What does one do, asks Orson Scott Card, when spin is so blatant and pervasive that it becomes hard to trust anyone in the media? Mike Hendrix certainly makes a good case for this viewpoint based on recent media conduct, and Scrappleface has a typically humourous take on it all:
bq. "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that state scholarship funds may be denied to students pursuing careers in journalism. The decision follows yesterday's 7-2 ruling (Locke v. Davey) allowing Washington to prohibit disbursement of state scholarship money to a student who was aiming for a devotional theology degree -- in other words, training for vocational ministry."
Orson Scott Card sees the same trends. He offers a number of useful tools for those who truly want to be informed citizens, plus a list of respected sources that includes both left and right-leaning publications. Card adds:
bq. "The purpose of this is not to find some media source that you can trust so much that you can switch your brain off and let their ideas replace any thoughts of your own. Quite the contrary. You need reliable sources of information precisely so you can do your own thinking and reach your own conclusions."
Amen.
I try and go straight to primary sources as much as possible these days.
But the underlying force behind this whole problem, clearly, is partisan redistricting which begat incredible partisanship in the House, which in turn begat a very confused and divided press corps and electorate. And the nerds at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center have made gerrymandering a breeze!
Damn you, Elbridge Gerry!
By the way, Fox friggin' news?
Puh-lease...
I'll second that Amen.
The Orson Scott Card link was excellent and included a subtle and funny logic. Card points out that observers often set out to see what they wish to see (has it ever been any other way?), and then goes on to compare Clinton and Bush. In the comparison he sees only virtue in Bush and only a lack of virtue in Clinton. He compounds this by citing only the fact that the left leaning media is critical of Bush while omitting the crucifixion of Clinton by the right leaning media.
No better example could have been provided to support the premise that we often see what we wish to and obdurately look the other way when we wish not to see it.
He has a great point though. You need good reporting to provide the facts. Add your own experience and values to the facts and you can get an opinion. This explains why Bush can simultaneously be saving the western world and turning America into a fascist dictatorship.
My own take on the problem is to read widely, read critically, and always to keep in mind my own predisposition for discarding inconvenient truths.
Perhaps we should only allow Buddhists to act as reporters - seeing the world as it is ;)