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

   

    The controversial new law in Arizona is constantly referred to as an "immigration law". This is misleading. The state of Arizona has no authority to make laws regarding immigration. The law in question deals with enforcement of existing federal laws.

    There is a precedent for local police acting to enforce federal law. Before the new law in Arizona, police could and sometimes did take people into custody who were suspected of being illegal immigrants. What is at issue in the new law is that the police are empowered and encouraged to stop and search and 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.

    Police chiefs are on record as opposing this law. When was the last time you recall police chiefs complaining about being given more latitude and authority? This law is nothing less than a suspension of the Bill of Rights for the sake of political expediency. We don't profile Islamic-looking people as potential terrorists (at least in theory). We must not encourage the police to start rounding up everyone who looks Hispanic on the chance that some of them might be undocumented. We say we stand for freedom. We can't defend freedom by suspending it any time it seems expedient.

Email the perpetrator

    PS: On further reading I realize that there is a provision in the Arizona law to make it a misdemeanor to be in Arizona illegally. I suppose you could call that an immigration law. Sorry for the error. I feel that my main point still stands. Namely that allowing the police to conduct unconstitutional detention of suspected illegals is a cure far worse than the disease.