|
|
Post by smokinghorse on May 13, 2016 13:46:20 GMT -7
I'm feeling clever. I just posted this thought in a response to one of Chelsea's posts on FB, and I really got myself thinking.
In an age of zero media accountability, misinformation, disinformation, deregulation and outright lies, how do we define freedom? What I mean is, how much better off is a society whose citizens get to decide which truth to believe than a society whose news is so tightly controlled that it tells them what to believe?
I know there is no such thing as a Magnanimous Socialist Democracy with a twist of Capitalism, but that would be my choice. Aaron Sorkin would draft my Constitution, based on recommendations by Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomorewirehanger on May 13, 2016 15:07:59 GMT -7
I'll get back to this when I'm not mentally exhausted after a long day of stupid that started by being accosted by vigilante granny.
|
|
|
|
Post by smokinghorse on May 13, 2016 16:29:57 GMT -7
I woulda smoked that bitch!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronin on May 13, 2016 19:00:01 GMT -7
I've been debating the subject with myself since I read your post. It's an interesting dilemma. Here's the path my brain keeps taking:
I like to watch the news and read news articles, because I like to be informed of current events. I hate to watch the news and read news articles, because I have to mentally sift through a shit pile of celebrity gossip, political scandals, and the latest health (s)care studies. I like finding articles written from different perspectives, because I feel like I'm getting the story from more than one angle. I hate finding opposing information, because then I feel less informed due to the conflicting information, and now don't know what to believe. I like that I can "consider the source," but hate not knowing which sources I can really trust, because it kind of defeats the purpose. I understand that there are certain things that the government can't (and should not) share with the general public, but I also feel I have the right to know, dammit!
The people that really get me are the ones who blast others for their news outlet of choice. Fox, CNN, MSN, Bob's Zany Farm News. Someone hates the fact that you pay attention to it. You're "indoctrinated" and drinking some sort of Kool-Aid (probably the case with Bob's Zany Farm News.) I don't always like the message that I get from any news source, but I can respect a person's effort to stay informed.
|
|
|
|
Post by smokinghorse on May 13, 2016 21:24:11 GMT -7
I respect the effort to stay informed. I just, like you, resent that actually staying informed requires ridiculous amounts of time and investigation. Even then, it's hard to know.
What I struggle with is people who are so deliriously misinformed that it almost has to be intentional. Naive, ignorant, or apathetic. Either that, or they ignore media altogether, choosing instead to follow whatever guidelines their pastor tells them came divinely to him. OR, people who are motivated by hate and fear. Anger, I understand. Be angry about social justice. But I am frankly scared shitless by what motivates both the far right and Trump supporters. Disenfranchised middle class white men? What could be scaring them other than the thought of actual equality and losing their birthright guarantee of having the right of first refusal in absolutely everything? These people are informed to the extent that they can tell who their friends and enemies are. We're all one or the other, now. I used to not understand why politics were kept relatively private. Because now that I know if you're a Trump supporter, I have to fight like hell to remember the parts of you that made me think you were a decent human being before I found out you're a Trump supporter. I hate that I feel that way, because that's not who I want to be. But I also don't understand how a decent human being can vote for Trump. The whole situation is so divisive.
I won't spend too much time on big media, except to say that I once spent two weeks comparing how Fox News and msNBC treated stories compared to other media, and they are biased. They just are. Which would not be a problem if they and their audience would admit and understand that. But if they claim to be fair and balanced, then their audiences can claim that, too. And it ain't so. You know?
|
|
