I think of myself as being pretty well-informed. Well, maybe not on current pop culture, given Meg's roll of the eyes when she has to explain to me the current state of affairs on American Idol. But, you know, when it comes to news and world affairs, I can usually nod my head knowingly when someone casually mentions Boris Yeltsin's legacy or the Dow Jones Industrial Average. I attribute this knowing bobble head nod to my spending a good solid hour (or more, but don't tell my boss) every day pouring over the headlines through various portals, following the links to the wire services and media outlets. I would then spend another hour or more arguing points brought out in these articles with my fellow denizens on AGWOT. I felt the debate was essential to my understanding of events because as one poster's signature line quoted, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."
But no more. I've quietly retired from the Warbirds community (aka AGW). I know this has no significance to anyone, but it does to me if for no other reason than I was a part of that community for over eleven years. I was flying online with my "squad"--friends who I had never met in person, but knew much about--when my wife told me it was time to land and head to the hospital because we were about to be parents. Births, deaths, changes in life's circumstances... these were all things we shared. Over time, the game changed and we changed, so the squad disbanded. We took our conversations--the chatting we would do in between calling out bandits or telling your wingman to "check six"--to the alt.games.warbirds board, and then to the Off Topic page when we stopped talking about how overmodelled the guns were on the FW-190D or how "jet day" ruined it for us purists.
For many of us, the good-natured verbal sparring that took place on the Off Topic page took the place of our dogfights and furballs. It was interesting to see how one's debate style stacked up with his air combat tactics. Some guys (and it was almost exclusively a males-only community, with a handful of notable exceptions) were "boom n' zoomers"; they'd circle from high above looking for unsuspecting targets, diving down to make high-speed gun passes and then climbing out to repeat. Those that were effective at this in the "air" and on the board were able to obliterate their enemies in one pass; those that weren't were inconsequential annoyances. Then there were the "turn n' burners"; those that would maneuver to their target's "six" to get off a shot, often on the edge of the envelope with the stall horn blaring, full stick and rudder deflection, drifting in and out of blacking out... man, that was fun! Those that were effective would tenaciously wear their opponents down until they were out of airspeed or logic; those that weren't were, well, inconsequential annoyances.
But, just as the game changed, so has the Off Topic page. Naturally there was a fair amount of vitriol associated with the 2000 and 2004 elections; some people take their politics way too seriously. September 11th also changed the board. Warbirds was international from the start, which I think brought immense value because despite our increasingly "global" world, we don't communicate regularly with people from other countries... or at least that's not done here in suburban St. Louis. But on that day, I learned that there were Europeans--ostensibly our friends and allies whose countries we helped to liberate with our blood and treasure in two world wars and defend during one long cold one--who were not our friends... who indulged in a bit of schadenfreude at the death of some 3000 people, who said we "had it coming" and took delight at our comeuppance at the hands of the "downtrodden and persecuted freedom fighters." Uh huh. And then there was the PATRIOT Act, Afghanistan, Iraq, global warming, blah, blah, blah. In the end, or the end for me, the board became a home for those were against everything and for nothing. Probably the only thing most seemed to agree on, save a rational few, was that Booosh was the dephil!!1!!1111!1eleventy-one!!1 [sigh] Whatever.
So, what does that have to do with being well-informed? Well, I think we're falling victim to media with an agenda, or so many on AGWOT have. We're not examining the "news" with a critical eye, and we don't hold the purveyors of "news" accountable for what amounts to journalistic malpractice. Note that I'm quoting the term "news"; the word means a report of recent events. In the past, this meant a fact-based recitation of the five Ws with a H thrown in for good measure. Now it means the inclusion of "thought-provoking commentary" (aka bias), the outright fabrication of stories, documents and sources (Dan Rather interviews then Lt. Bush's flight commander, Captain Jamil Hussein) and the "enhancement" of photos (I guess someone didn't get that Photoshop Bible he asked for for Laylat al-Qadr). Apparently, "news" is now synonymous with infotainment and propaganda. Frankly, I've had enough of it, and enough of those who have slurped the Kool-aid, gone back for seconds and have the pink mustache to prove it.
The question that I've been wondering about, though, is whether one can be well-informed without having to wade through the muck that is modern journalism? For example, I've intentionally not read a single "news" account of the Virginia Tech incident, knowing full well that the press would sink to crass sensationalism as each outlet tried to outdo the other in telling the tale. Yet I know a South Korean student by the name of Cho killed thirty plus students and faculty and made some whack video "manifesto"--all this from headlines. Do I need to know any more than that? The one article I did read had this bit of timely wisdom (for me):
Actually I thought of Thoreau. He said he didn't have to read newspapers because if you're familiar with a principle you don't have to be familiar with its numerous applications. If you know lightning hits trees, you don't have to know every time a tree is struck by lightning.
Whew! Sorry for the rambling, but there's nothing like a good diatribe.
10 comments:
Wow! What I MOST appreciate about this, John, is that you didn't just write off the media as a bunch of left-wing nut-cases like the other conservative-types in my sphere of influence do. (Maybe that's what you meant, but at least you didn't say it in a way that resulted in me squeezing shut my eyes, sticking my fingers in my ears, and shouting "lalala" like a four-year-old.)
I don't think I spend enough time thinking deeply about things.
Incidently: that iron sharpening iron quote is from Proverbs.
Well, I'm an equal opportunity critic when it comes to the media. I don't think a reader or viewer should have the slightest inkling as to the politics of a reporter, anchor, or news organization. Unfortunately, that's so not the case, but it doesn't have to be. For example, the law deals with a wide variety of political issues, and yet I've had professors cover volatile political issues in such a way that I had absolutely no clue as to their personal feelings on the subject. My favorite professor, Fred Bloom (cousin of Olympic skiier Jeremy Bloom), is about as liberal as they come, yet he's a frequent guest speaker for the Federalist Society because he doesn't let his personal ideology color his understanding of the law and the Constitution.
