It is too bad old school views and values are looked down upon by so many in society. The modern era, which has its roots in "the enlightenment" puts heavy emphasis on "progress" (I put both of these terms in quotes because they use different definitions of these terms than I do).
What was "the enlightenment"?
It depends on who you ask. From my understanding, it was an ideological event that was divided along lines of Christian religions. Catholics valued the "old" worldview/perspective while many (if not all) of the non-Catholic denominations wanted a change. The people who wanted change arrogantly called themselves "enlightened" while labeling the Catholics as "archaic." This notion still exists to this day.
These self-labeled enlightened people wanted individuals to have more of a say in defining theology, philosophy, church hierarchy, and how to define what is acceptable, rather than having all of this stuff defined by so-called Catholic experts who were supported by The Vatican. This mentality still exists to this day.
In the end, the biggest change that took place was shifting authority from "The Church" to individuals. This resulted in a change of focus on who is serving whom. The "old archaic" Catholic church insisted on individuals serving God by serving the church (doing what the church says) calling us to obey our local church leaders. The "new enlightened" way was to serve God by doing whatever the individual thought was right. The "enlightened" person had to obey no one on earth but himself. Sound familiar?
What is "progress"?
"The enlightenment" hijacked the term progress to measure how well/fast things are getting better. It assumes that the "old way" is bad and something that we want to get away from. It evokes the idea of forward motion - from point A to point B. It also assumes that humans get better as we obtain more knowledge. So one of the outcomes of "the enlightenment" was an obsession with progress. Progress had to be made at all costs (they had to get away from those "old archaic" Catholic ways as fast as possible). People of "the enlightenment" believed that progress could not and should not be stopped. Stopping progress was akin to going back to the old way, which meant that all their hard work would be lost.
Now that hundreds of years have passed since these two groups went their separate ways, we can begin to see the pros and cons and fallout of this division. We don't hear much about this stuff in church anymore, but it now comes out in politics. It rears its head as "conservative" versus "liberal" - conservatives tend to sway the "old way" and liberals tend to swing the "enlightened way." At least the liberals aren't arrogant enough to call themselves "enlightened", although they still call the conservatives "archaic." Just listen to liberal and conservative politicians go at it - the name calling is terrible.
Unless a person is ultra-conservative, they typically agree with a number of views from "the enlightenment." This isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But what is bad is the gradual degradation of values of those people that choose to not takes sides, and instead "go with the flow." In my opinion, people who choose this path have chosen the path that leads to amoral behavior and selfishness - a path to no where good.
It is better to take a stand. Think about what you believe and why. Challenge your belief system and talk with people who disagree with you. Ask them (don't attack them) to explain why they choose to believe what they believe. Both of you will grow. But do not go around trying to convert everyone to your way of thinking while not being open to change your mind. If you have decided what you believe and are not open to changing your mind (honestly), do not enter into these conversations. If someone asks you what you believe and why, answer them, but don't try and convert them to your view. Keep it brief and to the point. If they disagree, respect it and change the topic. There is nothing worse than two people who steadfastly disagree trying pointlessly to convert the other person. No one wins in these arguments - in fact everyone loses.
As you can guess, I would fall in the "ultra-conservative" group who thinks that many "old ways" are better. When I say "old ways" I'm talking about really old ways, thousands of years old, pre-middle ages old. I do not agree with "progress" being the measurement of what is good. In my opinion, "the enlightenment" was more of a reformation, which was desperately needed at the time because much of the Catholic clergy, especially higher-ups, were badly corrupt.
But here we are, living in a society defined by "the enlightenment" and "progress", and no matter where we go, these ideas and values are lurking below the surface, ready to condemn any nay-sayers like me.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Deep problems with America
America has some serious problems.
I hate to admit it, but America is destined for failure. But should we have expected anything else from a man made institution? Since man is inherently selfish, is it even right for us to expect him to create something everlastingly good? The answer is no. We should expect that everything that man creates will be flawed just like man himself - no matter how good a particular man is, there is always at least a small amount of selfishness in him and everything he does.
