Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Media

  • Enormous Possibilities for Distortion?

    Yes, indeed, but also for correction.

    After writing my previous entry, I found this column by Howard Fineman on MSNBC. Rather than hide it as an update to that post, I wanted to highlight it.

    Fineman concludes:

    As for Obama, he was benefiting from events. But he should be sobered as well. What the Viral Campaign gives, it can take away — fast. The possibilities for distorting reality, and not just reflecting it, are enormous — and uncontrollable.

    Yes, indeed, the possibilities for distorting reality are enormous and uncontrollable–by the media. But the options for correction are also wide open, and people will become more critical simply because they will see more different options and will have to ask themselves just who is right. The campaigns can’t control the information, the media can’t control it, and the FEC won’t be able to control it.

    Freedom, y’all! What a concept!

  • Setting Political Speech Free

    One of my very unliberal positions is on political speech. I very much believe that controlling money spent on speech, whether that speech is in a commercial ad for a product, or in an ad for a candidate, in that candadate’s own speech, or in a journalist’s article is the same as controlling the speech itself. That controls on campaign spending are, in my view, very similar to the idea of controlling the budget of a newspaper. “Oh,” say the lawyers, “we’re not controlling what they print, just what they spend.” I know that current law is largely against me on this point, with the FEC charged with controlling campaign spending and even watching independent groups that spend money on behalf of candidates.

    Thus I am delighted with a new YouTube video that completely bypasses all of this. It’s just a free, independently made ad, and it has spread across the internet. You can read the Washington Post story about it here, and see the video itself here. (I didn’t see a link to the actual video from the Washington Post story.)

    Why am I delighted with this video? It’s great content? No, though I do like the challenge to the status quo just a bit. Do I particularly dislike Senator Clinton? No. The point is that this is an ad that has massive circulation and more viewers than the standard ads, and its not under the control of the election watchers.

    The great benefit of the internet to the spread of information is that it removes control, and provides a free market in ideas. Candidates are already finding that they cannot stay “on message” as their consultants would have them do, because people are interested in other messages. With free information flow, candidates will have much less control over their image.

    Of course all of this comes with dangers. Information on the internet is much less filtered than print and and other media. The barriers to entry into this market of ideas are all but nonexistent. We have to be careful to check our facts and get good, basic information to support what we choose to believe. But were we not responsible to do the same thing before? The difference is that it is now also easier to check that information. I find tremendous value in things like online article and book searches, for example, that let me locate information even when I can’t get it all on the internet. That reduces the time for me to get the right interlibrary loan book in my hand if nothing else. Often I can even check the facts of a news story from several sources online.

    Whether they are liberal or conservative, the folks who want to control the information you get are not trying to make you more free, nor to guarantee that you get accurate information. They’re trying to keep you on track. That’s why I have always supported the maximum possible free speech, and it’s also why I welcome the internet and services like YouTube to the political arena. There’s another revolution going on, and I think it’s a good one.

    As the Washington Post article quoted David Weinberger, former senior Internet adviser to Howard Dean and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School:

    “It’s expressing frustration and unhappiness with the level of control that her campaign is exerting. It’s no more controlled than any other traditional campaign. It’s not especially controlled by previous standards. But it’s tightly controlled by the standards of the Web. And for a big part of the population, the standards are the Web standards,” Weinberger said.

    To regain her footing online, the New York senator “should go off-message and her talking points” and post videos and blogs that show “that she doesn’t have the answer to everything, that she’s made mistakes, that she can talk like another human being.” As such the video, Weinberger added, “is particularly effective because it draws the parallel that’s apparent to so many people — that Hillary is to the campaign as PCs are to computing.”

    I’m there. Most of my information on the campaigns will come from the internet. I’m not going to believe attack ads. I’m going to check wth everything from regular media to the candidate’s web sites. But I am delighted with how much is becoming available. The standards of control should be those of the web.

