What’s Happened To Our News?

There has been increasing concern about the effectiveness of the media and news coverage. Now the press has joined the concerned group. That’s good. Paul Krugman reviews some ideas that really deserve our attention.

“People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.” Krugman points out that, “After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.”

You may not agree with Krugman’s view of the president, but it is hard to escape the changes we’re seeing in the media and their impact on our ability to think effectively about the problems this country faces today.

Koppel Communicates

I hear “debates” wherever I go about the war in Iraq and I’m reminded that nearly none of us have firsthand information about what is happening in that country. We get it from the mass media. The mass media isn’t really in the business of keeping us informed nearly so much as making a profit. So we should be careful with the data we get from them. On the other hand, the “debates” almost always sound like the debaters have a complete and accurate database on the war in Iraq and that their conclusions are the only reasonable conclusions.

Here is just a part of Ted Koppel's graduation address at Berkeley recently. He points out that we must set aside how we feel about what we know in order to conduct the nation's business even on our own city block. We must be informed and think as clearly as possible before we become part of the problem rather than part of a solution. Koppel said, “We have become so embroiled in the distaste we have for one another's ideologies that we are losing sight of the real peril that confronts us. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, and invoking the war against terrorism for the U.S. invasion of Iraq invites skepticism. Still, terrorism is not a figment of this administration's imagination. It doesn't matter what you believe the United States is doing or may have done to earn the enmity of so many people around the world; someone has to be thinking about the consequences of that hatred, even as we consider what can reasonably done to address it.”

No matter what our government has done and no matter whether we agree with what has been done, we still have an obligation to become informed before we attempt to communicate what we think ought to be done. Knowing how to communicate is important, but it is not more important than the things about which we are expected to communicate.

Seek balanced information. Don’t rely on the efforts of the mass media to inform you and your community. Use every available channel, think about the information and then communicate. That is, after all, the only hope we have to live in the community of our own choice. We must help to build it.

How Should We Spend The Money?

We are facing some huge problems in the world and right here in the United States. They include: health, education, oil, crime, and highway infrastructure to name a few.

I agree that looking toward goals that stretch our imaginations and make us feel better about a brighter future raises the human spirit. But, when I think of the money spent on space missions and the attempt to land men on Mars, I can't help but think that there are students who can't afford to go to college. There are elderly folk who have to choose between eating and medication or worse.

How 'bout setting goals like these: find a cure for cancer, cover human beings need for health care, provide the best possible education for everyone, find a better source of cheaper energy and other goals in these areas.

How Do We Feel? How Should We Feel?

When horrible things happen and we feel powerless to do anything about it, that stirs us in many ways. Anger. Frustration. Hate. Powerlessness. We don't know what we should feel, although we suspect that dropping a nuclear device on the people who beheaded an American seems like a good idea. We know that isn't the answer.

What is the answer. First, don't lose your ethical balance. Continue to evaluate everything with the same ethical yardstick you used before this happened. Don't kill all, even figuratively, to be rid of the "confusion" about what civilized people will or won't do. Don't assume that only some civilizations do not have deviants in their midst. We all have our share of humans that seem to us to be uncivilized.

Talk to somebody. Not about what you've seen, heard or read, but about how you feel about what you've seen, heard or read. Friends are great for that. If you can't find a friend, find an advisor, councilor or anyone who will help you talk about your feelings. Don't keep them inside. You really can't. They will come out and you may not like what you see when you explode.

Give yourself a chance to absorb the event and keep expressing yourself as you do. You will be able to cope.

That is no way changes the horror of what happened. You're the one that adjusts. Now you're free to move ahead helping others cope with what life dishes out.

Paul Krugman Nails The Issue

Without the media we all depend on to know what is going on in the world, the probability of abuses of all kinds became real.

Paul Krugman in his column, "Just Trust Us" makes the point, "No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust. He adds, "Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was inevitable."

Great column giving us all insight into why we need a truly free press everywhere.

What About Oil Prices?