This is not to say that there aren't a lot of good people out there, because there is. But I believe that there are considerably far more "good intentioned people" than "good people". What is the difference? Good intentioned people believe they are doing good when in actually they are causing more harm than good. Good people also believe they are doing good, and they really are. This leads us to the question of who determines what is really good. I choose to base my answer on Natural Law, how and why man was created from the beginning. Basically, who is man created to be. Going one step further brings us to the question of how can we possibly know the answer to the how, why, who questions. This is where many Americans are deeply divided. I rely on faith and reason for my answers.
Ultimately, this last question will bring the country down - if we cannot agree on who man is created to be, then we will never agree on how to get there. Every answer to this question has a different goal, and thus different means to get to that goal. Liberals are aiming at a very different end goal than conservatives are. This gulf is too deep and wide to be crossed by man. There can be no reconciliation or compromise to the question of who man is created to be. We did not make ourselves, and we cannot change our own purpose. To compromise would be to reject our belief and live a lie. We would go from being good people to good intentioned people who cause more harm than good, because even though our understanding of reality may have changed, reality itself has not.
I am not overcome by this doom and gloom because I believe that God has destined us for salvation. But God is the only one who can provide this salvation - God alone can save us from ourselves. So I have hope because of what God has done and will do for me. I place my hope in Him, not in America nor its people.
I hate to admit it, but America is destined for failure. But should we have expected anything else from a man made institution? Since man is inherently selfish, is it even right for us to expect him to create something everlastingly good? The answer is no. We should expect that everything that man creates will be flawed just like man himself - no matter how good a particular man is, there is always at least a small amount of selfishness in him and everything he does.
This is not to say that there aren't a lot of good people out there, because there is. But I believe that there are considerably far more "good intentioned people" than "good people". What is the difference? Good intentioned people believe they are doing good when in actually they are causing more harm than good. Good people also believe they are doing good, and they really are. This leads us to the question of who determines what is really good. I choose to base my answer on Natural Law, how and why man was created from the beginning. Basically, who is man created to be. Going one step further brings us to the question of how can we possibly know the answer to the how, why, who questions. This is where many Americans are deeply divided. I rely on faith and reason for my answers.
Ultimately, this last question will bring the country down - if we cannot agree on who man is created to be, then we will never agree on how to get there. Every answer to this question has a different goal, and thus different means to get to that goal. Liberals are aiming at a very different end goal than conservatives are. This gulf is too deep and wide to be crossed by man. There can be no reconciliation or compromise to the question of who man is created to be. We did not make ourselves, and we cannot change our own purpose. To compromise would be to reject our belief and live a lie. We would go from being good people to good intentioned people who cause more harm than good, because even though our understanding of reality may have changed, reality itself has not.
I am not overcome by this doom and gloom because I believe that God has destined us for salvation. But God is the only one who can provide this salvation - God alone can save us from ourselves. So I have hope because of what God has done and will do for me. I place my hope in Him, not in America nor its people.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Economic Mess
With everyone giving their opinion on this mess, I thought it would only be appropriate for me to chime in as well.
First, a little disclaimer: I do not know all of the facts of this mess.
Now, on to the fun part (for me)...
The government bail out plan in my opinion is wrong and should not be approved. I hope it gets stalled and dies out. I am sick of the fear tactics used to convince taxpayers that this needs to be done. If it took more than 10 years for us to get into this mess, why does the solution have to be found within 5 days? Why such a rush to fix this thing? It is too complex for a couple weeks of brainstorming to fix. We need a more slow, deliberate, and well thought out plan (more thought out that the current plan is). University professors and economic experts should have some say in the plan. WE SHOULD NOT RUSH INTO A FIX!