  • TVC is at it Again

    The TVC is generally bummed about their week, and one of the major downers for them was California Representative Peter Stark declaring his unbelief in God on the floor of the house.

    I’ve commented on this sort of attitude before. What did they want him to do? Lie? What about all those Christians and others who have declared their faith?

    I’m fully in favor of people declaring just what they believe about anything that is central to their life. I think a major problem is that much religious rhetoric from politicians is simply put there to attract particular groups of religious voters. It’s hypocritical. But if a candidate is a person of faith, he or she should express that faith. It’s part of who the candidate is and the voters should be able to decide. If I were ever to run for office, an event which will occur right after hell becomes an ice-skating rink, the cameras would have to follow me to church on Sunday morning if they care that much. Why? Because that’s where I am on Sunday mornings and you’re not going to stop me.

    When a Muslim was elected to congress I believed and continue to believe that he should express his faith as a candidate and as a congressman. Since Congressman Stark does not believe in God, it is appropriate for him to express that. I don’t know if he attends a Unitarian-Universalist Church, but if he does, that is where he should be at the appropriate time. That’s who he is.

    But consider this quote, taken from the same article:

    Christian Seniors Association Executive Director James Lafferty notes: “It is sad but not surprising that the current Congress has produced this historic first – one of its members has denied God. The liberals in Congress want to throttle any school child who bows his or her head in prayer but they want to establish a right for liberals to bash Christians and berate God around the clock.”

    Lafferty continued, “Congressman Stark’s statement is a very sad benchmark for America. It could be the moment which defines the decline of our country or it could be the spark which marks an important day. That would be the day that religious Americans stood-up to the liberal bullies who are so determined to use the power of government to silence prayer and every other religious expression of free speech.”

    This stuff makes me crazy! The man says he’s an atheist and it becomes an attack on free speech? Just how did they get there? Talk about unbalanced reporting–this stuff has capsized. The religious right needs to get it through their heads that prayer in schools is already legal. Your child can pray. Your child can form prayer groups with other children. If you modeled prayer at home and taught your children how to pray, there would be nothing in their way. The problem the religious right has with prayer in schools is that the government doesn’t sponsor it. Apparently parents can’t get their kids to pray enough so they need teachers to enforce state sponsored prayers.

    And yes, it definitely is alright for liberals or anyone else to “bash Christians and berate God around the clock.” God will remain undamaged by being berated, and Christians who once faced lions in the arena for their faith should be able to take a little verbal bashing. Any time either the left or the right wants to silence people they don’t like it’s an attack on free speech and needs to be fought.

    And that’s one of the big problems with this article. If the TVC wanted to support traditional American values they could take the following approach and appear much more sincere. They could announce that they welcome the honesty and openness of Representative Peter Stark, and they are glad we live in a country where not only can an atheist express his views publicly, something that would be illegal in Saudi Arabia, for example, but he can be elected to congress. That’s a wonderful example of freedom of speech. We intend to support that just as we support the right of those Christians who oppose homosexuality to express their views, or those who believe abortion is murder to express theirs. Hallelujah and pass the free speech!”

    But instead they choose not to follow the path of free speech, something they ask for themselves, but instead they simply try to change who it is the target of silencing.

  • Two Stories about Prayer in School

    . . . but they supposedly recount one incident.

    The first came to me via the Traditional Values Coalition alert e-mail, which is generally quite strident. It referred me to this story on Alain’s Newsletter, which tends to make the TVC alerts look calm, collected, and irenic.

    Now here’s another story, this time from The Columbian. You need to read both stories to get the picture here. I’m not going to quote extensively from them.

    I think one can get most of the facts out of these stories, if one ignores the hyperbole and possible reconstructions. But if you look at what is reported and what is emphasized in each story, you will see an excellent example of how to slant news. It’s not by actually concocting facts from thin air. I think completely fabricated data is quite rare, but creative selection is quite another matter. Rather, it’s by means of reporting certain specific things.

