A Current

The US media has seemingly set its news stories into a constant cycle of reporting on the civil war in Libya, the budget crisis, Charlie Sheen, and even a bunch of Christians proclaiming the end of the world is near; what I would like to focus on is journalistic integrity.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

P.S. Don't forget to click here!

EDIT------

Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.

Brouhaha

If you are someone who pays attention to Congressional elections (which, for America, is about 40% of you), you know how important the upcoming Congressional elections are. You also know that there is vehement crapslinging (one step worse than mudslinging) from both sides, and that the television media only aids in this crapslinging. For that reason, I ask that you, my loyal reader, not watch any TV news regarding the Congressional elections. Read the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, whatever; just don't watch TV news.

Why? Well, for one thing, TV news is heavily opinionated. Wait, you may say, the newspapers are opinionated too. They may be opinionated, but, in the case of the New York Times, only on the last page. Otherwise, all journalists are required to give two sides to every story and be more fair and balanced (in the literal sense of the term, not Fox's).

TV news has an affinity for shaping people's arguments and opinions, and even making non-pertinent topics prudent. If all TV news were balanced, then Park 51 wouldn't be an issue and nor would Pastor Terry Jones.

So, I encourage you to read your news rather than hear it from Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, the aboriginal pygmies at CNN, or your local grumpy pedophile. I know that no one purportedly reads anymore, but I must say that it's entertaining to read about how candidate Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft and believes that masturbation is infidelity.

I guess I'm going to hell, then.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Point of Ire

A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.

--EDIT--

Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."

This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?

"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.

Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.

I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?

Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Novus Orsa

"New beginnings."

I am not a melodramatic person, as I hoped to show in my previous post. It is something that I have always tried to avoid.

I bring up the Latin phrase "Novus Orsa" because I will soon begin my second year of college. It seems like almost a lifetime has passed since my first year. So much has changed, even though the time that has passed is comparatively short. I will be turning 20 this school year, meaning the end of my childhood and teenage years. It is quite daunting to know that I will no longer have the teen moniker to rely on. Childhood was extraordinarily simple when compared to my life today. I suppose, however, that if we continually cling to childhood, we never mature. On the other hand, if we let our pasts go, we become somewhat detached from that which makes us whole. I suppose that striking the right balance between the two will be a necessary quest to undertake.

Now, I feel that I must talk about something that I have tried to avoid talking about: politics. Specifically, I would like to talk about the current health care debate raging in the United States. This is something that has become completely out of control. Facts have been skewered, belligerents lauded, fear mongered. There are many who are making judgments based on faulty knowledge. Sadly enough, Sarah Palin may be the epicenter for some of this misconception.

Sarah Palin, several weeks ago, posted a note on her facebook account stating (in her usual poorly-written English) that "my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." Unfortunately, too many people now believe that "death panels" are, in fact, real and are protesting solely on that "fact." Others protest because they believe that this is "socialized medical care," and that socialized medical care will lead to something similar to the former Soviet Union. There are many other dubious objections to health care reform, but I will tackle those two main arguments.

First, the death panels. Palin was referring to "end of life consultation," which would involve Medicare paying doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. This involves creating a will (usually for the terminally ill), choosing a health care proxy, learning about optional pain medications, and having the options of utilizing hospices. The bill does not promote mercy killings or euthanasia, nor does it decide who lives and who dies. Palin was simply acting the agitator, as is prone to someone of her character.

Second, the Socialist issue. This is a rumor that has spread like a flame over gasoline. What Obama is proposing is a public OPTION. You can choose to retain the plan that you already have. The option is mainly for those who can not afford private options, such as college students, the unemployed, and workers not covered by their businesses. This, in no way, is a precursor to an authoritarian state. I shall make this point more explicit with logic.

The modern Democratic government is based on many years of political philosophers writing about what they believed was the best form of government. In almost every case (Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.), the government is expected to do what is right and just for its people. Thus, a government should provide its people with health care, as a government is made to ensure the welfare and health of its people. Let us also analyze it this way: a private corporation is created to accrue profit at the expense of quality, though quality is always advisable. A government that is created and supported by an electorate has the responsibility of caring for every citizen. That, in essence, would include affordable (if not free) health care.

Those that have been misinformed should look to learn the facts on their own instead of listening to antagonistic pundits such as Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Don't even listen to Olbermann, or Chris Matthews, or any pundit. Make informed decisions for yourself. Read about the actual provisions of the health care bill and then judge.

There is no need for uncivilized conduct from those who do not agree with the health care bill. We are, after all, not an uncivilized people. I hope.

Das Flüg