It bugs me to no end that I know the New York Times is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and that Fox News serves as the de facto counter voice of the Republicans. It irks me that the BBC and The Guardian are so predictably anti-American, that Reuters is so obviously anti-Israel, and that the AFP spews the party line of eco-politicos that say all global warming is anthropogenic. But what infuriates me the most is that people that I consider to be reasonably intelligent would parrot these sources without critically examining the underlying agenda.
Don't sell yourself short on the deep thinking. I'm still mulling over your opacity/transparency post.
Yeah, the quote in the signature line is attributed to Proverbs 27:17. The poster who uses that quote is probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to "idiotological" bias. But, it's a good quote.
WOW, you're smart.
My problem is that when the thinking becomes difficult, or when it appears I might actually have to change my mind about something, I just stop thinking.
Now, there's transparency for ya.
OK, wait right here.
I'm Back! Sorry, I really had to scrub hard. That pink stuff is hard to remove sometimes...
I think the breakdown came when someone asked the question, "Are they watching our news program or their news more?" That then became, "We can charge more for our commercials!" And the snowball rolled on down the hill. The love of money is the root of all evil.
I ,too, get fed up by the bias displayed by news organizations. But I can sift through the commentary and glean the facts fairly effortlessly. The crux of this is that not many are aware of, or even care about, the bias. And even less don't validate the facts against other sources.
There is another problem that there really isn't any "news" to report. At least not enough to fill the 24-hour channels, the networks, the papers, magazines and the internet. Then you have local outlets - TV, radio and papers. They bide their time waiting for a "Virginia Tech" level of event to happen. And how do you get people to watch in the mean time? Talk about the issues that polarize the masses. How many times do we need to hear that Bush will veto the troop funding bill when it is finally sent to him? This has gone on for six weeks now...
It used to be that "Dog Bites Man" was not news; "Man Bites Dog", that's a news worthy story. Anymore what counts as news is how the dog has been affected by illegal immigration or whatever the issue du jour is.
Just so you know, I still like to get my news from Rush and Neal Boortz. They may be biased, but there is still a erudite way that they present it. I guess I like my Kool-aid to be carbonated and with caffeine.
One last note: My wife didn't want to wade through the thousands of Va Tech stories, either. She told me she would just wait to read about it in People! I think she's just snorting the Kool-aid powder... (No she isn't reading this.)
HEY! Blogspot deleted my diatribe within a diatribe! Ok, so maybe it wasn't a "diatribe." Still, uncommanded deletions are uncool.
Scott, you and I both know you take your liquid sustenance and bias as Dr. Pepper (and it's about damn time you scrubbed that mustache off and got back here). ;)
So, here's a question--do you think the addition of bias is intended to spice up the otherwise bland pablum that is "news" these days?
I don't think that we would even have such overt bias if it weren't for Rush. He called out the media's attempts to spin stories way back when. Then, it was more about seeing a story "from a certain point of view." Now, these same news centers are so polarized they feel the need to push their own agandas. They focus on telling the stories in a way that will either bolster their position or will tear the other side down. And they don't really care if they are seen as biased. This seems true of the NY Times.
And look at all the commentary that comes out. The editorial section was usually one page of the paper. Now there is an entire section some 12 to 16 pages in most Sunday papers around the country.
And it isn't just the media. I don't give a damn about a singer's political views. The Dixie Chunks, er Chicks, got their panties bunched because people quit buying their albums over what they said. I almost fell out of my chair when they decried their freedom of speech rights were being "violated" or censorship or other inanity. Oops, tangent rant...
Obi-Wan really prophesied what has become the media when he said, "...you'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
Gotta work in a Star Wars reference every once in a while! ;)
You know, after re-reading my comment, I realize that I may have used inappropriate words when speaking about the Dixie Chicks. I just wanted to apologize if anyone was offended. I know now that implying the Dixie Chicks were chunks is hurtful to chunks everywhere. Please don't fire me.
In truth, I really do not know why I typed chunks. It doesn't make sense now as read it for the fourth time. It doesn't rhyme, nor is it a person or animal.
OOOOH. CHIMPS! Chimps would have worked. D'oh! O well...
Damn tangent ranting!
And since I ranted past your original question, I offer this into evidence. (Sorry, I don't know how to create a link in a post.) This was one of the lead stories Thurday, and retracted Friday. "Full speed ahead and fact-checking be damned!" http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/perhaps_we_shou.html This is the Japanese Sheep/Poodle Scam...
At least this has something of a retraction, although they could have been more direct... or, ya know, checked their facts in the first place. But journalistic laziness is a cat of a different stripe. I'm beginning to think the injection of bias is intended to create controversy--the news becoming the news, if you will. Just a hunch.
Oh, and no worries about the Dixie Chicks comment. I suspect Kelley and you are the only visitors to my little bit o' the net, though as fair warning, she can throw a mean elbow to the ribs, or so I've seen when Jack (her husband) says something so very... Jack. ;)
BTW, wonderful solo, Kell! :)
I admit it! I own a Dixie Chics record. I bought it on purpose. In the midst of the whole controversy. I just listened to the record last week. "Sin Wagon" makes me laugh out loud.
Nevertheless, I won't be elbowing anybody in the ribs. I mostly do that to Jack because he purposefully says things to irritate me . . . mostly about democrats and feminists. He's a brave man.
Thanks for the kudos on the song. It's scary up there!
Post a Comment