    You see, if a group of students were refused permission to pray outside of class time and without disrupting the activities of the school, in other words, in good discipline, I would certainly be angry at the school. This sort of thing does happen, but it’s generally the result of ignorant school officials, lacking good judgment and sometimes fearful of lawsuits, though if they’re that stupid they should be subject to lawsuits. On this point everyone from the ACLU to the ACLJ can agree.

    I’m firmly in favor of prayer. I’ve written a couple of books on it, though only one is still in print. I teach weekend seminars on prayer. I’m not against prayer. Got that? So if the facts were solely as stated in the Alain’s Newsletter report, then no problem. Reinstate the students and let them pray.

    But there were certain things that defied probability, and so I looked for other stories to see if things would clarify themselves just a bit. I was doubtful of the claim that complaints came from “one Satanist” student. That’s one of those elements of a story that’s just too good (for the side of the writer) to be true. It might be, but I doubt it. Note that the offer of a classroom in which to offer prayer is missing from the Alain’s report.

    Now constitutionally I’m not 100% on the boundaries, but if the facts are as The Columbian reported them, I think the school officials will turn out to be within their rights, even though their reaction sounds excessive to me based on the provocation. Other facts could change my mind on that. On the other hand, if the disruption of traffic resulted from hecklers, and not from the actions of the praying students, I would be opposed to the actions of the school officials. The problem is that it is precisely key facts such as that one that are hard to dig out once emotions are high.

    I think the following facts are key:

    • The offer of a classroom and the appropriate supervision
    • Was it the praying students or hecklers who were disruptive (or a little of both)?
    • What was the response of the praying students to the school’s authority? If that authority was properly exercised, and yet resisted, that would explain greater sanctions.

    But more important than the legal issues, which are not my forte in any case, are the issues of Christian values. When we pray publicly, what message is it that we are trying to send? There is a good point here in Matthew 6:5-6. I don’t think we should read such a short message as condemning public prayer, as I have heard done, but the purpose of prayer should be questioned. If the purpose of the prayer is to make a show, to shove it in people’s face, then I think we need to reevaluate our actions. For example, if a classroom was indeed offered, as the school spokesman indicated, then the question would be why pray in the commons?

    Again, I think it is quite possible that more facts need to be brought out in this case, but based on what I have seen I would have serious concerns, both about the actions of the students and the sanctions imposed. I’ll have my eyes open for more clarification.

  • Commending an Honest Apology

    Laura on Pursuing Holiness has now apologized for an earlier comment on Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. I share her original concerns about misreporting of numbers. I do believe that pastors are often careless with the details, thinking they are not terribly important. But especially when you’re in Rick Warren’s position, you can’t afford that.

    I generally agreed with the sentiment of Laura’s original post, though I didn’t comment at the time. But I thoroughly approve of her response to a challenge and to new information. Now why can’t more of us provide an honest apology!

    She said:

    I may disagree with their accounting methods for the Saddleback church roll, but I was way out of line for suggesting that Rick Warren was being deceitful. I have absolutely no evidence that he was. The bottom line here is that I tossed a post out there, having done no research on either the topic at hand or Warren Smith, the article’s writer. I regurgitated Smith’s opinion with a total lack of skepticism because it fit with my world view. That “fake but accurate” nonsense is something for which I have repeatedly, and justifiably, criticized the mainstream media. I’m sorry that I did it. Aside from the fact that it was hypocritical of me to do the very thing I’ve criticized others for, I failed to give the benefit of the doubt when I should have given it. There’s no excuse for it, and in the future I will be a great deal more cautious in what I write. For whatever it’s worth, I apologize.

    Wow! Bravo! I can use that as an example when I teach on Psalm 51 and true confession, which is totally unlike what politicians tend to do. Way to go! If there was an award for demonstrating what she and I both meant by “philophronos blogging” it would go to her post.

