We have to judge the quality of our citizens by the quality of their ideas.
There is such a thing as truth.
If we want to find it we need to stop constantly psychoanalyzing each other.
Facts and concepts are the meat and potatoes, motives, and speculation are so much paprika.
Philosophy is paramount.
The news often ruins my digestion. Not because it is bad news mind you. I’ve made peace with the fact that the world isn’t peaceful long ago.
No, the news ruins my digestion because it’s artificial. To be more precise, it ruins my digestion, because recently it has become crassly artificial. It’s a bacchanal of Tupperware and plastic confetti.
The news is artificial by nature so artificiality in and of itself isn’t the source of my dependence on Pepto Bismol. Yes, the news is artificial, But that does not mean it has to revel in it. Unwholesomeness of this sort will ruin anyone’s digestion.
So how is the news artificial exactly?
It’s artificial because it is by its very nature a representation. Most representations today are far from representative of the truth. The ones that hit really close to home still miss the exact mark because they are facsimiles. See: Xerox loses fidelity with each copy, the whisper game, etc.
This inescapable fact of the nature of news means that you have some serious digesting to do.
It means my friends that you are going to have to READ the news and not just hear or see the news.
While both audio and video recordings have their merits, and can be revisited as often as one likes, there is still much to be said for the static black and white of print.
First its immersiveness, and its cognitive effects promote deeper learning; that is less encumbered by the visual tricks of a news mink’s legs, or the tonal ploys of a beseeching moral crusader.
While lots of devilry is possible through turns of phrase, white lies, and outright chicanery these things are less pernicious in print. They are less pernicious because they are easier to spot and there is less of a blend between the real and virtual world.
The virtual world of a corporate news room, or talk radio broadcast is really good at getting in your head, because it is your heads native environment rendered electrically. When someone says something convincingly, or a sexy charming sort claims to be objective, you may know better but these messages will permeate deeper. They will permeate deeper without being properly digested.
The reason that I favor and profess the merits of print is because it gives you a broader space for assessment. The rapid fire bombardment of multi-sensory information that happens with audio and visual news services doesn’t give you adequate time to digest. Which means that there is a greater likelihood that you will come away having assimilated more views without assessment than you may have realized.
Print just stays there staring you in the face. It is because of this stasis that you can get a better feeling for the fact that ‘things can be found out.’ Things can be traced back.
Reading you see promotes further reading. Therefore it promotes research. Because when something you either fancy ,or despise is sitting there, staring at you in all its static glory: you want to know why it’s correct or detestably false.
And you know that you can do it, because you know that very likely there is somewhere supporting statements, that are also black and white. Thus you participate in a culture of deeper searching and thinking.
When I listen to news banter, or hear of the latest from this or that event, my impulse is more often to chat with friends or blast out an opinion column. However when I read I think deeper and reach for more sources.
I think the case for reading is actually stronger today with the advent of the internet. Because with the internet you can dig through much more things almost instantaneously.
The world, especially today is incredibly complex, and monumentally nuanced. We must visit and revisit issues ad infinitum because there is always something new to be gleaned in the old. Such is honesty, such is philosophy, such is science. We now have more tools than ever to do this well on a grand scale. Therefore we have a duty.
Yes, because of all that I’ve mentioned and the nature of technology: I have to say that reading news is a duty. That thinking about news is a duty. That rereading news is a duty. That perhaps even columnisting, blogging, book writing of your own is a duty.
It is a duty just like making sure that your gut is healthy is a duty.
Eat your fiber lest you get the runs and die.
I’m writing and researching the topic of the axis resource known as water. As I am doing so I’m rather surprised by the tawdry level of coverage that it has gotten over the years. Especially when you compare it to other environmental issues like global warming or nuclear power.
This is really bizarre given that the EPA basically made it’s bonafides with the CWA and SDWA in the seventies. In those burnt orange days rivers still periodically caught fire. It would seem that the river Styx is necessary to keep our attention.
No one has made much noise about water since the early to mid aughts, when a brief stream of books and initiatives flowed steadily, petering out around 2011, with one last trickle as a Rolling Stone Article.
When I began working on the subject round 2015, eyes were rolled, and motives questioned. What could possibly be wrong with water? What warrants us paying attention to it? Was I seeking trendy dollars and hipster chick nookie?
Then my home state of South Carolina flooded and Flint happened. I’m still waiting for one of those perpetually busy people to ring me up with followups and apologetic beers.
I’d be waiting forever if I didn’t realize that not only have the folks probably forgotten our debates but floods and poisoned cities probably didn’t connect with the water issue.
Why?
Because, 57 Outrageous Things!
I really couldn’t have asked for a better headline. Let me explain my line of thinking.
I really do think that it’s the responsibility of the press and intelligentsia to help prevent things like Flint by reporting on the issues that would lead to their discovery before tragedy strikes.
So, I was going to make this article about how media coverage steers our focus to some things and away from others. I was going to do this to raise the question as to why water has not been covered more adequately.
You see. I haven’t seen it. I haven’t seen the coverage. And I haven’t seen it because of 57 outrageous things.
That was the one of the biggest headlines on CNN.com today. Right there at the top in all of its melodramatic glory.
It’s a title that really represents what the news is all about these days. 57 outrageous things. The news is an outrage factory.
Something which is in and of itself morally questionable. One could argue that addressing outrageous things is important. And it is. But which outrageous things? And should all the outrageous things be regarding just one topic?
In the case of our 57 Outrageous Things, it’s 57 Outrageous Things that Trump said in Arizona. Rather specific, that.
Yes, he is the president and if he is really saying outrageous things perhaps we should point out that they are outrageous.
To make it a headline on such a specific instance in one of the nations largest news outlets is bizarre. The news is an information service.
The business model rests on delivering useful information to viewers. At least in theory this useful information draws eyes to the channel or paper. Those eyes result in ratings which then result in revenue from advertisers.
Services were rendered. Happy informed citizens lent their eyeballs yet again. Advertisers were pleased. The transaction was completed. Neat, clean, and not the way it works at all.
The services rendered were 57 Outrageous things and not the news. 57 outrageous things is a title that belongs in an internet opinion column, or more fittingly TMZ. Regardless of whether it was the president or Joey from the bar that said it.
57 Outrageous Things is brilliantly illustrative of the tone and substance of modern news coverage. It’s a lot more P.T. Barnum then Edward R. Murrow. It is precisely the reason that huge global topics like water use get buried first behind outrageous things and then behind sensational things like Global Warming.
A made name, and attention for the wrong reasons, are what continues to draw advertisers to these thankfully waning organizations.
While I wouldn’t be terribly sad, on the day that the publishers of 57 outrageous things, had to hand in their press pass, I’d much rather see reform. I’d much rather see honest and thorough coverage on all of the topics that matter and not just the sensational ones.
The Fractal Journal 