This blog has been turning into a place for me to vent frustration...which I guess makes sense since I put Surly in the blog name. I tend to chew on things for a few days before I finally write anything, so most times I end up chewing the thing up and having nothing to write; but if I chew on it and something is left, I write it down.
A long agitation for me has been people not thinking for themselves; and I don't mean that unintelligent people agitate me; they can't help being unintelligent; what bugs me is when intelligent people follow the herd, or speak without thinking. I am not above doing the later at times...sometime passion and desire for a good laugh get ahead of me and something slips out of my mouth that perhaps should have stayed in the brain for a bit longer.
Most current news media depend on the fact that people are busy and don't have time to research a topic on there own, and thus are primed to swallow a news story whole, rather than chewing on it for a bit. When we form opinions based on headlines and sound bites, we are doomed to slide into the unthinking masses. I am not saying that all media sources should be ignored; quite the opposite, I encourage you to look at as many sources as you can. I usually follow no less than 6-8 news sources a day...and the differences you see in the coverage provide by CNN, CBC, BBC and Al-Jezeera are very interesting. They all have a slightly different take on things. The attachment of most western media to advertising dollars for funding can't help but change the way they cover the news. When you are worried about the size of your audience rather than how factual your information is, you tend to lean towards the sensationalism approach. (BTW, if this interests you, you should check out the HBO show Newsroom)
The distrust we have for politicians, and their seeming refusal to do anything meaningful is largely the result of our sound bite and headline world. The main avenue for politicians to communicate with their constituents is the media...be it newspapers, web based sources or social media, and when the media's main driver is getting viewers, the facts are irrelevant and the juiciness of the headline rules all. Case in point...recently Piers Morgan has been embroiled in the gun control debate in the USA, and because he is advocating stricter gun controls has become the target of those opposed to such controls. So rather than stick to fact based debate, which if you follow to a logical end comes to the conclusion that the lack of control on guns in the USA has lead the developed worlds highest gun murder rate, they have provided a platform for gun zealots to rant and rave. So when President Obama tries to do the right thing and introduce stricter (and sane) controls on the guns people can have; the NRA and other gun advocacy groups will dominate the news coverage because they are better funded and thus louder. I really think most Americans are intelligent people who can see that allowing people to collect automatic weapons is not smart, but the protests by gun supporters will be more entertaining, so will get the coverage.
Another, more local, example is the recent restructuring, by the New Brunswick provincial government, of the unconditional grants to municipalities. The government essentially turned the grant program into a municipal equalization program. The whole idea behind an equalization program is that money is distributed so the "have nots" get more money than the "haves". So the idea is that the communities that are prospering help communities that are not. So the prospering community of Fredericton loses $1 million in grants, and the struggling community of Miramichi gets $1 million more, for example.
The news coverage in the days after the announcement made it sound like the city of Fredericton was going to have to make drastic cuts to offset the loss. One pundit said the loss of the grant was "ground shaking". But low and behold, a few weeks later, the city announces a balanced budget with little or no major job losses or service reductions. In hard economic times, the city has proven that they didn't need that funding they lost. Wouldn't we all agree that most governments can afford to be more efficient with our tax money? This is what is happening here...the provincial government is trying to be more efficient with their funding, and have forced the city of Fredericton to be a little more efficient. I have yet to see any news source point out that the lost grant money is largely made up by the increased tax rolls for the city. The city will receive $4.3 million more property tax revenue this year, which should more than make up for the lost grant money. But is there any coverage of this good news story...no, the coverage of the city's budget continues to focus on the grant elimination; even though when you look at the facts of the budget and think for yourself, the loss of the grant does not appear to have affected the city in any "ground shaking" way.
So, the moral of the story? I guess I am trying to encourage you, dear reader, to think for yourself. Don't give into the temptation of the quick and easy news update; think about what you are hearing or reading...don't just drink the proverbial kool-aid. Do the same with this blog...don't accept my take on things as fact...who am I to present fact; just some cranky guy with Scottish roots!
No comments:
Post a Comment