Today another blog site, and another mis-conception.... Whenever one is seeking to prevent the previous "worldview" from holding authority over one's understanding, then one can and often does prevert hearing what is being said about that particular subject. This is a hard-line bias. And it happens whenever we have things that we need protecting, as well as agendas we want to pursue. We must ask ourselves the question about what we are protecting and what we want to pursue. These are questions that might be very revealing to motivations and attitudes about one's bias.
Bias can be just as opinionated against something as for something, and it is hard to see when one's worldview, context, values, goals and identity is at stake.
Tomorrow a friend and I are going to the Newmusuem. The times I have gone there before, I remember reading a number of quotes about bias in the media. There is also a film about Bias in the Media. I am taking my notebook to write down this information to process how I might be subject to similar short-comings and to help me reflect enough on my own bias to ask myself questions.
I share all of this to help others understand how bias is hard to see and prevent and can distort communication, views of reality, and other such important matters.
Humans are story tellers from the earliest days of communication. Needless to say that this is still the case in the modern day world. Myth is meaning making. Myth defines reality for most. And myth is just myth to some. And that is the question I need to resolve. Is myth really important or valuable to be human? I don't think so, but maybe I am biased. So, I will investigate.
Showing posts with label the media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the media. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why Would Anyone Be Interested in Ends?
In the last post, I asserted that the progressive is interested in "ends" or "outcomes". Why would this be important? I can think of two reasons.
The first reason is if the progressive can control the information or how the information is given (what frame of reference, and what "concern" should the particular individual have), then, the individual will not be educated, but propagandized, indoctrinated, etc. For critical thinking to occur, then there has to be freedom of information. There should never be limited information or unhindered bias. Journalists know that this is always hard, as the journalists themself is biased or "invested" in the political realm. And unbiased reporting is rare and exceptional.
In education, if bias is not acknowledged or there is forthright propaganda, then humans can be controlled, and this is useful for those who might want that control for "other ends", which brings me to my second point.
The second reason the progressive might want to manipulate the populace, is for control of resources. If one can gain power over humans by false information, or skewed, biased reporting, then one can appeal to pride, power or position to "control" others. In the mean-time, the progressive will use this control to manipulate the whole system in his "favor" and those he "owes" . The "end justifies the means", because the progressive values control, which ends up giving him the advantage of opportunity, if not down-right control of resources at his disposal. This way the government can be useful for "other means", while promising "better days" ahead.
Everyone knows how easy it can be to "use" government resources that are readily available, and when government can manipulate the markets through owning the "store", then the outcome is confiscation of other's resources (the tax-payer pays).
E
For instance, it was reported that the government would grant scholarships, ( this sounds like benvolence), but these scholarships will indebt the student to the government, which will require payment through "public service", just as the military does today with those who "sign on the dotted line". This way, the government "owns" you, so to speak, whenever you want to better yourself, you will be required to give back to society, not voluntarily, but co-ercively....because there will be no other choices, if one wants to go to school.
Doesn't this sound like a miltary STATE and not a liberal democracy? Ends, for the greedy, which means power and money, is a necessary part of the whole "determined plan".
The first reason is if the progressive can control the information or how the information is given (what frame of reference, and what "concern" should the particular individual have), then, the individual will not be educated, but propagandized, indoctrinated, etc. For critical thinking to occur, then there has to be freedom of information. There should never be limited information or unhindered bias. Journalists know that this is always hard, as the journalists themself is biased or "invested" in the political realm. And unbiased reporting is rare and exceptional.
In education, if bias is not acknowledged or there is forthright propaganda, then humans can be controlled, and this is useful for those who might want that control for "other ends", which brings me to my second point.
The second reason the progressive might want to manipulate the populace, is for control of resources. If one can gain power over humans by false information, or skewed, biased reporting, then one can appeal to pride, power or position to "control" others. In the mean-time, the progressive will use this control to manipulate the whole system in his "favor" and those he "owes" . The "end justifies the means", because the progressive values control, which ends up giving him the advantage of opportunity, if not down-right control of resources at his disposal. This way the government can be useful for "other means", while promising "better days" ahead.