In a recent column in the New York Times, Paul Krugman made some painful and obvious statements about oil in our lives. Among other things he said, “Thanks to the mess in Iraq — including a continuing campaign of sabotage against oil pipelines — oil exports have yet to recover to their prewar level, let alone supply the millions of extra barrels each day the optimists imagined. And the fallout from the war has spooked the markets, which now fear terrorist attacks on oil installations in Saudi Arabia, and are starting to worry about radicalization throughout the Middle East. (It has been interesting to watch people who lauded George Bush's leadership in the war on terror come to the belated realization that Mr. Bush has given Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted.)”

By the end of this summer we may be paying more per gallon than we should afford. What advice should we be giving to your elected representatives and what sorts of things ought we to be campaigning for to assure us of the life style to which we’ve become accustomed? Krugman asks, “So what should we be doing? Here's a hint: We can neither drill nor conquer our way out of the problem. Whatever we do, oil prices are going up. What we have to do is adapt.”

The Bush administration’s stance on Kerry’s military service has been bothering me for some time. Until recently, it was generally assumed that one of the “smartest” things you could do was to serve your country in a low risk and rewarding fashion: join the National Guard. Unfortunately, the National Guard is no longer a safe haven for those who fear to serve. It’s becoming the backbone of the United States military. In fact, seen on an Oregon vehicle not long ago was a sign about the National Guard that said, “One weekend a month . . .like hell!”

That’s what George W. Bush did. Conventional wisdom held that military service could be “dodged” without the stigma. If you “needed” to do something other than serve the National Guard, an early out might be arranged. Sort of a flexible service plan.

Kerry, on the other hand, joined and risked everything in a war that Americans really grew to hate. He served without regard to the risk. He did the job he was asked to do and did it better than most. He was awarded medals and recognition for his service.

Now, by a strange kind of reasoning, Kerry is being depicted as a person who doesn’t understand things military and that he wants to make life for soldiers as bad as possible. The Bush administration is saying to the nation that Kerry, who fought and knows war from the ground up, isn’t worthy to think about wars and make decisions. While those who have avoided serving their country in the military, know best what to do with our young people by putting them to war for reasons progressively unclear.

The Bush administration's current TV spot about Kerry's military votes in the Senate, his military service and military support is, as the commercial says, “Troubling.”

An increasing number of people are beginning to notice and more importantly talk about the amount and types of information we’re able to read, hear and see on TV concerning the conduct of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In The Sunday Oregonian, Michael Arrieta-Walden, reminded readers that reporting was different during the Vietnam War.

“Reports on Iraqi civilians killed are even more difficult to obtain for readers. The U.S. government does not provide the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed.”

“That contrasts with how deaths were reported in the Vietnam War. Take this account from government officials, published in The Oregonian 35 years ago today: ‘The casualty totals last week were 216 Americans killed in action, 1,162 U.S. troops wounded, 329 government soldiers killed, 884 wounded, and 3,379 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese killed.’ ”

There are those who think that the U.S. failed to finish the war in Vietnam and that in large part the failure was caused by news reporting, especially TV. So the U.S. during the Persian Gulf War limited reporters to areas deemed safe. Then they were provided regular news briefings, which in turn were sent back to the United States. There was a lot of complaining about the Pentagon’s methods and restrictions and so during the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. government has embedded reporters with the troops and restricted where they could go and apparently what they could report on. For example, little or no information or summary statements have been reported on troops that are AWOL, injured, and killed as well as civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Recently, a photograph was printed in The Seattle Times, showing flag-draped coffins on board an aircraft bound for the United States. The photographer lost her job. The American people apparently aren’t supposed to see the coffins en route or when they arrive in the United States. The impact of such photographs would clearly be great. When we can see the consequences of our actions so graphically portrayed we might very well alter how we feel about any war.

I agree with the headline on the Commentary section of The Sunday Oregonian which reminds us that, “Reporting Can’t become war casualty.”

There’s a nagging doubt in the back of our minds: how are we paying the bills for, 1) war in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) troops abroad, 3) homeland defense, 4) increased benefits for Medicare, 5) increased support for education, and many more increases, while at the same time lowering taxes and asking that the tax reductions be made permanent. The debt is huge: The estimated population of the United States is 293,862,533 so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,384.75.

