Friday, November 17, 2006
The Mouthpiece of Somebody
As much as I want to be objective, as much as I want to get it right, I must admit that I have a decidedly slanted view. In fact, I have come to realize that many of my biases and ideas were shaped from early years in education that I really have been a mouthpiece for someone else. That mouthpiece has moved from being a big government conservative, to being a big government liberal, to somewhere in between, to a Repubican apologist, to some sort of a right-leaning Christian libertarian (if those words go together). This shows that I have tended to change my views based a lot on whom I happen to be studying at the present time.
This puzzle from my short life span demostrates a larger problem, sorting out our culture's messaging system. Day after day we are bombarded for ads that promise the "real story" or a "no spin zone" or "fair and balanced" news. This is very much untrue in many ways. In fact, I believe that there is no one who speaks objectively or from his own opinion. This is true in at least three ways.
First, it is true because of the fact of the microphone. The microphone is actually a metaphor for mass media. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet are all effective ways to get the word out on any given subject. Because the microphone is so powerful, it is in the best interest of those who want to get a message out to use it. I am not saying that all people write, speak and perform only out of money or force, but that the ideas presented are supported by those of a likeminded background. Others are mere lackeys that are paid to write what they are told. In the end, it makes a very messy picture of society's messaging systems, when financial, political, and religious interests are battling for the airwaves and the printing presses. It flies in the face of the desire on the part of the media to gain credibility and the desire of the viewers, listeners, and readers to trust what is said. However, this is just not possible. It is better to search all sides for oneself, than to merely trust what someone says in front of a camera.
Second, it is true because of education. Some say the purpose of education is to produce good citizens, while others say that it is to prepare children to be adults. The difference is subtile, but the implications are huge. Do good adults vote republican or democrat? What do they think about everything from taxes to theology? As I perused the library of a public school this last summer, I noticed a decidedly left wing slant with anti-religious literature and books to convince the youth of the left's ideas of each political issue. There was no voice even of moderation. On the other side are groups like the Leadership Institute, and the vast majority of Christian schools and home schools that have a decidedly conservative slant. The products of these environments have been shaped throughout their formative years to participate in society's debates from their given sides, often resulting in something very ugly no matter how one looks at it.
Third, it is true because of a unique fact about facts. The fact is that facts are not as factual as they first appear. I recall my many attendances at sporting events, where half the fans see one set of events and half see another. In the end, they tend to agree on the score, but even then, the outcome is disputed in some minds for years. Another good example is global warming. I have seen convincing evidence for global warming and global cooling, climate change and climate stagnation, polution and clean environments.
In the end, this problem is much more disturbing than sports or politics. Am I the unwitting mouthpiece of some philosophy or philosopher at a fundamental level? How much of what I think is what I think? How do I know that what I write is accurate, true, and correct? I believe that what I write is true, and that is why I write it. However, it is up to the reader to analyze the validity. That means you have to decide for whom I speak.
This puzzle from my short life span demostrates a larger problem, sorting out our culture's messaging system. Day after day we are bombarded for ads that promise the "real story" or a "no spin zone" or "fair and balanced" news. This is very much untrue in many ways. In fact, I believe that there is no one who speaks objectively or from his own opinion. This is true in at least three ways.
First, it is true because of the fact of the microphone. The microphone is actually a metaphor for mass media. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet are all effective ways to get the word out on any given subject. Because the microphone is so powerful, it is in the best interest of those who want to get a message out to use it. I am not saying that all people write, speak and perform only out of money or force, but that the ideas presented are supported by those of a likeminded background. Others are mere lackeys that are paid to write what they are told. In the end, it makes a very messy picture of society's messaging systems, when financial, political, and religious interests are battling for the airwaves and the printing presses. It flies in the face of the desire on the part of the media to gain credibility and the desire of the viewers, listeners, and readers to trust what is said. However, this is just not possible. It is better to search all sides for oneself, than to merely trust what someone says in front of a camera.
Second, it is true because of education. Some say the purpose of education is to produce good citizens, while others say that it is to prepare children to be adults. The difference is subtile, but the implications are huge. Do good adults vote republican or democrat? What do they think about everything from taxes to theology? As I perused the library of a public school this last summer, I noticed a decidedly left wing slant with anti-religious literature and books to convince the youth of the left's ideas of each political issue. There was no voice even of moderation. On the other side are groups like the Leadership Institute, and the vast majority of Christian schools and home schools that have a decidedly conservative slant. The products of these environments have been shaped throughout their formative years to participate in society's debates from their given sides, often resulting in something very ugly no matter how one looks at it.
Third, it is true because of a unique fact about facts. The fact is that facts are not as factual as they first appear. I recall my many attendances at sporting events, where half the fans see one set of events and half see another. In the end, they tend to agree on the score, but even then, the outcome is disputed in some minds for years. Another good example is global warming. I have seen convincing evidence for global warming and global cooling, climate change and climate stagnation, polution and clean environments.
In the end, this problem is much more disturbing than sports or politics. Am I the unwitting mouthpiece of some philosophy or philosopher at a fundamental level? How much of what I think is what I think? How do I know that what I write is accurate, true, and correct? I believe that what I write is true, and that is why I write it. However, it is up to the reader to analyze the validity. That means you have to decide for whom I speak.