Everyone knows how easy it can be to "use" government resources that are readily available, and when government can manipulate the markets through owning the "store", then the outcome is confiscation of other's resources (the tax-payer pays).
E
For instance, it was reported that the government would grant scholarships, ( this sounds like benvolence), but these scholarships will indebt the student to the government, which will require payment through "public service", just as the military does today with those who "sign on the dotted line". This way, the government "owns" you, so to speak, whenever you want to better yourself, you will be required to give back to society, not voluntarily, but co-ercively....because there will be no other choices, if one wants to go to school.
Doesn't this sound like a miltary STATE and not a liberal democracy? Ends, for the greedy, which means power and money, is a necessary part of the whole "determined plan".
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Interesting Media Program
Last night I turned on the T.V. to find a program discussing the issue of "news". The people were all associated in some way with the news media and they were talking about all the ways in which news was gotten and the implications for the media in general.
I thought that their concern for what was on the internet was revealing. They were concerned that people were following news stories that were not "up to par" or downright rumor mill. What is their real concern? Is it the loss of power and control? Do these think the same way about tabloids or 'women's magazines" or gossip comunists? Should we ban these as profaning the minds of our populace?
Although I do agree that there are many alternatives that I deem unhealthy and "profane", where do draw our lines in limiting our freedom of the press? I think that allowing everyone to discover the news and investigate what is "out there" is a healthy way to not only protect our liberties, but get people involved in the process of critical thinking for themselves. Should the average person be able to read and assess what he reads?
It was a program I didn't watch all the way through, as I didn't have to. It was obvious that the media has lost some of its power and they were trying to assess the damage. I am hoping that these will not deem it necessary to control our access to information...
I thought that their concern for what was on the internet was revealing. They were concerned that people were following news stories that were not "up to par" or downright rumor mill. What is their real concern? Is it the loss of power and control? Do these think the same way about tabloids or 'women's magazines" or gossip comunists? Should we ban these as profaning the minds of our populace?
Although I do agree that there are many alternatives that I deem unhealthy and "profane", where do draw our lines in limiting our freedom of the press? I think that allowing everyone to discover the news and investigate what is "out there" is a healthy way to not only protect our liberties, but get people involved in the process of critical thinking for themselves. Should the average person be able to read and assess what he reads?
It was a program I didn't watch all the way through, as I didn't have to. It was obvious that the media has lost some of its power and they were trying to assess the damage. I am hoping that these will not deem it necessary to control our access to information...
Thursday, July 2, 2009
"Self", Jenny Sanford and Christian Faith
I read an editorial about Jenny Sanford this morning and in light of a friend's e-mail today, I think that this is worth a blog entry.
The editorial was about how Jenny Sandford was handling the media and her husband's infidelity. She is being upheld by this editorialist as an "shining example" to others. I agree.
Instead of "standing by her man", like Christian conservatives (and other politician's wives) would affirm, she was not present at her husband's "confession". It is, after all, totally his responsibility and his choice. She is allowing him that freedom, although she had asked him to leave the house two weeks prior to his latest escapade. That is courageous. When the press intruded upon her family at an opportune moment, she respected their right of coverage, but also demanded her right to privacy, by telling the press that there was no room in the boat for them. She is no victim, nor is she victimized by his choices, nor is she to be humiliated in the press by expose'. She has a distinctly different concept of "self" than most conservative Christians and our voyeristic culture. She has dignity and self-respect.
Christians deem it necessary to be responsible for others. This is what is called the "social gospel". We must "walk the second mile", bear the burden of others, and fulfill the "law of Christ". I guess Jenny has considered her "walk" with Gov. Sandford and her commitment of these years of marriage as enough to "prove" her character. She is not trying to "prove" anything about herself; how compassionate, and how forgiving, etc. This is unlike what is "preached" in Christian circles.
I admire what she has accomplished. She is a investment banker. I think a Vice President. She is a strong, capable and independent woman. We need more of them, but we won't get them if conservative Christians have anything to say about it.
The editorial was about how Jenny Sandford was handling the media and her husband's infidelity. She is being upheld by this editorialist as an "shining example" to others. I agree.