Who will eventually have to pay these bills? How long will it take? Didn’t mom and dad tell us that when you live off credit bad things could happen to you? Have we all lost our concern for this kind of behavior by ourselves or by our government? Why aren’t there lots of folk talking about the massive indebtedness and its cost? Why aren’t more folk talking about the value of the dollar and what is likely to happen to it as the national debt increases? Where’s the discussion? Where’s the pressure to do something, anything, about this massive national debt? What’s up?

As I have said in the past, I prefer a government that will allow me to decide when and how to worship and a government that will take care of the roads, libraries, schools, police departments, water, etc. A thread in political discourse has been more and more noticeable: religion. In fact, it is assumed that one of the needs of both sides in this presidential election is the support of religious right.

In discussions, press conferences, speeches and interviews, thoughts such as Teddy Roosevelt’s words are beginning to tint the meanings of what is being said. For example, “If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness.” I think few of us would favor anything other than “righteousness.” The problem for the United States is severe. We have a very wide range of folk who live here and they don’t always believe the same things. What is righteous to one may not be to another. When one religion appears to be getting unfair support from government, we can expect trouble in the future. When one religion appears to be attacking another there will be problems.

We can see how that works by looking at Iraq in the news right now. The Sunni Triangle has become a deadly spot in these “after-war times.” Sunni Islam is different from Shiite Islam. Under Saddam Hussein's former government, the Sunni were favored, and since the war have lost position, power and money. They’re angry. The Shiites, on the other hand, are more accustomed to being oppressed and things appear to them to be more hopeful since the Hussein government has been overthrown. This is an example of what can happen when one group is favored over another, because of religion.

It seems that today we use the word “righteous” to mean correct, right and proper, as opposed to wrong-headed thinking. Further, if there is a disagreement and you suggest that we might approach our current problems from a broader base, it turns out you are “unrighteous.” I get the uncomfortable feeling that our right to freely disagree and freely discuss those things that are important to us is in danger. It almost seems there is a feeling when disagreement happens that those who disagree are thought to be “evil.” Allowing religion and religious nuances to enter the political discussion adds a force that can lead to your religion uniting with your government against you.

One of the main reasons Europeans came to North America was the right to worship the way they thought appropriate, when they thought appropriate. In addition, the government could not directly settle any disagreements on how individuals worshiped. This context provided us with the “freedom” to worship in the United States any way we thought we ought to without interference from our government.

Other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia to name a couple, have their “normal” governmental responsibilities such as money, taxes, water, transportation and so on, interpreted through the expectations of a dominant religion. That presents the citizens of those countries with major problems. What if they don’t believe in the majority or dominant religion. All the limitations applied to the believers is also forced on the non-believers, because the government and religion are one and the same.

For example, “’Critique and criticism of the government’s policies are not bad, but when someone attempts to undermine the foundations of the government, it is treason and not freedom of expression" (Ayattolah Ali Khamenei, 1998)”

“These words, uttered by the supreme spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1998, very well explain the standpoint of the leaders, the so called gray eminencies, of the theocratic republic of Iran. Due to their religious principles they reject any outer influences which might restrict the power of the clerical institutions and might introduce unwanted democratic characteristics to the present regime.”

One of the problems with religions is that many of them claim to “have the truth” about life, which they have possessed since their religion was established. Most religions disagree in significant areas. Since there are no easy or quick ways to “update” those religions, they tend to be most satisfactory for the general population when they are started and as time goes by become less and less satisfactory when change may be called for by new circumstances.

In the United States we’re seeing an increase in religious pressures. The rest of the world has seen it as well. We are speaking less as a government and more like a religion each year. That works well if others are in agreement with the announced religious posture. That increases division if there is disagreement on the religious posture assumed.

In my opinion, we should ask our government to do well those things that governments can do for all of us. Be more careful when getting into areas where the government has to choose between religions in order to serve all of us. If unity is a good thing, and I believe that it is, then we should nurture an environment in which un-coerced unity can survive.

The separation of church and state, freedom to make choices and freedom to talk about things that I believe are important, I never want to be without.

We can see what happens when countries like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan try to build a nation which must deal with secular things that affect all governments, but attempt to do it with religions that are centuries old with little or no coping skills for modern problems. In most cases, the religion that is in the majority or has the greatest power, superimposes it's system on everyone in that nation. That type of situation can lend itself to all kinds of abuses and many are committed in the name of religion.

