If someone condemns Fox News, for example, because they have a conservative bias, then other outlets fall somewhere along the line between left and right by default. MSNBC, naturally, must be liberal, and being liberal, according to the logic of the accusation, implies that it is better. (Meanwhile, CNN (ugh) remains pathetically and uselessly "centrist.") These networks, it turns out, plot themselves along this paradigm resulting in disservice to all.
But what's lost here are other, more important qualities than being right or left, such as being right or wrong. Here's what I mean: to discount a report or a story because you view it as "liberal" or "conservative" is merely to ignore that which doesn't support your prejudices. It's faulty thinking. Each of these terms, "liberal," "conservative," and "biased" are so vague as to be useless, and no combination of them can yield a meaningful critique.
Neither being liberal nor being conservative is the same as being wrong. Either one of them might, in fact, be wrong. Or both might be. But it wouldn't be because they are liberal or conservative. It could only be because their reasoning is faulty and their statements do not align with the truth, meaning "with reality," which is accessible in some measure to us all.
But what's lost here are other, more important qualities than being right or left, such as being right or wrong. Here's what I mean: to discount a report or a story because you view it as "liberal" or "conservative" is merely to ignore that which doesn't support your prejudices. It's faulty thinking. Each of these terms, "liberal," "conservative," and "biased" are so vague as to be useless, and no combination of them can yield a meaningful critique.
Neither being liberal nor being conservative is the same as being wrong. Either one of them might, in fact, be wrong. Or both might be. But it wouldn't be because they are liberal or conservative. It could only be because their reasoning is faulty and their statements do not align with the truth, meaning "with reality," which is accessible in some measure to us all.
I have grown up around people (including my parents) who say, "psh, you can't trust that, you heard it from CNN." Just because it's an unpleasant thought, or an opinion voiced by someone known for being liberal, I shouldn't take it as false. I've never thought of journalism, media, or any kind of news in terms of, "I wonder where that information came from, I wonder if they have data to back it up, I wonder." I realize now that I probably don't have very good critiquing skills beyond deciding if the statement sounds extremist (liberal or conservative).
A good example of my in-bred bias happened just tonight while watching a video on PBS with Daniel Ellsberg and a few journalists from the New York Times. Ellsberg was predicting that if we have a republican House and Senate (this was a video from September of 2010), journalists will be pulled in more and more under pressure of revealing sources from whom they received top secret information or documents, under threat of being held in contempt. As soon as he said this, I jumped back in my chair with a "Wait just a damn minute" face locked into position. And then I thought, wait. . . what do I really know about this issue? What do I know about any secrecy acts? What do I know about who stands where on this topic anyway? What do I really know about politics?
And so it began. I'm still struggling with the idea of listening or reading information, no matter their reputation for being liberal (CNN, perhaps, or NPR?). I'm not sure how to go about looking for information that hasn't been labeled either which way politically, and then determining if it is factual, or if it is trustworthy information. I tend to base my beliefs on the trust that I have in people who tell me about information, or the trust I have in some newspaper or news show. I feel unsteady. How do I decide what is fact? It's a bit easier with news or information or events that occurred 30+ years ago (I'm starting to really get into the whole deal with Nixon and the Watergate debacle, I'm going to start on "All the President's Men" soon); there are books, many people who have written on the subject. I can research that. But on topics like 'global climate change?' What trustworthy data is out there for me to find? Will it take me 30 years to feel comfortable with making a choice as to whether I believe we are in serious danger or not (though, the question then becomes, are we in serious danger from rising ocean levels? Thanks to Times Talk on Monday, the answer is undoubtedly YES)?
Gah. It's a lot to think about. If anyone has any suggestions on how to start again, how to obtain the critical mind necessary to make an informed decision before I turn 40, I would love to hear it.
Mind=blown.
No comments:
Post a Comment