Instead of "standing by her man", like Christian conservatives (and other politician's wives) would affirm, she was not present at her husband's "confession". It is, after all, totally his responsibility and his choice. She is allowing him that freedom, although she had asked him to leave the house two weeks prior to his latest escapade. That is courageous. When the press intruded upon her family at an opportune moment, she respected their right of coverage, but also demanded her right to privacy, by telling the press that there was no room in the boat for them. She is no victim, nor is she victimized by his choices, nor is she to be humiliated in the press by expose'. She has a distinctly different concept of "self" than most conservative Christians and our voyeristic culture. She has dignity and self-respect.
Christians deem it necessary to be responsible for others. This is what is called the "social gospel". We must "walk the second mile", bear the burden of others, and fulfill the "law of Christ". I guess Jenny has considered her "walk" with Gov. Sandford and her commitment of these years of marriage as enough to "prove" her character. She is not trying to "prove" anything about herself; how compassionate, and how forgiving, etc. This is unlike what is "preached" in Christian circles.
I admire what she has accomplished. She is a investment banker. I think a Vice President. She is a strong, capable and independent woman. We need more of them, but we won't get them if conservative Christians have anything to say about it.
Bad Attitudes, Good Attitudes in the Media and Healthcare
I have to admit that I haven't been engaged with the discussion on healthcare, as I am not open to government taking over that part of my life, no matter what their "greater good" arguments are. I recognize that my husband's employer, as well as many other employer's are probably most interested in this discussion, as many foot much of the bill. But, I have listened to some of the discussion. What stikes me is the press!
We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.
I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?
Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!
Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?
Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.
I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.
Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.
I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!
Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!
We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.
I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?
Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!
Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?
Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.
I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.
Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.
I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!
Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Isn't It Interesting?
What do you find interesting?
It disturbs me that people want to know so much about other people's private lives. Do they not have enough to keep them occupied? Instead they snoop and investigate others, read everything they can get their hands on. Is thier life so boring, that they must "live" through another's life?
After hearing of the "confession" of Gov. Sandford the other day, I had the radio on. The talk radio host went into detail about the e-mails sent back and forth between the Governor and his mistress. I felt so sorry for everyone involved, as it was really no one's business what the "details" were. And the ones wagging their finger in the face of Sanford, are the very ones listening to all the "details". (I guess listening the legitimate news sources makes such revelations okay...)
There is something so sinister about how many of us want to give no one else room to "be" and live their lives in peace and quiet. I wonder if celebrity is worth the "costs" of giving up one's private life.
Now, we have questions concerning Michael Jackson's death. I don't mind or think that it is "immoral" to talk about how a celebrity grew up or became famous, but it goes a little over the line to hear the constant barage or speculative and suggestive scenarios.
I like to hear information about what our leaders are doing and what they believe, but I find that their private life, unless revealed by consent is really nothing other than stealing their "life" from them. It is a form of voyerism.
On the other hand, if something is revealed that involves public interest and would hinder someone's ability to carry out his official duties, then it is the public's business. Accountability should be within the bounds of responsibility. Public should remain public, whereas, private life is best left to private areas of religious or social connections (unless it involves some criminal activity.)
Though I believe that political opinions are open game to discuss in the public square, where does one draw a line when something is "revealed" that shows a leader's "clay feet"? Do we ever give room for the leader to be "human", to have frailities, to have questions, or do leaders have to lead a "perfect" life in however that is defined in a particular context?
I feel for celebrities, politicians, and leaders of all kinds, as there is no way to please everyone. So there will be someone that will be critical.
Leaders, live your life, yes, in responsible commitment to the ideals you believe in and remind yourselves that it is only the small minded that have no room to grow beyond filling their minds with "life".
It disturbs me that people want to know so much about other people's private lives. Do they not have enough to keep them occupied? Instead they snoop and investigate others, read everything they can get their hands on. Is thier life so boring, that they must "live" through another's life?
After hearing of the "confession" of Gov. Sandford the other day, I had the radio on. The talk radio host went into detail about the e-mails sent back and forth between the Governor and his mistress. I felt so sorry for everyone involved, as it was really no one's business what the "details" were. And the ones wagging their finger in the face of Sanford, are the very ones listening to all the "details". (I guess listening the legitimate news sources makes such revelations okay...)
