Not 24 hours after the comments from Jesse Jackson were made somewhat public, the media was a spinning. Not only did we not get to hear the whole and complete version of what was said ‘supposedly off the air’, but the story had little time to develop before Graham’s words of silliness were splattered across the airwaves. The morning news today continued with the distractions by going into history and pulling out old footage of President Bush’s off the mic comments.
A couple of things occur to me as I ponder on the absurdity from this example of the flaky times we live in. First, political correctness has gotten completely out of hand. Remember ‘when sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt me’ was valued advise given to children as they were growing up providing a way for them to deal with others that had a cruel way of using their new vocabularies. So why are we as adults so quick to talk offense from passing phrases of no importance? Why do we let ourselves be affected so easily by the words of another when our own values, judgments, and integrity teach us to ignore them? I have noticed that all too often those that do take offense are those that do so for a purpose. They have their own agendas they are trying to promote and by bringing attention to another’s words it is really only to bring attention to themselves. Recognize that fact and then you have two things to try to ignore rather than one.
The second thing that disturbs me is the fact that people have been frightened into a corner and are not willing to have an opinion anymore for fear of being attack for that opinion. I say that there is no opinion but what I really mean is that people are having more opinions than ever; they are just keeping them to themselves (or sharing them with a select few). Now this is nothing new as one of the basic family rules for getting along has always been never to discuss politics, religion, or money around the family, (though I think these can be the most interesting conversations to have).
In fact, most all interesting dialogues revolve around opinions. What is the best car, engine, tire, transmission? What did you think of that movie? Did you hear the new album by …? Did you see the TV show last night? Do you ski, hike, bike, sew, bake, cook, row, etc., then you have had at least one conversation that involved an opinion. So what is wrong with having an opinion? Absolutely nothing. We should have opinions as well as ideas and we should be able to share them freely. It is that free exchange that makes us a better people. Does that mean we accept all opinions and ideas, mercifully no. That does not mean we readily reject all opinions and ideas either. If we are to grow we need to expose ourselves to new things and thoughts, and incorporate the best elements into our lives. A healthy debate also helps define and validate our own sense of right and wrong and who we are.
That is what this web site is trying to be. Expressions of opinions and ideas that should be unencumbered by worry that I might attract petty criticisms. In fact I welcome them as long as they are done in a civil manner. Anyone that has spent much time on the web soon is able to recognize the difference between an intelligent post and an emotionally driven ignorant response.
We should not fear opinions and ideas but we should recognize that many of them have strong emotional ties to them. In fact it is that very fact that gives the two political parties the power they seek. If they can define a topic in an emotionally charged way they can drive people to take action, whether it be to form a rally, tell a neighbor, write letters, make phone calls, or finally vote for their candidate, they know that it is emotion that will get a nation off its couch.
It is also that emotion that can create hurt feelings in someone and that may be the only time we need worry about sharing our opinions (How do I look dear?).
The third thing I have noticed from all this silliness is that once an opinion has been expressed there is a plethora of people waiting to share their opinion of what the first one said. The fact that the news cast spend more time and effort getting reactions from as many people as possible that have absolutely nothing to do directly with the matter, and spend ten times as much actual air time on the surrounding issue than what was used to report the original matter is frankly a painful experience for this viewer. I am one that wants to view the original act, in its entirety, unedited, and then decide for myself the relevance of the act. I don’t need so many others telling me how I am supposed to think and feel about these issues. If the new issue needs clarification or some background information to increase my understanding of its relevance to current events that is one thing, but to tell me how I should respond to those events is irrelevant and unnecessary. As one station claims (and I wish they would take their own advice) “We report, you decide”.
In order to do that though, we need more complete reporting; something with enough details to present a complete picture not just the typical sound bite laden snippets that pass for formal news these days. When the teaser before the break gives you the same amount of information as the formal presentation of the story you tend to realize that you might be missing something.
The final item is an item that I have noticed on more than one occasion in the past but was brought to the forefront strong and clear again with these stories and that is whenever we get a story second hand we get an interpretation of the real story, and when it comes to our political candidates this is not always o.k. Of course the candidates cannot be in all places at all times and therefore must rely on the assistance of others if they are to get things done and get their message out. Too often the message then takes on the image of the one delivering it. Bias enters in. The messenger projects their personal views of what they feel the candidate is about and tend to project their desires into the selling of the party platform.
Occasionally things go wrong. What typically happens is that we don’t really get what we are signing up for. There has been more than one messenger who has been deceived by their desires for qualities in a candidate only to find that reality is very different. Many a candidate has also found that their quickly formed political relationships truly do make for strange bedfellows.
So where is the hypocrisy in all this? There are many examples to choose from. What would the reaction have been if someone other than Jesse Jackson had made those remarks? Wouldn’t Jesse be one of the first to cast a stone? What if the remarks were made about someone other than Obama, would the press have suppressed the story with the same amount of zeal? Of course the other thing of note is that Jesse Jackson quickly withdrew his opinion with a boiler plate apology while Graham stood by his opinions with some minor comments to try and clarify to those that weren’t just trying to spin a sound bite. Maybe there is a lesson in this after all.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
No comments:
Post a Comment