫性傾向など）が関係している可能性もあります。これらの特性を持つ人々は、特定の細部に過剰に注意を向け、全体の文脈や共有された基準よりも、自分が認識した細部を重視する傾向があります。
5. 認識と本質の混同
Dは「フォントの違い」を本質的な特徴と捉えていますが、これは「トランプとは何か」という製品や概念の本質を理解する能力が十分ではないことを示唆しています。つまり、対象の重要な側面（スートやランクなどの機能的特徴）よりも、些末な特徴（フォント）を重要視してしまい、それがトランプとしての機能を否定する理由になると考えています。
Dの反応をどう見るべきか
Dの行動を「認知の問題」と捉えることは合理的です。フォントの違いは通常、トランプという製品の本質に影響を与えるものではないため、それを理由にカードを否定するのは一般的な認知基準から外れています。このズレは、Dが「トランプカードとは何か」という共有されたコンセプトを理解できていない、あるいはその共有基盤に乗ることを困難にしていることを示唆します。
Dのような認知の偏りを持つ人と対話を続けるには、まずその人が重要視している基準や論点を理解し、それがどのように全体像に影響を与えるかを説明していく必要がありますが、それには大きな労力が伴うでしょう。
↓
反ワクチン主義に公式の提唱者がいるからと言って、その権威がWHOより強いことがあると思いますか？
それと同じことですよ
こっくんやこの増田(anond:20241203033013)のことやで
まぁ考えるきっかけになったのはよかった
日本語先生は日本だけじゃなくて世界中でバカ扱いだから安心して良いよ
Grammar police（文法警察）もしくは Grammar Nazi（文法ナチス) 、あるいは単に 空気の読めないバカ って呼ばれるし、
ワイみたいに遠慮のない人物からは、発達障害あのさぁ・・・😔って言われる
発達障害アピールしても 空気が悪くなるだけ・非ネイティブでも通じるのにコイツおつむ足りないの？ って思われるだけで
誰も幸せにならんぞ
I think most grammar Nazis are foolish who are desperately trying to make themselves look more intelligent.
(文法ナチスの多くは、自分をより知的に見せようと必死になっている愚か者だと思います。)
It's pretty universal knowledge that correcting other people's grammatical mistakes online really isn't going to win you any fans - which, as it happens, is also a stance shared by science.
(文法の間違いを指摘する人は「好感度が低い」という研究結果が出ました。オンラインで他人の文法の間違いを指摘しても、ファンを獲得することはできないというのは、世界共通の認識ですが、これは科学的にも同じスタンスです。)
[PLOS ONe] If You’re House Is Still Available, Send Me an Email: Personality Influences Reactions to Written Errors in Email Messages
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885
I've noticed a non-negligible number of people who have not only completed compulsory education in regular classes but have also received higher education and graduated from university, yet struggle with reading comprehension (understanding the meaning of text), cannot read long texts, and even have difficulty understanding videos.
When we limit the scope to individuals with broad cognitive challenges, the problem seems rather straightforward: they either "lack the ability to understand" or "take longer than usual to acquire the ability to understand."
Similarly, the case of individuals diagnosed with learning disabilities is relatively simple. While they may not have broad cognitive challenges, they require different approaches and training due to their unique learning styles.
However, it is perplexing that university graduates without broad cognitive challenges or diagnosed learning disabilities struggle to understand not only written text but also simplified video content.
I suspect that the underlying causes might include gaps in the horizontal transfer of experiences and knowledge, a severe lack of adaptability, and an extreme deficit in metacognition. Has there been any research on these issues? Additionally, could you please explain the concept of knowledge transfer?