Second, I do not like having to pay for others peoples screw ups. The people who are squirming the most, are people who have a serious chunk of money in the financial markets. That would include 401k's, IRA's, Mutual Funds, Stocks, Bonds, etc. Most Americans these days have some kind of retirement fund and/or other money market funds. If the current "crisis" continues, these people stand to loose a significant chunk of their funds. So the common line I hear is, "I don't like that I, as a tax payer, have to bail out wall street, but I guess a couple of grand in extra taxes is better than losing $250,000 in retirement money..."
I do not like that people feel as if they are "held hostage" in this mess. They are forced to choose between losing a little money or a lot of money. What a load of c**p that has been dumped on these people. (I keep referring to "these" or "those" people not including myself in this group because I don't have any money in the money market. I pulled it all out several months ago before the huge wall street crash, and I stand to lose nothing if this mess continues). But I have a news flash for the "average American taxpayer with money market funds", YOU CHOOSE TO PUT YOUR MONEY INTO A FUND WITH RISKS!! It is a gamble you took, well thought out or not, and you must live with the consequences of those risks. The average person could not foresee this (otherwise they would not have invested the money), but ignorance is not excuse in my opinion.
I say let the wave ride out. Let the "bad things" happen. Let the bubble continue to deflate. Too many people got rich in this big mess, and most of their money is in the money market. Let the market decline and stall, and all those people lose. Of course there may be some "innocent people" who lose as well, but that was part the risk they took by putting money in the money markets.
The system will repair itself in time. Let it ride out and fix itself - no government meddling can help, it can only hurt everyone equally. But I don't want equality, I want the wealthy to pay, not everyone equally.
First, a little disclaimer: I do not know all of the facts of this mess.
Now, on to the fun part (for me)...
The government bail out plan in my opinion is wrong and should not be approved. I hope it gets stalled and dies out. I am sick of the fear tactics used to convince taxpayers that this needs to be done. If it took more than 10 years for us to get into this mess, why does the solution have to be found within 5 days? Why such a rush to fix this thing? It is too complex for a couple weeks of brainstorming to fix. We need a more slow, deliberate, and well thought out plan (more thought out that the current plan is). University professors and economic experts should have some say in the plan. WE SHOULD NOT RUSH INTO A FIX!
Second, I do not like having to pay for others peoples screw ups. The people who are squirming the most, are people who have a serious chunk of money in the financial markets. That would include 401k's, IRA's, Mutual Funds, Stocks, Bonds, etc. Most Americans these days have some kind of retirement fund and/or other money market funds. If the current "crisis" continues, these people stand to loose a significant chunk of their funds. So the common line I hear is, "I don't like that I, as a tax payer, have to bail out wall street, but I guess a couple of grand in extra taxes is better than losing $250,000 in retirement money..."
I do not like that people feel as if they are "held hostage" in this mess. They are forced to choose between losing a little money or a lot of money. What a load of c**p that has been dumped on these people. (I keep referring to "these" or "those" people not including myself in this group because I don't have any money in the money market. I pulled it all out several months ago before the huge wall street crash, and I stand to lose nothing if this mess continues). But I have a news flash for the "average American taxpayer with money market funds", YOU CHOOSE TO PUT YOUR MONEY INTO A FUND WITH RISKS!! It is a gamble you took, well thought out or not, and you must live with the consequences of those risks. The average person could not foresee this (otherwise they would not have invested the money), but ignorance is not excuse in my opinion.
I say let the wave ride out. Let the "bad things" happen. Let the bubble continue to deflate. Too many people got rich in this big mess, and most of their money is in the money market. Let the market decline and stall, and all those people lose. Of course there may be some "innocent people" who lose as well, but that was part the risk they took by putting money in the money markets.
The system will repair itself in time. Let it ride out and fix itself - no government meddling can help, it can only hurt everyone equally. But I don't want equality, I want the wealthy to pay, not everyone equally.
Monday, September 15, 2008
More election candidate musings
A few more thoughts supplemented by the book "The Leadership Challenge", copyright 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., published by Jossey-Bass.
