Thomas Jefferson
Not many would argue how our constitution stands on the idea of a free press. Most on both sides of the political arena want to make sure these rights stay free, information flows unreservedly and opinions can be expressed. What I find interesting is how people decide what might be wrong or right. When it comes to news, plain and pure facts and political opinions many will decide the truth based on whether it is liberal or conservative in nature. And both types make the mistake when defining facts from opinion. A friend was certain to make sure I understood this by listing a few places where she received much of her information and didn’t want to hide her understanding of these viewpoints.
“Liberal, yet their facts check out.”
I appreciate the honesty and I have no problems with it. Interesting but I question whether she could equally say of other sources, “conservative, yet their facts check out.” As with many, I think it might be a struggle. So many will predetermine facts reported based on knowing who supplies the information. I might be considered naive but until it is proved otherwise; I tend to believe all the mainstream media outlets, as a rule, try to make sure they report the facts. Now, please understand there is a great difference between the facts of a news report and an opinion based on those facts. This same person has this to say about one news outlet.
“… and wouldn't trust Fox News as far as I could throw my car.”
In her defense, because I find it hard to believe differently, I presume she meant she could not trust the opinions of said news outlet. But then again, the blogs sphere and other news stories (where ever one gets them) seems to indicate people prefer to blur the difference because it is easier to consider truths based on liberal facts or conservative facts. A fact can be proven and if not then it just may be an opinion and that is another issue to discuss. But let’s stick to the facts. It is much like preferring a Chrysler over a Honda. Both are cars but people would argue that point because of such a bias for one or the other. They may choose to believe one is not a car because of who makes it. With that kind of attitude you might see me driving a Honda and tell me to go buy a car. All I’ve really learned is that you don’t like Hondas. The question then becomes, “Why do you prefer a Chrysler over a Honda?”
For current events, I look to all sources of information and evaluate them on their own merits. If it is a fact, which can be tested, then it matters not from whom I garner it from. One thing I do purposely is look for what is reported and notice what is ignored. That says more sometimes than the facts themselves. This means I need to look at all sources to compare who is reporting what. There is the tendency by many reporters to ignore or not report “facts” that make it difficult to support either their liberal or conservative perspectives: and that of course is revealing in itself. So I might not trust as much a news outlet that ignores certain facts or stories because it does not support their idea of what’s news worthy and support their opinions. But guess what, that is news also.
It is not so much who is reporting what, as much as the viewpoint it is filtered through. The problem is many people don’t have a good understanding of what they believe or why they believe it so generally sway from one ideal to another as it feels right. Or their principles are so fanatical that they can not accept any variations or conceive what others might prove as truth. I agree with this statement.
“The truth lies in reading the Constitution, a knowledge of history, and studying the commentaries by the authors, which clearly explains their intentions without the need of conjecturing intellectuals educated with propaganda 250 years later.”
If you can’t consistently point to values, principals and ethics that require integrity to persistently convey ideas, then one might need the support of a particular liberal or conservative bias to sort through.
For instance just yesterday I heard about Attorney General Eric Holder indicating the president was willing to look at changing the Miranda rules to help process terrorists. Many conservatives think this is a good idea but even though I lean towards conservative opinions I strongly disagree with this sudden 180 degree turn around. Why? Without going into the details, this idea goes against what I believe about our American justice system, why we have this law and it would only weaken our liberties as we know them.
Check all avenues of news information. I do listen to Fox, CBS, ABC and I especially am interested in NBC/MSNBC for what they consider news worthy and what they ignore. I compare what the Huffington Post, Washing ton Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico and other major “papers” report. News magazines such as Newsweek, US News, The Weekly Standard and Time all give varying perspectives on current events. But I rely a lot on the Internet also for information that might not make the regular media. It is interesting the people who fight most for “freedom of the press” are often times the same ones who dwell on which is right and wrong regardless whether it is news (facts) or opinion.
“Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritances and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic.”
Alexis de Tocqueville - 29 July 1805, Paris – 16 April 1859, Cannes
2 comments:
Gaia Quay:
Beautifully written, and I agree with the whole thing. I'm absolutely incensed with the idea of messing with Miranda.
Gaia, Thanks for the compliment. I'm not a teacher, so to say, and I surely wouldn’t want you to feel obligated. But for homework if you believe this opinion, I have a challenge. Why? What principals or values do you hold and from where do they come that help you feel I’m right? I found it hard work but had a lot of fun when I did it years ago. It’s a great way to understand yourself and others.
Post a Comment