(正規の学級で義務教育を修了し、さらに高等教育を受けて大学を卒業したにもかかわらず、読解力（文章の意味を理解する能力）に苦しみ、長文を読むことができず、さらには動画の理解にも困難を感じる人が少なくないことに気づきました。
認知能力に広範な課題を抱える個人に範囲を限定すると、問題は比較的単純です。「理解する能力がない」か、「理解する能力を獲得するのに通常よりも時間がかかる」かのいずれかです。
同様に、学習障害と診断された個人の場合も比較的単純です。彼らは広範な認知能力の課題を抱えていないかもしれませんが、独自の学習スタイルのために異なるアプローチとトレーニングが必要となります。
しかし、広範な認知能力の課題や学習障害を持たない大学卒者が、書かれたテキストだけでなく、簡略化されたビデオコンテンツの理解にも苦労していることは不可解です。
私は、その根本的な原因として、経験や知識の水平的転移の欠如、メタ認知の極端な欠如などが考えられるのではないかと疑っています。これらの問題に関する研究はありますか？また、知識転移の概念について説明していただけますか？)
Yes, research and analysis exist around the issues you described, particularly in the domains of education, psychology, and cognitive science. Let’s break down your observations and questions step by step:
Key Issues with Reading and Comprehension
1. Reading Comprehension Among Educated Individuals
• This phenomenon—educated individuals struggling with comprehension—is indeed perplexing, especially given their presumed exposure to a variety of learning materials. It suggests that education systems sometimes emphasize rote learning and surface-level knowledge acquisition over deeper understanding, critical thinking, and metacognition.
• Horizontal Transfer Gaps: This refers to the inability to apply knowledge or skills learned in one context to another. For example, someone might excel in a university course focused on memorization but fail to apply that knowledge in practical or less structured contexts.
• Severe Lack of Adaptability: Adaptability involves applying problem-solving and comprehension skills to unfamiliar formats or media. A lack of adaptability can result from a curriculum that prioritizes familiarity and routine over exploratory learning.
• Deficits in Metacognition: Metacognition is the ability to “think about thinking”—to reflect on, monitor, and regulate one’s own learning. If metacognitive skills are underdeveloped, individuals might struggle to evaluate the meaning of texts or videos, even if they have the raw intellectual ability.
Research Insights
1. Knowledge Transfer
The concept of knowledge transfer involves applying skills, knowledge, or strategies learned in one context to another. It is often classified into:
• Horizontal Transfer: Applying knowledge across similar contexts (e.g., using concepts learned in a biology course to understand a medical text).
• Vertical Transfer: Building upon foundational knowledge to understand more complex ideas (e.g., using basic algebra to solve advanced calculus problems).
Studies suggest that transfer is more likely to occur when:
• Learners deeply understand underlying principles, not just surface details.
• Connections between different contexts are explicitly taught and reinforced.
• Learning environments often emphasize task-specific skills rather than generalizable strategies.
• Standardized testing may encourage rote memorization over critical thinking.
• Lack of explicit instruction in how to generalize knowledge to new situations.
Research highlights the importance of metacognition in learning. Students who are unaware of their own comprehension limitations are less likely to engage in corrective strategies (e.g., rereading, seeking clarification). This can lead to stagnation in comprehension skills despite formal education. Effective interventions include:
• Teaching self-monitoring techniques.
• Encouraging reflective practices, like summarizing or questioning during reading.
4. Cognitive Overload in Multimedia
Even videos, if not designed properly, can overwhelm learners. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning suggests that excessive extraneous information or unclear organization in videos can overload working memory, hindering comprehension.
Strategies and Research-Based Solutions
1. Improving Knowledge Transfer
• Active Learning: Techniques such as problem-based learning or case studies can improve transfer by encouraging the application of knowledge to new situations.
• Teaching for Understanding: Encouraging learners to focus on “why” and “how” questions fosters deeper comprehension and the ability to generalize learning.
• Encourage learners to engage with unfamiliar formats and topics to build flexibility.
• Develop problem-solving skills in diverse and unpredictable contexts.
3. Developing Metacognitive Skills
• Self-Regulated Learning Training: Programs that teach students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning have shown success in improving comprehension.
• Feedback Loops: Providing actionable feedback on comprehension tasks encourages learners to reflect on their thinking processes.
The issues you describe highlight a gap between formal education outcomes and true comprehension or learning ability. Addressing these challenges requires systemic changes, including incorporating metacognition training, emphasizing transferable learning, and fostering adaptability.
If you’d like, I can delve deeper into specific research studies or provide examples of programs addressing these issues.