There is something so sinister about how many of us want to give no one else room to "be" and live their lives in peace and quiet. I wonder if celebrity is worth the "costs" of giving up one's private life.
Now, we have questions concerning Michael Jackson's death. I don't mind or think that it is "immoral" to talk about how a celebrity grew up or became famous, but it goes a little over the line to hear the constant barage or speculative and suggestive scenarios.
I like to hear information about what our leaders are doing and what they believe, but I find that their private life, unless revealed by consent is really nothing other than stealing their "life" from them. It is a form of voyerism.
On the other hand, if something is revealed that involves public interest and would hinder someone's ability to carry out his official duties, then it is the public's business. Accountability should be within the bounds of responsibility. Public should remain public, whereas, private life is best left to private areas of religious or social connections (unless it involves some criminal activity.)
Though I believe that political opinions are open game to discuss in the public square, where does one draw a line when something is "revealed" that shows a leader's "clay feet"? Do we ever give room for the leader to be "human", to have frailities, to have questions, or do leaders have to lead a "perfect" life in however that is defined in a particular context?
I feel for celebrities, politicians, and leaders of all kinds, as there is no way to please everyone. So there will be someone that will be critical.
Leaders, live your life, yes, in responsible commitment to the ideals you believe in and remind yourselves that it is only the small minded that have no room to grow beyond filling their minds with "life".
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Connections That Make One Wonder....
We are here in D.C. again, and while driving back from work my husband heard on a local station that Obama was to appoint a man for "intelligence analyst" that had connections to Saudi Arabia. Intelligence, our intelligence, could be undermined, when conflicts of interest, such as this exists.
Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.
I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.
Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.
It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.
Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.
Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?
The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.
Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.
I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.
Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.
It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.
Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.
Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?
The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Obama's Plan Is Surprised
Obama promised a more unified dialogue across party lines. But, this has not happened. In fact, today's resignation of the nominee of Department of Commerce, a Republican, I'm sure was a blow. He could not agree to the stimulus package, is what he said.
But, it was reported that the cenesus, which is supposed to be done by civil servants, to represent a "fair" representation of "reality" in America, has been moved to the White House! Is this a way to promote a Propagandized census, to justify spending in certain ways or areas? It does look suspcious, but should we be surprised?
Whether the census will be used for such purposes, the "low expectation" of the stumulus package and our economic recovery is being promoted by the media. Setting low expectations is a nice political move, as then we cannot be disappointed, no matter what. And the Mr. Nice Guys in Congress will come out looking like their stimulus package doled out the taxpayer money in "good order". And those who happened to benefit will be even more pleased...
Obama called for a cease fire to partisan rivalry, but how is this to be, unless he expects the Republicans to wholesale sacrifice all their scruples, values and "world-view" about economics? Politics rules the world in every area, so beware, you , naive.... And politics is about might, and fight and dirt.
But, it was reported that the cenesus, which is supposed to be done by civil servants, to represent a "fair" representation of "reality" in America, has been moved to the White House! Is this a way to promote a Propagandized census, to justify spending in certain ways or areas? It does look suspcious, but should we be surprised?
Whether the census will be used for such purposes, the "low expectation" of the stumulus package and our economic recovery is being promoted by the media. Setting low expectations is a nice political move, as then we cannot be disappointed, no matter what. And the Mr. Nice Guys in Congress will come out looking like their stimulus package doled out the taxpayer money in "good order". And those who happened to benefit will be even more pleased...
Obama called for a cease fire to partisan rivalry, but how is this to be, unless he expects the Republicans to wholesale sacrifice all their scruples, values and "world-view" about economics? Politics rules the world in every area, so beware, you , naive.... And politics is about might, and fight and dirt.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Media, Bias, and Education
On the radio today, a discussion over the place of the media in educating the public was made. In the program, it was suggested that Rush Limbaugh was the "talking head" of the Republican Party. Just before this program there was discussion on Reganomics. I find this interesting that these discussions were held back to back.