The top 4 attributes looked for in leaders: (in this order)
Honesty: This is by far the attribute looked for most often by people when selecting a leader to follow. "We want our leaders to be honest because their honesty is also a reflection upon our own honesty." "Honesty is tied to values and ethics. We appreciate people who know where they stand on important principles."
The reason Honesty is last in presidential candidates is because honesty is tied to values and ethics, which it seems that the candidates try hard to keep out of the campaign. Currently, it is popular opinion that values and ethics are deeply personal and should not be forced on others. The general population knows there is an ethical division in this country and neither side wants the beliefs of the other side forced upon them, so they get downplayed in the election campaigns. Additionally, honesty is not what most politicians are known for. Many of them (if not all) often promise things to get elected that they do not/cannot follow through with when in office. The general population is somewhat used to the lies and boasting of politicians and we know that not everything they promise will come to pass.
Forward-looking: "[Leaders need] to have a point of view about the future envisioned for [the country], and they need to be able to connect that point of view to the hopes and dreams of their constituents." "Expecting leaders to be forward-looking doesn't mean constituents want their leaders to set out on a solitary vision quest; people want to be engaged in the search for a meaningful future."
It is difficult for each of the candidates to connect their vision of the future for this country when the voters are sharply divided in their hopes and dreams. The best they can do is pick a set of hopes and dreams and hope that a majority of the people buy into them. But will either of the candidates engage the people in helping form this future, or are the candidates set in their vision and unwilling to change and adapt it because of their "party line" or "promises"? Who will be bi-partisan in the end? Both? Neither?
Competent: "[The consituents] must see the leader as having relevant experience and sound judgement." "Leadership competence refers to the leader's track record and the ability to get things done."
It is obvious that this is the area in which McCain is attacking Obama. In the end, they are BOTH competent, but in different ways. Neither has run a country, but both have been in office and have a track record to look at. It seems that "sound judgement" is a reletive term, so both of them and their followers claim that they have sound judgement and the other one does not. I guess it is up to the voter to decide what "sound judgement" is (hopefully we will not rely on the media to define this for us, because the media is incapable of unbiased reporting.)
That's a good chunk of stuff to chew on for a while...
The top 4 attributes looked for in leaders: (in this order)
- Honest
- Forward-looking
- Inspiring
- Competent
The order that people look for these attributes in presidential candidates (in my opinion):
- Inspiring
- Forward-looking
- Competent
- Honest
Honesty: This is by far the attribute looked for most often by people when selecting a leader to follow. "We want our leaders to be honest because their honesty is also a reflection upon our own honesty." "Honesty is tied to values and ethics. We appreciate people who know where they stand on important principles."
The reason Honesty is last in presidential candidates is because honesty is tied to values and ethics, which it seems that the candidates try hard to keep out of the campaign. Currently, it is popular opinion that values and ethics are deeply personal and should not be forced on others. The general population knows there is an ethical division in this country and neither side wants the beliefs of the other side forced upon them, so they get downplayed in the election campaigns. Additionally, honesty is not what most politicians are known for. Many of them (if not all) often promise things to get elected that they do not/cannot follow through with when in office. The general population is somewhat used to the lies and boasting of politicians and we know that not everything they promise will come to pass.
Forward-looking: "[Leaders need] to have a point of view about the future envisioned for [the country], and they need to be able to connect that point of view to the hopes and dreams of their constituents." "Expecting leaders to be forward-looking doesn't mean constituents want their leaders to set out on a solitary vision quest; people want to be engaged in the search for a meaningful future."
It is difficult for each of the candidates to connect their vision of the future for this country when the voters are sharply divided in their hopes and dreams. The best they can do is pick a set of hopes and dreams and hope that a majority of the people buy into them. But will either of the candidates engage the people in helping form this future, or are the candidates set in their vision and unwilling to change and adapt it because of their "party line" or "promises"? Who will be bi-partisan in the end? Both? Neither?
