The US Air Force will no longer prohibit security personnel at Robbins Air Force Base from wishing people a "blessed day".
okay, my reading of the book goes like this:
(Matt 5,6&7) My dad left you guys in charge of making sure all the blessings get sent out to all the people because he says that everyone who hears about him gets the Good Stuff now.
that's how i read all that "salt and flavor", "don't hide your light under a basket", "shining city on the hill" stuff. it means that a christian's job is to do god's good regardless. if there exists a dog's backside, if you're a christian, you were told to be the sun that shines upon it.
as an atheist, i understand common, conversational, religiously-themed greetings from christians as an interpretation of jesus christ's mission on earth, thus rendering my opinion about it legally irrelevant in the united states of america. simply disagreeing with what someone says is not sufficient cause to strip them of their right to free expression.
i said, "disagreeing with someone is not sufficient cause to strip them of their rights."
... i really feel like repeating that until i think everyone understands all the implications of this "not a sufficient cause to strip people of their rights" thing.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
tl;dr: media bias is bad, m'kay?
so i'm reading a piece in the new york times about the outcome of the ferguson investigation. of course they found racism in the police. duh.
but that wasn't what caught my attention about the article. the teal deer here is going to be that bias in news reporting is bad, but if you're interested...
this new york times piece here, called Justice Department Report to Fault Ferguson Police, Seeing Racial Bias in Traffic Stops, contains a lot of implicit bias in favor of the brown side of things. personally, i agree with the reporter who wrote this article. anybody who knows anything about me knows that i just about hate the police and have to try very hard to keep my discussion about them civil and productive (see my previous post here for one recent helpful suggestion for law enforcement vis a vis the use of force).
the problem is that i shouldn't agree with the writer of this article. or rather, i shouldn't know that i agree with the writer of this article. what the writer believes about this article should not be present, because the person who wrote this article was writing as a news reporter at the time. his beliefs about the situation aren't fit to print, regardless of how many people agree with him.
so shame on the new york times, then. all and then some, eh?**
but it makes me think about the larger charge of "agenda journalism". a lot of people talk about bias in the media, and the charge is true. reporters are guilty of this all the time. if human consciousness itself is a rube goldberg machine built out of biases, it stands to reason then that our more ephemeral endeavors necessarily stand on these biases alone. the philosophies of justice and politics are just that... philosophies. the only hope any of it has of becoming history is through meticulous record keeping.
when the social bias of a reporter or publication becomes evident on a particular issue, that publication or reporter does damage to the institution of journalism in a way that cannot be undone. the fact that history is written by the "winners" doesn't help the fact that that has changed our history. time does damage enough to how we'll tell each other it was. biased news reporting in the here and now... voids that perspective on the event almost entirely.
putting your opinion in the reporting doesn't make your opinion news. it makes your reporting less valuable to history. when you are reporting the news, you aren't writing for your posterity. you are being given the privilege of witnessing history on behalf of your kind. show some respect for their intelligence.
they're going to make their own decisions anyway.
** "All the News That's Fit to Print" is the longtime slogan of the new york times.
but that wasn't what caught my attention about the article. the teal deer here is going to be that bias in news reporting is bad, but if you're interested...
this new york times piece here, called Justice Department Report to Fault Ferguson Police, Seeing Racial Bias in Traffic Stops, contains a lot of implicit bias in favor of the brown side of things. personally, i agree with the reporter who wrote this article. anybody who knows anything about me knows that i just about hate the police and have to try very hard to keep my discussion about them civil and productive (see my previous post here for one recent helpful suggestion for law enforcement vis a vis the use of force).
the problem is that i shouldn't agree with the writer of this article. or rather, i shouldn't know that i agree with the writer of this article. what the writer believes about this article should not be present, because the person who wrote this article was writing as a news reporter at the time. his beliefs about the situation aren't fit to print, regardless of how many people agree with him.
so shame on the new york times, then. all and then some, eh?**
but it makes me think about the larger charge of "agenda journalism". a lot of people talk about bias in the media, and the charge is true. reporters are guilty of this all the time. if human consciousness itself is a rube goldberg machine built out of biases, it stands to reason then that our more ephemeral endeavors necessarily stand on these biases alone. the philosophies of justice and politics are just that... philosophies. the only hope any of it has of becoming history is through meticulous record keeping.
when the social bias of a reporter or publication becomes evident on a particular issue, that publication or reporter does damage to the institution of journalism in a way that cannot be undone. the fact that history is written by the "winners" doesn't help the fact that that has changed our history. time does damage enough to how we'll tell each other it was. biased news reporting in the here and now... voids that perspective on the event almost entirely.
putting your opinion in the reporting doesn't make your opinion news. it makes your reporting less valuable to history. when you are reporting the news, you aren't writing for your posterity. you are being given the privilege of witnessing history on behalf of your kind. show some respect for their intelligence.
they're going to make their own decisions anyway.
** "All the News That's Fit to Print" is the longtime slogan of the new york times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)