This is a fascinating and concerning observation that touches on several important areas of cognitive psychology and education. Let me address this systematically.
First, regarding knowledge transfer and metacognition: Knowledge transfer refers to the ability to apply knowledge, skills, or strategies learned in one context to new situations. It's closely related to metacognition - our ability to understand and monitor our own thought processes.
Research in this area has revealed several key findings:
David Perkins and Gavriel Salomon's work in the late 1980s and early 1990s identified two types of transfer:
A significant study by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) in "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning" highlighted how knowledge often remains "inert" - students can pass tests but fail to apply knowledge in real-world contexts.
The phenomenon you're describing aligns with what cognitive scientists call the "transfer problem." Despite years of education, many individuals struggle to apply their learning in new contexts or integrate information across domains.
Some relevant research directions:
1. Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al.)
Shows how working memory limitations affect learning and transfer. Many students may never develop effective strategies for managing cognitive load, leading to poor comprehension of complex materials.
2. Reading Comprehension Studies
Work by Pressley and Afflerbach on "verbal protocols" revealed that skilled readers use multiple strategies simultaneously, while poor readers often lack these metacognitive tools.
3. Domain Integration Research
Studies by Susan Goldman and others have shown that even advanced students often fail to connect knowledge across domains, treating each subject as an isolated "silo."
Your observation about university graduates struggling with comprehension despite no apparent cognitive disabilities might be explained by several factors identified in research:
1. Surface-level Learning: Many educational systems reward memorization over deep understanding
2. Limited Strategy Instruction: Students often aren't explicitly taught comprehension strategies
3. Fragmented Knowledge: Information is typically taught in isolation without emphasis on connections
4. Weak Metacognitive Skills: Students may never develop the ability to monitor and regulate their own understanding
Some promising approaches to address these issues include:
1. Strategy Instruction Models
Teaching explicit strategies for comprehension, integration, and transfer. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model has shown particular promise.
2. Knowledge Integration Frameworks
Approaches like Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) help students connect ideas across domains.
3. Metacognitive Training Programs
Programs focusing on developing metacognitive awareness and self-regulation skills.
Since you asked about studies, I should note that while I've referenced several important works, you should verify these citations as I don't have direct access to current databases and could be misremembering details.
Would you be interested in exploring any particular aspect of this issue in more detail? For instance, we could delve deeper into specific instructional strategies that have shown promise in developing transfer abilities, or examine the relationship between metacognition and knowledge transfer more closely.
➤「救いようが最もうない、極東の自称他称の〝ジャーナリスト〟や〝学者〟、〝知米派〟は読まなくても構い。読んでもその肥大化した自己承認欲求、度し難い自己愛性人格では読むことはできないし、理解もできない。ただ見下した目線で見やるだけで、そこに自分が利用できる素材がなければ鼻で嗤うだけだ。この文章は、我がU.S.を領りたい、領ろうと下向きの反省的眼光で欲する諸君に読んで貰いたい。
I Traveled to 46 States in America This Summer. Here’s Why Trump Won.
By Frank S. Zhou
By Ezekiel A. Wells
Ezekiel A. Wells ’27 is a Double Concentrator in Environment Science & Engineering and Economics in Eliot House. He spent last summer traveling to 46 American states conducting interviews for his YouTube series, “Crossroads America.”
A week after Democrats’ election loss, accusations have flown in every direction within their Party. Some fault President Joe Biden for an egoistic refusal to drop out of the race earlier. Some blame the Harris campaign for failing to serve key demographics and communicate a clear vision for the country. And some blame Americans, claiming that racism and sexism drove voters toward Trump.
These factors certainly exist, but we’re missing a larger piece of the picture.
Over the summer, I traveled to 46 states in the U.S., creating a YouTube series highlighting slices of life across the country. In conversations from my nearly three-month road trip, I spoke with Republicans who were certain that inflation is entirely Biden’s fault and Democrats who, despite their frustrations with corporate profits and desires for universal healthcare, hoped for a more moderate candidate. From supporters of all candidates, I heard a shocking amount of misinformation.