Competent: "[The consituents] must see the leader as having relevant experience and sound judgement." "Leadership competence refers to the leader's track record and the ability to get things done."
It is obvious that this is the area in which McCain is attacking Obama. In the end, they are BOTH competent, but in different ways. Neither has run a country, but both have been in office and have a track record to look at. It seems that "sound judgement" is a reletive term, so both of them and their followers claim that they have sound judgement and the other one does not. I guess it is up to the voter to decide what "sound judgement" is (hopefully we will not rely on the media to define this for us, because the media is incapable of unbiased reporting.)
That's a good chunk of stuff to chew on for a while...
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Leadership and the Elections
I am currently taking a class in leadership. It is very interesting and very applicable to the upcoming election in Nov 08 and the candidates. Some thoughts:
One of the books I am reading (The Leadership Challenge, copyright 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., published by Jossey-Bass) claims that all great leaders engage in 5 practices:
One of the books I am reading (The Leadership Challenge, copyright 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., published by Jossey-Bass) claims that all great leaders engage in 5 practices:
- Model the Way - "To effectively model the behavior they expect of others, leaders must first be clear about guiding principles." They express their values through actions and words (usually in story form). The book also says that "leaders must forge agreement around common principles and common ideals." Perhaps the most poignant sentence is, "Modeling the way is about earning the right and the respect to lead through direct involvement and action. People follow first the person, then the plan." Another part talks about leadership as action, not personality. I disagree and claim that leadership requires both action AND personality.
Some questions I ask myself (and you can ask yourself) about the candidates regarding "Model the Way" are: Have both Obama and McCain clearly expressed their guiding principles? Clearly enough for both supporters AND opposition to understand? (can YOU articulate the principles and ideals of each candidate?) How do they express their values and principles? Have they both forged agreement around common principles and common ideals? Who/What group of people share these principles and ideals? (does everyone?) What direct involvement and action has each candidate taken toward their common principles and ideals? Who do people want to follow (we follow the person first, then the plan)? Plans aside, based only on personality, who would you follow?
- Inspire a Shared Vision - Leaders have visions and dreams about what could be, along with total personal belief in those dreams. Besides having a vision, the leader must effectively communicate that vision to others. "To enlist people in a vision, leaders must know their constituents and speak their language. People must believe that leaders understand their needs and have their interests at heart." Leaders must have enthusiasm for their vision and pass that on to others.
Have both Obama and McCain clearly expressed their vision of the future, their hopes and dreams about this country? Who are their constituents [ALL Americans]? Do both/either of them "speak the language" of the citizens? How effective have they both been in passing on enthusiasm?
- Challenge the Process - "Leaders are pioneers ... but [they] aren't the only creators of new [ideas]. In fact, it's more likely that they're not: innovation comes more from listening than from telling." "Leaders know well that innovation and change involve experimenting and taking risks." "Leaders are learners. They learn from their failures as well as their successes, and they make it possible for others to do the same."
How has both Obama and McCain shown that they are pioneers, risk takers? How well has each candidate listened to what the people were saying and took those ideas and tried to make them reality as senators? How has each candidate shown that they are learners? Have they admitted mistakes and failures and shown how they have learned and changed from them? Do they make it possible for/help others to learn and grow from their failures?
- Enable Others to Act - "Grand dreams don't become significant realities through the actions of a single person. It requires a team effort. It requires solid trust and strong relationships. It requires a deep competence and a cool confidence. It requires group collaboration and individual accountability." "We", is the magic word of leaders, not "I." "Leaders foster collaboration and build trust. This sense of teamwork goes far beyond a few direct reports or close confidants. They engage all those who must make the project work - and in some way, all who must live with the results." "Leaders enable other to act not by hoarding power they have but by giving it away." "Authentic leadership is founded on trust, and the more people trust their leader, and each other, the more they take risks, make changes, and keep movements alive."