The media is responsible for reporting the facts, informing the public about what is happening. Most of our national news is just that, national, as it concerns national interests. But, with globalization, we cannot hide our heads in the sand without limiting our free society. The media assures a free society, when there is an affirmation of our Bill of Rights, which assures that our press remains free, in speech (what is said), opinion (religion or political party), and access (information in all areas of our public discourse).
These discussions, I thought were biased attempts at expressing a liberal agenda. Many have attempted these days to lay the crisis in our economy at the foot of Reagan, because of deregulation, capitalistic interests, and military support. Rush Limbaugh would probably represent the epitome of these opinions concerning the free market, and the political scene. But, this is his right to do so, in a free society.
The majority's rule in Congress is leading to an abuse of our bail-out, in my opinion. What criteria is there for deserving a bail-out? And those that are bailed out by the taxpayer are to be responsible and conservative in their future plans for business. Just today, I read where a company had scheduled an extravagant conference (holiday?) in Las Vegas, only to be reprimanded and cancel their plans. More companies need to take this type of responsibility themselves, instead of having a police state watch every footstep. The executive limiting their salaries to $500,000. is a good start, especially since those who make so much less are paying for their position, as well as the company's solvency.
Our society has gotten out of bounds concerning the free market, and what type of vocation deserves the highest pay. Of course, in free societies it depends on what the market will pay a particular person for their expertise. This is a question of "free market economics" and "the greater good", which is both Republican and Democratic values. If one or the other dismisses it's balancing "other side", then, we are headed down the road we have been on. And that only leads to greed, self-indulgence, and a lack of social responsibility. I believe that the two sides to the Golden Rule is a necessary balance to abuse. Whichever position one is commited to, is what basis one should make decisions about others...doing unto others. This allows freedom of conviction and commitment, while balancing each side.
The question of balnacing bias in journalism is a well-known fact in some circles, even though reporting is to be done in an unbiased way. Anyone who has taken two newspapers and read the same story covered by these different commitments (conservatism/liberalism) will see the differences in how the story is written. It is quite interesting and an education itself.
The media is responsible for reporting the facts, informing the public about what is happening. Most of our national news is just that, national, as it concerns national interests. But, with globalization, we cannot hide our heads in the sand without limiting our free society. The media assures a free society, when there is an affirmation of our Bill of Rights, which assures that our press remains free, in speech (what is said), opinion (religion or political party), and access (information in all areas of our public discourse).
These discussions, I thought were biased attempts at expressing a liberal agenda. Many have attempted these days to lay the crisis in our economy at the foot of Reagan, because of deregulation, capitalistic interests, and military support. Rush Limbaugh would probably represent the epitome of these opinions concerning the free market, and the political scene. But, this is his right to do so, in a free society.
The majority's rule in Congress is leading to an abuse of our bail-out, in my opinion. What criteria is there for deserving a bail-out? And those that are bailed out by the taxpayer are to be responsible and conservative in their future plans for business. Just today, I read where a company had scheduled an extravagant conference (holiday?) in Las Vegas, only to be reprimanded and cancel their plans. More companies need to take this type of responsibility themselves, instead of having a police state watch every footstep. The executive limiting their salaries to $500,000. is a good start, especially since those who make so much less are paying for their position, as well as the company's solvency.
Our society has gotten out of bounds concerning the free market, and what type of vocation deserves the highest pay. Of course, in free societies it depends on what the market will pay a particular person for their expertise. This is a question of "free market economics" and "the greater good", which is both Republican and Democratic values. If one or the other dismisses it's balancing "other side", then, we are headed down the road we have been on. And that only leads to greed, self-indulgence, and a lack of social responsibility. I believe that the two sides to the Golden Rule is a necessary balance to abuse. Whichever position one is commited to, is what basis one should make decisions about others...doing unto others. This allows freedom of conviction and commitment, while balancing each side.
The question of balnacing bias in journalism is a well-known fact in some circles, even though reporting is to be done in an unbiased way. Anyone who has taken two newspapers and read the same story covered by these different commitments (conservatism/liberalism) will see the differences in how the story is written. It is quite interesting and an education itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
