When I was an active pastor I would tell
congregations occasionally to quit reading newspapers and watching and
listening to mass media and to spend more time reading the Bible and they would
have a more realistic, a more wholesome and better view of the world in
which we live. They usually would give me an odd look.
I still believe what I said then.
Newspapers and media today primary function is not to report news but to sell
the news, or make money. That may not have always been true but it is certainly
true today for the most part. As a result, news media generally reports bad
news because it seems to sell better than good news. Would you go to a car race
if there were no wrecks? Naw, folk like wrecks. Man bites dog is still the way
news is sold.
Scripture on the other hand is more even
handed. It reports good and bad news pretty evenhandedly Interpreters of
scripture will skew it one way or the other, but in my opinion it is pretty
neutral and I would say it is more good news than bad news. With that said,
interpreters of scripture have lens through which they interpret what they
read; so, as another professor wisely told us, “The interpreter is part of the
data.”
A similar thing can be said about political
campaigns, do not listen to any political ads if you want to get at the truth
of a candidate’s positions. Political ads intent is to sell their candidate not reveal that candidate and they want to demonize their opponent not give you a
fair look at him or her. Again, bad news wins over good news and negative ads
sell candidates better than positive ads. Sad but true. And today is especially
realistic to realize that those with the most wealth have the greater say on
the media. A good case in point is the massive amount of money coming from
outside the state to demonize Tammy Baldwin. It was over $10 million a few
weeks ago. And today I see Karl Rove’s political action group was going to be
spending an additional 1.2 million airing a new ad attacking Baldwin. The same
source said there is more than 300 million spent on election ads by super PACs
coming from 100 people across the country. (from WMTV in Madison, WI.)
Despite all the crap on the internet, if
you dig, you are more likely to come up with good and accurate data about news
and political candidates. There is many good fact checking sites that are very
helpful to folk who want to find out where politicians really stand and
reliable news. You have to dig, but you can find it.
Again I say forget the news and political
ads. Read your scriptures of your faith and search for objective internet
resources. That seems so strange, but I think it is the way to go.
Now reading a book or two every now and
then is a good idea as well as they can develop into a subject more deeply.
Especially read some books by folk who positions you don’t agree with to keep
balance in your mind.
Oh, I forgot magazines. I think they are
better than newspapers, again they can write in more depth but they have
degenerated as well but often you know their biases. I remember in seminary we
had a professor that encouraged us to read Forbes
magazine to get a picture of the world our parishioners live in and I think it
was right then. Today, under Steve Forbes leadership it has just become a right
wing political rag. Note the recent news that Newsweek will be available solely online in the near future. It’s a
sign of the times.
So read a gospel, the word even means “good
news.” Then surf the internet and pray for wisdom to discern the truth.
"And today I see Karl Rove’s political action group was going to be spending an additional 1.2 million airing a new ad attacking Baldwin."
ReplyDeleteThat's what the First Amendment is all about. The right of the people to speak out openly, especially in regards to powerful individuals such as Ms. Baldwin who are members of the ruling privileged. A precious freedom: so many countries outlaw it.
But yes, one can tune it out :)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
DeleteDoes getting elected to office suddenly make you not a "people" but a ruling elite. Karl Rove may be a sleaze bucket and has the right to speak, but does he have the right drown out every other voice in the room with his money? Read Jefferson. As for Tommy T, I still don't know why he is not in jail for the things he did while in office as governor, such a stealing from the pension funds.
The ruling elites have the same free speech and religion rights the rest of us have.
DeleteYou completely misread if you believe I want these rights stripped away from those who rule. I was defending the main intent of the First Amendment: the unfettered right of the people (anyone) to criticize those in power.
"but does he have the right drown out every other voice in the room with his money?"
There is no drowning out, whatsoever. The very concept is clearly here being used as a justification for censorship and stripping away this basic human right.
I defend your right to say that about Tommy. But if Citizens United is rescinded, you would be a criminal for making a film criticizing him.
RE: "powerful individuals such as Ms. Baldwin who are members of the ruling privileged." and what of her opponent, Tommy? A Wisconsin contemporary of mine, he
ReplyDeletegot deferments during VN (I enlisted regular Army), had the
chutzpa to attack those that sought to avoid the draft....and has been in government since 1966. Long enough to have offended most everyone in the state. I give
him credit only for having a mother who was a teacher....
As for Rove, "powerful individuals such as he who are members of the ruling privileged. A power hungry manipulater
who never ran for office..and a poster boy for what happened
to this country.
They are all poster boys for privilege. And as for Rove? No, you are thinking of Pelosi, Frank, etc who ran the country off the cliff with the mortgage scheme. Bush (and Rove) opposed it. If you can blame them, it would be for not fighting harder against the Democrats.
ReplyDelete