After combing through hundreds of hours of interview footage from swing state Trump voters, I am certain that, as much as other factors influenced the outcome of the election, our crumbling media landscape — which has caused a rift in our democracy — is most to blame.
In the postwar period, news was dominated by three main channels, and because of the Fairness Doctrine, each station reported the same stories and covered multiple sides of each issue. Viewers picked which channels they watched mainly based on their preferences for news anchors’ personalities. Of course, this model had its problems, but, at the end of the day, it meant that Americans worked with a shared set of facts.
A shared set of facts is not the world we live in today.
Throughout my interviews, conspiracy theories were rampant, and on at least five separate occasions across separate states, I was told that Bill Gates tampers with our food, adding plastic to our fruits and vegetables to make his medical investments more profitable.
In conversations with voters, neither side seemed able to name many specific policy issues they cared about; everyone just seemed to repeat the words of their favorite pundits, podcast hosts, and internet personalities.
Although this behavior is harmful, I don’t blame everyday Americans. Blame falls on the media that has ostracized, disillusioned, and misinformed them.
Advertisement
I first saw this trend with low-wage workers in West Virginia, who — despite falling inflation rates — have seen stagnated salaries and clear increases in food costs. Channels like Fox News bred anger and resentment for many of them.
Take July of this summer, for example, when for the first time in his presidency, prices actually fell under the Biden administration. Traditional media establishments rushed to celebrate this victory, with one article from CNN declaring, “The White House can finally cross out ‘inflation’ on its list of presidential liabilities.” However, outside these bubbles, I observed many Americans held a different view.
In late July, I was welcomed at a massive family reunion in Tylertown, Mississippi, where one Trump voter — a middle-aged, Black, family man, pastor, and soul food enthusiast — made this clear.
“When I go in the grocery stores, and I gotta spend my last to get groceries, you mean to tell me I’m not gonna look and see who’s gonna vote to help me? I voted for Trump and I’d vote for him again, because he put money in our pocket,” he told me.
In their coverage, mainstream news organizations obsess over the Federal Reserve’s next rate cuts while failing to connect with people concerned with their next meals. With titles like “Vance: Young Americans ‘Are Becoming Paupers’ Due To Inflation, High Housing Costs,” sites like The Daily Wire had their fingers on the pulse of American sentiment, welcoming new readership from those who felt neglected by traditional media.
This problem was not just confined to the economy. While Biden’s mental state was deteriorating, liberal media outlets seemed to under-cover these stories, sheltering him from scrutiny of his declining capabilities, until the infamous presidential debate.
Formerly trusted networks slowly made themselves indigestible to the polarized American public, and in 2024, for the third year in a row, a Gallup poll found that more Americans indicated having “no trust” in the media than those who trust it a “great deal/fair amount”.
So where does the average American turn when the nation’s media cannot be trusted? For many people, it was YouTube talk shows, Newsmax, and podcasters such as Joe Rogan.
While Democrats seek to blame various internal factors for this election’s loss, I cannot help but think of Joe Rogan’s Trump endorsement, the many blind lies I heard from ordinary citizens across the country, and declining trust in American journalism.
As Harvard students and members of higher education institutions, we have a part to play in the problem. At Harvard’s Institute of Politics, those who denied the 2020 election results have been precluded from speaking at the JFK Jr. Forum. While the goal is understandable, it shields students from understanding the American viewpoints they represent.
Advertisement
There is a difference between platforming intentional and manipulative misinformation and listening to and learning about where people are and what they believe.
As a pipeline to mainstream media, Harvard, and its future journalists, have to consider the audience they lose when they stay inside of their bubble and ignore the issues of everyday Americans.
The disappearance of factual importance in our world is alarming and dangerous, but if we, as aspiring journalists, politicians, and engaged citizens, want to be taken seriously in communicating Trump’s threat to democracy, inflationary tariff policies, and so on, we owe American voters that seriousness, too.
Ezekiel A. Wells ’27 is a Double Concentrator in Environment Science & Engineering and Economics in Eliot House. He spent last summer traveling to 46 American states conducting interviews for his YouTube series, “Crossroads America."
