Email the perpetrator

Episode 2:  That Is, I Think I Disagree  Feb 28 , 2010

        

Email the protestor

Episode 3:  Media bias  Mar 14, 2010

        

    Before there were such things as newspapers, in England not long before the American Revolution there were many people and groups publishing things called "Libels" which were essentially the early prototype of what we now call blogs. These single-sheet publications ranged from editorials to humorous and/or vicious satires, to occasional reporting of events in a more or less accurate manner (according to how well those events fit in with the author's prejudices). Everyone who could read them did so, but it was taken for granted that each expressed a particular point of view. The concept of objective journalism had yet to be born.

    Eventually our modern, somewhat idealized, standards of objectivity came into being. Now we attempt to distinguish between "legitimate" news organizations and propaganda purveyors according to how blatantly they stretch the truth to conform to an agenda. Most of us assume that the media tell us about pretty much everything we need to know, and that when they get it wrong someone will blow the whistle and a public debate will follow. Of course there is no such thing as objective truth that can be proven to everyone's satisfaction, but we assume that by paying attention to a variety of "reputable" sources we will get enough information to make up our own minds and form a reasonably accurate picture of what is going on in the world.

    The problem (and you knew that word was coming, didn't you?) is that media content, including news, is determined by a lot of different considerations, most of which have nothing to do with objectivity.

    First and most obviously, the slanting of news and even distortion of fact to fit an agenda has not disappeared. It has only gone underground (although in the case of Fox it has been peeking up out of its hole more than usual lately). To some extent this problem can be mitigated by seeking out multiple sources who can be expected to slant in various directions, and for that reason it doesn't bother me all that much.

    What I see as a more insidious problem is the question of editorial selection. That is, I am more concerned with what our "reputable" media chose to ignore than with what they say about the stories they do report. Fox and CNN may differ dramatically in their editorial perspective, but you will almost always find them reporting on the same basic stories. (And therefore ignoring the same stories as well.) This arises from a perception that the media audience doesn't care about certain things, or that those things aren't important because the media ownership doesn't care about them. When some spectacular disaster occurs we take notice, but the rest of the time our indifference the 2/3 of the world's population that live outside the bubble of prosperity we call the "first world" leads to a type of distortion that I find much more troubling than out-right bias.

    If you were the proverbial Martian trying to learn about Earth from the western news media, You would conclude the following:

    Most humans live in apartments or private homes with running water, central heating, electricity, and internet access. People who live in abject poverty in the "third world" are exceptions whose deprived circumstances are being corrected by generous charitable efforts.

    Literacy, access to medical and dental care, safe drinking water, and a variety of other civilized amenities are all but universal, although health insurance costs are a problem for many.

    I could go on, but I think you get the point. We may know intellectually that roughly 20% of the human race lives in China, but when our news media report about that country it always seems to me that they are talking about some country of no more significance than Belgium. Just another bunch of foreigners who need to be straightened out.

    Try asking someone you know whether the average person owns a TV set. They will probably look at you as if you've gone nuts. Of course everyone owns a TV! Right? Well, actually, the average person doesn't own what you would call a decent pair of shoes, much less a TV or any place to plug it in if they somehow acquired one.

    I don't want to beat this point to death. I just wanted to remind you that the way you and I and everyone else we know live IS NOT NORMAL. Not if normal means median or average. We are the privileged few, and I think it might do us good to contemplate that more often. You can be sure that the news media aren't going to do much to remind us.

Email the perpetrator

Episode 4:  Arizona  June 11, 2010 (revised August 3)

   

    I am revising this post because my original was a little off the mark. I had thought that the Arizona law was less complicated than it actually is. You can find out more about that by perusing the many news stories available.

    All I really want to add is that this law strikes me as very similar to most of the Tea-bag agenda. A real problem is presented in a distorted way and an inappropriate and unworkable solution proposed. This solution is then sold to as many people as possible by appealing to racism, ignorance, xenophobia, greed, and any other base impulse that can be of service.