Who are the strong relationships of each candidate with? What are the core competencies of each candidate? Do both candidate show cool confidence? Do they express group collaboration and individual accountability? How many times in a speech do they use the word "I" vs. "We?" Has each candidate built trust with people? Which people? Who is on the "team" of each candidate? Does each candidate include EVERYONE in America (because we all have to live the results)? Has either/both Obama McCain shown that they will hoard power, or will they "give it way?"
- Encourage the Heart - "Leaders encourage the heart of their constituents to carry on" when times get tough. "Genuine acts of caring uplift the spirits and draw people forward." "It's part of the leaders job to show appreciation for people's contributions and to create a culture of celebrating values and victories."
Which candidate do you want to follow when times get tough? Will you blame economic or other problems on the winner, or will you let the winner encourage you? How has either/both Obama and McCain shown acts of caring and uplifting of spirits? How has each of them shown appreciation for others? How do they celebrate values and victories?
The book sums up saying that "Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow." Both Obama and McCain aspire to lead, and they both have followers. But in the end, only one of them can become president. If the winner is not your choice, what will you do? Will you choose to follow, remain neutral, or create dissension?
I do not envy either candidate, because no matter what they say or do, this is a deeply divided country. I believe that we are a country in the midst of a silent civil war, a war being carried out by the votes and money of the citizens. This silent civil war is between conservative and liberal citizens, each of whom want the country to go in VERY different directions. Regardless of who wins, there will be one very upset/angry group who I believe will NOT follow the president no matter what he does. This is disheartening, but reality. We are a split nation with a double personality. In the end, we must all decide what is most important to us, and make our vote.
My most important issue is the respect for life, from conception to natural death. I wish both candidates were fighting for my view, but then some of the population would have no one to represent their beliefs. Sad but true.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Personal and Public Bias
I am biased. You are biased. We all are biased. This is because EVERYONE has beliefs, convictions and opinions.
What does it mean to be biased? IS it the same thing as "having an opinion," or "believing in something?"
From Wikipedia: "Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. [1] The term biased is used to describe an action, judgment, or other outcome influenced by bias, and it is also used to refer to a person or body of people whose actions or judgments exhibit bias."
From Dictionary.com: 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
When does bias come into play? It comes into play when someone is supposed to give an objective / unprejudiced opinion/fact about something but doesn't. aka. Bringing personal beliefs, perspectives, or ideologies into the telling of the story. Bias usually comes in the form of speculation about the details and motives behind events or other facts. Any way it comes, it shows favoritism.
Can you tell which people are biased? What is the difference between a talk show host who rips on the democratic party and a television news station that says essentially the same thing? The answer is that the talk show is all about opinions and beliefs and is thus not "biased" because the host is never intending to tell the story from an objective perspective, where as the tv new station is supposed to be objective and unbiased, so they are guilty of delivering biased news and in my opinion they should be stripped of their credibility. But then we would have no (or almost no) tv news stations anymore because the majority of them are biased.
Since it seems to be a fact of life that new is biased, what are we to do about it? Well, we can't close them all down, we can't (or shouldn't) cut news out of our life altogether, we can't get them to change (at least not unless you have a lot of money and power). So it looks like our only option is to live with it. We can figure out what stations and reporters are biased and how. But in the end what good is that? Do we only listen / watch the stations and reporters that share our own personal beliefs and convictions? If so, how do we conpensate for the fact that we will be hearing one side of the story? Do we listen to two different stations that report from different biases in order to get the whole picture?
I speculate that most people listen and watch only the stations and programs that fit their own personal beliefs and convictions. I have observed that most people get angry, spiteful, and defensive when watching news delivered from a bias other than their own. Instead of attacking the source of the bias, they usually attack the subject of the news and anyone who shares that same belief and conviction.