If I decide that I want to move from one state to another, with the freedom of choice I will be allowed. If I want to build my house close to the surf along the coast, I can if I want. If I want to change careers and need to go back to college to pickup a new area of expertise, I can if I want. The idea of having the government tell me that I can’t do any of those things seems deeply wrong.

If I want to talk about some method of accomplishing tasks in my community, I can if I want. Even if I know you’re wrong about what you’re saying, you should be allowed to talk about what’s on your mind. I get uncomfortable with folk start telling me that I can't say certain things, which I hold to be of value and true. I choose to believe that if you would just listen to what I have to say, you too might see the merit in my ideas.

These to me are very important freedoms. And, if I want to listen to jazz, rock, folk or polkas, I don’t want the government to be in a position to tell me that I can’t listen. I don’t want the government to tell broadcasters that they can’t meet my need when it comes to music or other programming.

The problem isn’t in these freedoms. The problem begins with us and then it is passed on to the children we raise. If the methods necessary to solve life’s problems are not in our citizens, we need to start by looking at parenting. After we’ve looked at parents and parenting then we need to look at the institutions we have established to transmit and improve our cultures and societies. When we find problems there, we need to have within us the resources to fix the problems without violence. But, we need those freedoms in order to assure ourselves that we have the raw materials to build a better world.

In the United States, we value freedom of choice and freedom of speech very much. We feel sorry for nations that do not seem to have those freedoms as we enjoy them. There may be some consequences to these freedoms. For example, “Poor eating habits, lack of exercise and smoking are to blame for more than a third of all deaths in the United States.”

Well, what do you think? Don’t I have the right to buy, eat or smoke anything that I want to? And if I don’t have that right, what is the basis for my freedoms being endangered? Why should anyone, no matter how well intentioned be able to stop me from getting my fries supersized? And if McDonald’s decides that they won’t sell me my fries supersized, why can’t I just buy a double order? If I decide I want to do something that other people feel I should not do, what gives those people the right to curb my rights?

I ask you. Why should the FCC be allowed to censor, in any way, what I choose to see on TV, or hear on the radio? What about the rights of the folk who simply want to hear “free speech” or take advantage of the delicious opportunities that present themselves to us every day?

In the British newspaper, The Observer, February 22, 2004, the following headline appeared: “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us.” In the story filed in New York by reporters Townsend and Harris, they report that, “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.”

They report that, “The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure swindling food, water and energy supplies.” According to the Pentagon analysis, “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life. Once again, warfare would define human life.”

This report published by foreign media was treated quite differently by US media February 25, 2004. “Pentagon downplays report on climate change that it commissioned” is the headline that appeared Tuesday, February 24, 2004. “According to Britain’s The Observer, US military officials censored an alarming report because the issue of global warming could wind up thrust into the US presidential campaign ahead of the November vote.”

Why should that report bother the citizens of the US that prides themselves on free speech? Why shouldn’t the issue get free and open debate? Why would we want to have an issue that might be extremely important to all of us on the planet, censored?

If we assume that everyone is different from everyone else because of DNA and our place in time and space, then it would seem natural that conflict is inevitable. If we add to that a natural tendency to seek out information that is substantially in agreement with our current positions in life, such as those who are interested in automobiles subscribing to automotive publications and visiting auto shows, then conflict is not only inevitable but also natural.

Add the cultural orientation given to our population by parents primarily, which defines the lives of their children. For example, men are supposed to be assertive, take-charge people who appreciate clear lines of difference between the sexes while keeping their emotions “under control.” Women are to be peacemakers and produce harmony whenever possible.

If in general parents across the land agree that taking care of yourself and making something of yourself are important components of success and that the individual is more important than the group, conflict becomes inevitable, natural and a way of life.

If all of that is true, or even close to it, what should we be doing to fix the problem? Is there anything we can do? Where do we begin? How long will it take?

“Freedom of speech does not give someone—anyone—the right to bust into your home to exercise it.” A well stated thought from Pseudo news, sordid culture in the Commentary section of Sunday’s Oregonian. The author, Stephen Kline, goes on to say that, “Buying a fax machine or a computer does not constitute a tacit or implied invitation to anyone to badger, harass, sell or promote.”