    The fact is that crime is down, not up in the border regions. Illegal immigration is lower than several years ago. There is no crime wave by illegal immigrants against citizens. Also, very few of the people supporting the Arizona law would even consider doing the sort of work illegals are supposedly "taking away" from them.

    Illegal immigration is a problem, but destroying the Bill of Rights and creating a free-for-all of conflicting and/or redundant state laws is not a reasonable solution.The most troubling aspect of the the new Arizona law (now on hold pending litigation) is that the police are empowered and encouraged to demand papers from anyone they "suspect" might be an illegal immigrant. This new police power is in clear violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court prohibits police from searching people and demanding papers without probable cause. Looking poor and Hispanic isn't enough.

Email the perpetrator

Episode 5:  "I am you, and I'm a fool."  October 14 , 2010

      

    When problems without acceptable solutions abound, no one can win an election by telling the truth. Every "serious" candidate of whatever party lies like a rug, then whoever gets elected has to squirm and dance to pretend to live up to absurd campaign promises that defy logic, history, and simple arithmetic. After a while the party in power is discredited and we start believing the alternative lies of the other party and "throw the rascals out," thereby acquiring new rascals.

    This is our fault, people. As long as we insist on denying reality and refuse to vote for anyone who tells us the unpleasant truth, as long as we keep cheering for vague feel-good slogans, we are doomed to repeat this cycle. We want to maintain Social Security and Medicare and continue funding a military budget that exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, but we want to balance the budget without raising taxes. This is impossible, even though both parties say they will do it.

    The Democrats at least acknowledge the necessity of asking the top 2% who receive more than 25% of total US income to pay a little more, but even their numbers don't add up. Since the Dem's are slightly closer to reality, they are of course doomed in the next election.

    The Tea Party, being a fictional virtual "grass-roots" movement funded by mentally disturbed billionaires and fronted by a clown-car full of bizarre hucksters whose policies include "second amendment remedies" (If this doesn't mean shooting elected officials, what does it mean?) and banning masturbation, is naturally highly popular.

    When you refuse to vote for anything but liars, the biggest liar gets elected. The next time a politician tells you what you want to hear, give him/her the gate and find someone who will tell you the truth. As your mom used to tell you, "Take your medicine. I know it tastes bad, but it's good for you."

Email the perpetrator

Episode 6:  Boy, am I glad I was wrong!  October 16 , 2010

      

    I have been going around saying that because there are 300,000 people born every day and 150,000 dying per day, that the human population would continue to grow indefinitely until the old Malthusian "solution" of plague, war, and mass starvation reduced most of the world to chaos. Now I find that I was too hasty. Apparently it's not that simple.

    According to the article you can read by visiting the link below, current trends in birth rates and age demographics lead to the startling prediction that the world population will continue to grow over the next 40 years until it reaches around 9 billion, then start to fall until it is only about half what it is now by 2150. Of course a lot can happen between now and then, but this is still surprisingly good news compared to what I expected.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/think_again_global_aging

    I only hope that the decline in human population comes soon enough to end the horrific mass extinction of species that is happening as we speak. For more on that subject, check out the link below.

    http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Extinction/sld001.htm

    No doubt the decline in population predicted by the article I refer to above would cause economic and social disruptions, but I believe this would still be preferable to mass starvation and wars over resources. Add to that the consequences of wiping out most of the other life on Earth, and I think it's pretty clear where the balance lies.

PS: While I'm doing a "mea culpa" about being wrong, I might as well mention my wildly inaccurate prediction after the last Presidential election that Sara Palin would fade from the national spotlight. I based this on my expectation that she would return to her duties as governor of Alaska and continue to be a politician in the traditional sense. It never occured to me that she would share my insight about her future prospects and become a "reality" TV personality instead. Now that the Delaware "witch" has shown that it is possible to become a serious contender for the US Senate without so much as a functioning campaign organization within the state, who knows what is possible? Sometimes being wrong isn't so much fun.

Email the perpetrator