There are a lot of angry, spiteful and defensive people out there. The only way to appease them it to surround them with people of their own opinions (and sometimes that is not even enough - hence angry protestors - they must let EVERYONE know of their opinions, beliefs, and convictions as if they are the only right ones to have - they are right, everyone else is simply wrong and stupid if they do not change their mind).
I suggest listening / watching BBC news sometime. It is refreshing to see unbiased news (they are not perfect either, but they are much better than the American news media).
What does it mean to be biased? IS it the same thing as "having an opinion," or "believing in something?"
From Wikipedia: "Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. [1] The term biased is used to describe an action, judgment, or other outcome influenced by bias, and it is also used to refer to a person or body of people whose actions or judgments exhibit bias."
From Dictionary.com: 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
When does bias come into play? It comes into play when someone is supposed to give an objective / unprejudiced opinion/fact about something but doesn't. aka. Bringing personal beliefs, perspectives, or ideologies into the telling of the story. Bias usually comes in the form of speculation about the details and motives behind events or other facts. Any way it comes, it shows favoritism.
Can you tell which people are biased? What is the difference between a talk show host who rips on the democratic party and a television news station that says essentially the same thing? The answer is that the talk show is all about opinions and beliefs and is thus not "biased" because the host is never intending to tell the story from an objective perspective, where as the tv new station is supposed to be objective and unbiased, so they are guilty of delivering biased news and in my opinion they should be stripped of their credibility. But then we would have no (or almost no) tv news stations anymore because the majority of them are biased.
Since it seems to be a fact of life that new is biased, what are we to do about it? Well, we can't close them all down, we can't (or shouldn't) cut news out of our life altogether, we can't get them to change (at least not unless you have a lot of money and power). So it looks like our only option is to live with it. We can figure out what stations and reporters are biased and how. But in the end what good is that? Do we only listen / watch the stations and reporters that share our own personal beliefs and convictions? If so, how do we conpensate for the fact that we will be hearing one side of the story? Do we listen to two different stations that report from different biases in order to get the whole picture?
I speculate that most people listen and watch only the stations and programs that fit their own personal beliefs and convictions. I have observed that most people get angry, spiteful, and defensive when watching news delivered from a bias other than their own. Instead of attacking the source of the bias, they usually attack the subject of the news and anyone who shares that same belief and conviction.
There are a lot of angry, spiteful and defensive people out there. The only way to appease them it to surround them with people of their own opinions (and sometimes that is not even enough - hence angry protestors - they must let EVERYONE know of their opinions, beliefs, and convictions as if they are the only right ones to have - they are right, everyone else is simply wrong and stupid if they do not change their mind).
I suggest listening / watching BBC news sometime. It is refreshing to see unbiased news (they are not perfect either, but they are much better than the American news media).
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Out of Control Media
I do not know what is worse: the fact that the media is power hungry and trying (successfully) to run this country, or that people actually buy into the crap that spews forth from the foul media mouth.
a) The media currently has unprecedented power. No previous time in our American history has the media exerted as much control as they now have. If you take an honest look at things, the media is basically choosing the next president. How, you may ask? Well, answer a few short questions and you will come to the answer that lies in plain sight.
How do citizens decide who to vote on? Most people would like to vote a president into office that share their own convictions and beliefs. That seems normal and reasonable.
But how do you know what a candidate believes? Most people ask other people they trust as well as getting information from THE MEDIA.
How does the trusted friend get information about the candidates? THE MEDIA (unless the trusted friend personally knows the candidate or the candidates friends - but then that friend would be biased).
Where does the media get their information? Most of them do research, but some of them rely on the research of OTHER reporters in THE MEDIA.
How does the media decide what information to give the public? Ahhhhh, here is the crux of the problem...