Just because some publicity agent somewhere hits on the idea of using the Super Bowl for a “coming out” party for Janet Jackson trying to reestablish her career doesn’t mean anyone should be surprised by unwanted actions. Shouldn’t our culture contain enough “expectations” to make it unnecessary to have our courts create rules to govern inappropriate behavior?

Cynthia-Lou Coleman, in her related article, also in the Sunday Oregonian, points out that, “The problem is, fake news over time becomes more interesting than the bland unfolding of reality.” How do we train ourselves, let alone our children, that they should depend on the media to keep them informed so that they can cast votes of value to positive growth in our nation?

Again we must ask the question, “What is there that we can do?” “Is there anything that can be done other than pass laws that prohibit what culture used to control?” “Are we a sinking ship with no way to save ourselves?”

For several years we have seen Bill Moyers' work published, on PBS and in person as a speaker in high demand. He thinks, and then tells others what he’s been thinking about. In November of last year he was the keynote speaker at the National Conference on Media Reform ('Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed'), and he had a great deal to say about media and what should be happening.

He reminded the audience that the American Revolution “ran in good part on the energies of a rambunctious, though tiny press. Freedom and freedom of communications were birth-twins in the future United States. They grew up together, and neither has fared very well in the other’s absence. Boom times for the one have been boom times for the other.”

Moyers goes on to say that they drive for constantly increasing profits is eroding the role that journalist and journalism used to play in the health of our nation. He told the audience that indeed our democracy is being paralyzed and I think it should be clear that clouds our future as a free nation.

What is there that we as individuals can do to restore journalism in the mass media to a healthier position? Or, is it already too late to fix the system?

Our entire body is constructed according to the DNA our bodies have to work with. We have different abilities to taste, smell, see, touch and all the other things that make us what we are. The quality of our hair and are brain is ours, which is a good thing.

The hard part in this situation is that when you see, touch, smell or build an idea in your head, you are using equipment that is unique to you. That means that when you’re talking to anyone about the taste of food or the color on the house your “world view” will be different from his or hers.

Out of these differences grows conflict. We’re all taught to avoid conflict whenever possible. The fact is, we cannot avoid conflict. We are different and those differences cause conflict. Since we cannot avoid conflict, we must spend much of our time creating methods that will allow us to resolve conflict in appropriate ways.

Much of our communication must be devoted to the resolution of conflict, or we will suffer unnecessarily in life. Peace is something that seems to be a worthy universal goal, Perhaps we should combine the two concepts and recognize that peace may be the sustained satisfactory resolution of conflict.

What do you think?

When we listen to talk radio today, we are told repeatedly that “the media” is liberal and often unfair. As we listen we hear a wide range of things which, might lead us to conclude that anything we believe that doesn’t match what the talk show hosts are saying is incorrect.

Is there a possibility that by allowing concentrated media ownership, our nation has invited political control over the media and its listeners? In The Oregonian, February 1, 2004, Garrett Epps’ commentary, “Talk radio: It's time for more than right-wing hot air” clearly spells out the argument that the media is not only not liberal, it is conservative and just possibly conservative by intent.

What we need is balanced media that will provide us with what we need to make long-term plans and empower us to deal with people and issues. That way we can move ahead as a nation of freedom loving people rather than a workforce for a few who are very wealthy.

What do you think? Do we have balanced media? Do we have liberal media leading us down a road to self-destruction? Do we have conservative media creating a world where huge corporations are the primary beneficiaries of everything that makes the United States great?

What do you think? Until we can find another source for comments please use my e-mail address: ricej@mhcc.edu.

www.klinkfamily.com used to be able to provide help in the area of posting comments. As you can see from the quote below, they may be out of that business. If so, we'll just keep looking until we find a way to include comments. In the meantime, try e-mail: ricej@mhcc.edu.

"Ok. well as you have all probably found out, BlogOut is pretty much down. I dont have the drive space to facillitate the system any longer and am unfortunately going to have to shut it down for now. Hopefully in the future I'll be able to bring back a more stable, more flexible solution, but until then I apologize for the inconvenience."