Why I went to the CHAZ.

I live about an hour away from Seattle.  Like most people in the area, and many around the country, I have been trying to understand exactly what is going on there.  I have heard reports of the Capitol Hill area being vacated by the police and taken over by protesters.  I have seen videos posted by friends and colleagues showing what looks more like a block party than a riot.  I have also watched video commentary by news outlets crying out about the lack of law and order and extortion, militant actions, and violence.  I wanted to know what it actually was. 

As a teacher, it has been difficult to figure out how to appropriately interact with students amidst the school closures from COVID-19, the fallout from George Floyd's death at the hands of police officers, the protests, violence, and calls for defunding the police.  Unable to have these conversations in-person with my students has made it even more difficult to engage in helpful dialogue around these issues, but it has been further compounded by the lack of reliable information.  

So I went to Capitol Hill.  I visited the CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone).  I went because I had to see for myself because I can no longer trust what I watch on the news, read in the paper, listen to on the radio or see on social media. In the classroom, I often tell my students that the skills they need today are different from the skills I needed as a teenager.  We are no longer teaching students where to find information, we are teaching them how to discern if it is true.  It's becoming increasingly difficult every day.    

Last night, The Seattle Times ran an article about Fox News using digitally altered pictures of what is happening on Capitol Hill and using pictures from Minneapolis riots implying that it was Seattle. Fox has since removed these pictures. Similarly, I have scrolled through angry posts and comments by friends and families who are citing articles that are outdated, misleading, or misconstrued.  Their anger is real, but the material may not be.

One post was titled 6 Officers have died in the last 10 days, the media has barely said a word which was shared by several of my friends over the last two weeks. It was often accompanied by comments condemning violent protests and the lack of regard by the media for the safety of police officers. The article was originally published almost six months ago.  In the article, it listed the cause of death of six of the officers.  One was killed during a high speed pursuit, another during a traffic stop.  One died of brain cancer, another of a heart attack, and one from complications from the flu.  One cause of death was unknown at the time, and the final four officers were not even mentioned in the article about how the media is not paying attention to the death of officers.  

These types of click bait posts can be juxtaposed against posts that are misleading or overly critical of police officers or any other group someone chooses to target as well. The content of a message is no longer as important as the response by the consumer. Attacks against groups, policies, programs, or individuals are measured less by their validity and more by their effect.  Bias through statistics and crowd counts, selection or omission, or loaded language are becoming the acceptable norm not only by those providing content, but also by those who are consuming it.  

The idea that news outlets are now having to "fact check" materials that are posted by other news outlets demonstrate that the integrity and motives of those who are providing information is compromised at best, and at worst, a competition not for speed of the story, but for control of the narrative and perception of their viewers.  The online source Snopes.com touts itself as the "go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense.  Its entire existence is dependent on the acceptance that reality is no longer a requirement for reporting the news, that our society cannot decipher what is true and what is not, even when we see it with our own eyes. 

And it's becoming harder all the time.  Photos can be manipulated, information can be slanted or misconstrued, quotes can be taken out of context, videos can be edited or created using deepfake technology which makes it increasingly difficult to even know what is true or even what is real.  Conversations are less about what is correct or true, but what is believed.  

While I believe that skepticism is healthy, functional dialogue requires a tether to what is factual and true.  There are very few things that are more dangerous than an opinion that is rooted in a false sense of reality.  There is an obligation of news sources and providers of content to be thorough in their vetting process, honest in their representation, and factual in their foundation.  Failure in that obligation is not only reckless, but maliciously unethical. 

As a teacher, I want to be able to teach my students.  I want to be able to talk to them, and have conversations that are meaningful and lead to somewhere other than a stalemate or dead end.  I want to teach them how to support and defend their ideas with factual material, evidence-based critical thinking, and information that is accurate and credible.  I want to be able to do the same.

So I went to see it for myself.  I went because I want my students to be able to trust me.  I went because I want to be able to trust myself.  And I feel like that has been taken away from me.