  • Arrogant Reporters

    One of the interesting things about commentary on the war is that though Laura of Pursuing Holiness and I disagree almost completely on the war in Iraq, we can agree that the press has done a miserable job of reporting it. In addition, we can agree that the press tends to combine incompetence and arrogance in pretty much the most annoying measure possible.

    Today in her post The Breathtaking Arrogance of Reporters she provides some quotes, and also some statistics:

    While 85.3% of people describe “professional journalism

  • Excellent Health Article

    Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I pretty regularly lash out at the news media. It’s not that I think they’re biassed to one end or the other of the political spectrum. I just think they’re biassed stupid.

    Well, I just want to point out an article today in Newsweek that I think exemplifies how information should be presented, especially on the internet. There should be this type of research behind every news story, and even if you present a short, idiot friendly version on the front page, it would be nice to get a well written, extended article such as this column.

    I refer to Drugs Aren’t the Only Option, a column by Dean Ornish, M.D. This article is well-written, it doesn’t prescribe what I’m supposed to want in my life, it doesn’t run anybody down, but it does provide useful information on diet and lifestyle, particularly with reference to cholesterol.

    I happen to be interested in that subject, but the only reason I’m bringing my personal interest to the blog is simply to point out the excellent style and balance of this article. I wish we would see more articles of about that length printed in the online news media. We may be subject to excessive time and space constraints on television, but the internet provides opportunities for more solid, informational content.

  • Uninformed Opinions

    Duane Smith has an excellent post over on Abnormal Interests called Evidence, Who Needs Any Evidence. I think this relates closely to my earlier post, A Poll Too Far, in which I discussed people providing opinions on topics concerning which they simply cannot be well-informed.

    The further question is why does the media buy into this, by asking people’s opinion? I would suggest that the media prints this information for the same reason they print everything else–it gets their viewers to watch or read, in this case by making them feel more important than they are. But the feeling of importance is a false one.

    One further note: Ever since I found out about Abnormal Interests, I’ve been watching Duane’s posts, and I have found that almost all of them interest me, whether I have time to comment or not, so if you think your interests coincide with mine at all, go check it out.

  • A Poll Too Far

    OK, just yesterday I wrote about the mob mentality and how technology is just technology–it’s how we use it that matters. Then today I find This article on MSNBC.com about changing the definition of a planet. The article itself is interesting, though hardly earthshattering (planetshattering?). But right next to the headline we have a live vote.

    What do you think? Yep! What do the masses, lacking any basis for making a judgment, think?

    I’m not going to start decrying the technology involved, but sensible journalists ought to start thinking about the value of polls such as this. It’s clearly a marketing idea to make people feel like their participants, but it generates no real information, and it makes people think their opinions on subjects about which they are uninformed, are more important than they really are. Actions such as this do have consequences, and responsible journalists ought to make that clear.

    Let the astronomers decide how many planets there are and what will be a workable definition. They will in any case, and the rest of us shouldn’t have a vote–including me.

    Live vote on what should be called a planet.

  • Technology is Just Technology

    Over and over I’ve heard the refrain, “The invention of the _________ is causing the deterioration of society because it _______.” The technology may be rapid transport, from the steam driven train to the airplane, or communications from radio to television to the internet, or any other form of technology.

    The internet is a favorite target these days. Child pornography, predators, bad ideas, unreliable information, crackpot theories, even though policing are blamed somehow on the internet. Now Jason Lanier, in an essay on Edge.org, calls the polling and other “mob” aspects of the internet “Digital Maoism” and refers to the result as the “hive mind.” Some of us who think Wikipedia is somewhat less than reliable are nonetheless hardly likely to equate it with the mobs of the cultural revolution in China. I discovered his essay via MSNBC.com, in an article by Steven Levy titled Poking a Stick Into the ‘Hive Mind’.

    Now my problem is not precisely with the problems that Lanier points out, nor even with some of the counterpoints quoted by Mr. Levy. In his final paragraph he makes an excellent point:

    [Author Kevin] Kelly’s point is well taken