The author is fully aware that many people read a newspaper and even more watch T.V. news and the so-called “Talk Shows”. After all, the paid-for commercials are “related” to the number of people “tuned in” So much of these programs are for “entertainment” ( rather that information or facts)
Query: Are there truly “two sides” to every argument?
Is there such a lack of respect to the reading and listening public that hearing “two sides” is ridiculous?
Does the source of the information have a vested interest, so that hearing “two sides” violates the purpose and intent of the information given?
Could there be an even more malicious side to the information given as “neutral news”? Could there be an insidious side to “influence” rather than to “inform”? Could “misinformation” be used to guide a point of view? How would you know? Is the “media” more powerful than an individual? Could an “individual” be so misrepresented by the media that he is forced to “give up, unable to fight effectively”? Is this the “malicious side”? Is this why the media is called “The Fourth Estate”?
Do the people involved in writing and delivering the information realize they are NOT “two sided”, NOT “neutral”, NOT merely “reporting”? Are they so unaware as to be NOT even qualified to report the facts?
Do the “owners and investors” care about “two sides”? Are they just interested in the “bottom line”? Could it be that so-called “information” is just a “profitable” way to sell commercial time?
Is all the “talk” about “pure journalism” just self serving talk by the talking heads? Are they incapable of discerning the “differences” or are they “controlled”?
How often have you been able to consider “two sides”?....No, not the phony “Left” vs. “Right” programs where each side is expected to take an opposite point of view for the purpose of creating controversy. They are just “opposite” for the purposes of creating controversy. Neither side is logical or reasoned. They are just “opposite”. ......Another way to sell time!
What would it take for the “same” person to give two logical, well reasoned sides to a story? Would the public react favorably or would the public be confused? Is the public “one sided”? Is the public unable or unwilling to reason for itself?.... Has anyone truly tried? ......Is there any hope?
Without two sides, I feel the information I’m receiving is either personally opinionated, with a vested interest, or, made for commercial acceptance. I’m losing my faith in the information that’s being made available.
I’m beginning to doubt my ability to be truly informed....
I’m beginning to doubt my ability to be truly understood....
I’m beginning to doubt my ability to make informed decisions....
I’m in “trouble”.
The author is fully aware that many people read a newspaper and even more watch T.V. news and the so-called “Talk Shows”. After all, the paid-for commercials are “related” to the number of people “tuned in” So much of these programs are for “entertainment” ( rather that information or facts)
Query: Are there truly “two sides” to every argument?
Is there such a lack of respect to the reading and listening public that hearing “two sides” is ridiculous?
Does the source of the information have a vested interest, so that hearing “two sides” violates the purpose and intent of the information given?
Could there be an even more malicious side to the information given as “neutral news”? Could there be an insidious side to “influence” rather than to “inform”? Could “misinformation” be used to guide a point of view? How would you know? Is the “media” more powerful than an individual? Could an “individual” be so misrepresented by the media that he is forced to “give up, unable to fight effectively”? Is this the “malicious side”? Is this why the media is called “The Fourth Estate”?
Do the people involved in writing and delivering the information realize they are NOT “two sided”, NOT “neutral”, NOT merely “reporting”? Are they so unaware as to be NOT even qualified to report the facts?
Do the “owners and investors” care about “two sides”? Are they just interested in the “bottom line”? Could it be that so-called “information” is just a “profitable” way to sell commercial time?
Is all the “talk” about “pure journalism” just self serving talk by the talking heads? Are they incapable of discerning the “differences” or are they “controlled”?
How often have you been able to consider “two sides”?....No, not the phony “Left” vs. “Right” programs where each side is expected to take an opposite point of view for the purpose of creating controversy. They are just “opposite” for the purposes of creating controversy. Neither side is logical or reasoned. They are just “opposite”. ......Another way to sell time!
What would it take for the “same” person to give two logical, well reasoned sides to a story? Would the public react favorably or would the public be confused? Is the public “one sided”? Is the public unable or unwilling to reason for itself?.... Has anyone truly tried? ......Is there any hope?
Without two sides, I feel the information I’m receiving is either personally opinionated, with a vested interest, or, made for commercial acceptance. I’m losing my faith in the information that’s being made available.
I’m beginning to doubt my ability to be truly informed....
I’m beginning to doubt my ability to be truly understood....
I’m beginning to doubt my ability to make informed decisions....
I’m in “trouble”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You are not alone Bill.
With the media cosolidation that has been going on over the past years this conumdrum was foreseen by many but were ignored. Before to long we will only answer to two or three corporations. Right now the FCC is fast tracking rules to allow for futher media consolidation.
You think your head is spinning now, just wait.
Post a Comment