Indeed the media does not give all of the information they find during their research. They give the information that is necessary to make the point they are trying to make. They leave out all (or most) other "non relevant" information. But who decides what information is relevant or not? Yes, THE MEDIA. (aka. the reports themselves, their editors, their executives). The media is so good at spinning, that they can make anyone look good or bad, favorable or unfavorable. If the media doesn't like someone, they can smear the person to try to discredit him/her. If they like someone, they can make the person look like a superhero. (Although too much over the top might cost the media its credibility, so they better say "critical" things occasionally in order to appear unbiased.)
b) People believe most of the stuff that comes out of the media WITHOUT questioning it. It seems that nobody wants to do any research into the media's sources. There are very few people willing to put in the time and work required to "look behind the veil" of the media and see all the information and data to make sure that the media is not being biased.
It is much easier to simply trust that the media has the common good in mind and would not abuse their power and influence people in a biased fashion. who wants to do all that research themselves? Who has the time to do it? Easier to let someone else look into things. There are groups out there that do that, aren't there? Surely they would blow the horn on biased news agencies, right? Yes and No - I wish things were only that simple. In the end, it is easier to just believe the media.
OK, people know that the media is biased. So what? I'll just listen to the stations that share my perspective on things. Then I don't have to listen to people who disagree with me. But then won't I hear only ONE SIDE of the story? Well, let's not talk about that... I don't like those other people and I certainly don't want to hear their opinions (note that my choice stations report "news" and the other stations report "opinions"). So how will you know the whole story? Multiple stations are reporting the same thing, so it must be true and unbiased.
But what if multiple stations (aka the media) is exerting a unified power over the people? Whatever, that can't possibly happen. (can it?)
a) The media currently has unprecedented power. No previous time in our American history has the media exerted as much control as they now have. If you take an honest look at things, the media is basically choosing the next president. How, you may ask? Well, answer a few short questions and you will come to the answer that lies in plain sight.
How do citizens decide who to vote on? Most people would like to vote a president into office that share their own convictions and beliefs. That seems normal and reasonable.
But how do you know what a candidate believes? Most people ask other people they trust as well as getting information from THE MEDIA.
How does the trusted friend get information about the candidates? THE MEDIA (unless the trusted friend personally knows the candidate or the candidates friends - but then that friend would be biased).
Where does the media get their information? Most of them do research, but some of them rely on the research of OTHER reporters in THE MEDIA.
How does the media decide what information to give the public? Ahhhhh, here is the crux of the problem...
Indeed the media does not give all of the information they find during their research. They give the information that is necessary to make the point they are trying to make. They leave out all (or most) other "non relevant" information. But who decides what information is relevant or not? Yes, THE MEDIA. (aka. the reports themselves, their editors, their executives). The media is so good at spinning, that they can make anyone look good or bad, favorable or unfavorable. If the media doesn't like someone, they can smear the person to try to discredit him/her. If they like someone, they can make the person look like a superhero. (Although too much over the top might cost the media its credibility, so they better say "critical" things occasionally in order to appear unbiased.)
b) People believe most of the stuff that comes out of the media WITHOUT questioning it. It seems that nobody wants to do any research into the media's sources. There are very few people willing to put in the time and work required to "look behind the veil" of the media and see all the information and data to make sure that the media is not being biased.
It is much easier to simply trust that the media has the common good in mind and would not abuse their power and influence people in a biased fashion. who wants to do all that research themselves? Who has the time to do it? Easier to let someone else look into things. There are groups out there that do that, aren't there? Surely they would blow the horn on biased news agencies, right? Yes and No - I wish things were only that simple. In the end, it is easier to just believe the media.
OK, people know that the media is biased. So what? I'll just listen to the stations that share my perspective on things. Then I don't have to listen to people who disagree with me. But then won't I hear only ONE SIDE of the story? Well, let's not talk about that... I don't like those other people and I certainly don't want to hear their opinions (note that my choice stations report "news" and the other stations report "opinions"). So how will you know the whole story? Multiple stations are reporting the same thing, so it must be true and unbiased.
But what if multiple stations (aka the media) is exerting a unified power over the people? Whatever, that can't possibly happen. (can it?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
