I've had some interesting conversations of late. I am amazed at the number of Americans that are blaming our media for information, while listening to commentary and editorialized "news" to keep them "aware" of current events and world changing decisions. I am appalled that people would actually prefer that the media were quieted and are offended that talk radio is considered influential hype and bluster.
We hear so many provocative and controversial reports, what is one expected to believe? Where does one take a stand? We hear the media report horrific crimes and then give the next bad guy ideas how to avoid capture or worse, a concept for success in a life of crime. While the media reports everything they know and everything they think they know, there are unbalanced and unethical people listening to the reports. These potential social problems are presented with the pieces of the puzzle or the explanation as to how to eliminate the pieces of that same puzzle. There are many Americans that believe, in light of this fact, the factual information needs to be kept under lock and key, rather than reported, because the next weirdo or bad guy will use the information to build and get away with the perfect crime. Meanwhile, we have those that editorialize and are paid astronomical salaries to offer commentary to those just begging to be brainwashed and are perhaps already leaning towards a propensity of programming.
I think I have two issues in the news that continuously crop up and just really annoy me.
One, the mess between Israel and the Palestinians. Why are the Palestinians crying poor mouth, when Israel gave them the best of the land, being Gaza and the West Bank? The Palestinians only had to take over the land, it was handed to them on a silver platter after the Israelis built greenhouses and irrigation systems. I've seen that area. The West Bank is lush and wonderful, as is much of Gaza. So what is all this nonsense about the reports of the Palestinians starving within weeks, without aid? Can't the Palestinians maintain what was already built and established, simply to maintain themselves and their autonomy? If a "people" cannot do anything to help themselves establish or maintain their autonomy, do they deserve independent recognition? But, here in America, the political polarization would rather manufacture hype to make this a partisan issue between a former president and the present leader. Every time I hear something reported about this situation, I just feel the majority does not want their opinions altered with the facts.
My other "pet peeve" of facts involves our country itself. I don't understand the accusations from the religious right extremists against the moderates or the liberals. How can a party in our nation so despise a former president that boldly claims he has been born again, yet support a man that claims to be a Christian while making leadership decisions opposed to Scripture? And his professional personna is totally ecumenical and quite non-specific. I have another axe to grind with the religious right extremists. They continue to refer to the Clintons and Obama as "rock stars," like they have any frame of reference to begin with, but I keep in mind, they have heard this term on their talk radio. Now, how is it that the loyal followers value autographed photos of the Bushes, without realizing they have become a fan club?
I don't understand the double speak and double standard involved in the desire to eliminate information being reported, but editorials being treated as news items. I don't understand the religion that is not based upon Scripture, but claims to be of G~d. And I don't understand the desire of the extremists to be politically offended by behavior that is exhibited by both parties.
Why are Americans attempting to shield themselves from the facts?
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just . . . a Proverb from Holy Scripture
No comments:
Post a Comment