My initial thought was to read over my On the Media posts and analyze it for any biased material. While skipping over it briefly, I couldn't find anything. Even though I knew the goal and challenge for the assignment, my brain analyzed it the way it wanted to. So, I took it out of context and pasted it into a Word document, wrote John Doe at the top as the name, and read it again. For some odd reason, this allowed me to get a more accurate reading of the post. By doing so, this lead me to a few conclusions.
A constant factor between all of them is the underlying message from where I gathered my commentary. I attempted to write objectively and as close to the middle of the line as possible. In a way, I was able to do so. I steered away from sounding too conservative or too liberal but the real issue I took with was the media and its use of power. As I continued to analyze the posts, my intent was to highlight the abuse of mass communication by the media. Whether it was in favor of the right or the left, it didn't matter. There are too many agendas and ulterior motives by the contributors of broadcasting firms.
The consequence of this bias towards the media is every bit of information put out there is already a lie until proven true. Unfortunately, it isn't the other way around. With the amount of lies entangled with the truth, it is difficult to sort it all out. My voice became more clear once I recognized the intent I embedded into the postings.
Biases hinder critical thinking. The moment you start to lean a certain way on an issue is the same moment you become less of a critical thinker. My reasoning behind the statement is the idea of change. Categorizing yourself forces you into a box and a specific way of thinking. For example, classifying yourself as a liberal or a conservative involuntarily makes you more susceptible to groupthink. No matter what type of bias it is, it will do more harm than good. Being able to identify my current bias (not agreeing with the lack of evidence produced by the media) will help open up my mindset and allow me to not immediately dismiss all information.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Monday, March 6, 2017
OTM3
On the Media
"Leak State"
Dumb but not criminal. It surprises me how this phrase is used as an excuse for poor decision making. Specifically, the sentence was in reference to Michael Flynn and the ongoing investigation into his connection to Russia. According to an article written from Business Insider, "Trump senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said on the "Today" show on Tuesday that it was Flynn's inability to properly communicate with Pence that ended his relationship with the White House, not his collusion with Russia". Again, Flynn is dumb but not criminal. I find it hard to believe a man who was the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency supposedly did not understand what is appropriate and what is not.
Miscommunication between high ranking officials should not happen. With national security on the line, those serving in these positions should be able to handle the responsibilities respectfully and with integrity. Their actions have a direct effect on the country and the citizens within. That being said, an issue I see arising often is the lack of accountability. When the Michael Flynn scandal was discovered, the Trump administration denied the claims. When Buzzfeed released the dossier claiming Trump had ties to Russia, there was an instant denial. I feel when these situations occur, the first action should not be to disregard all claims or the rest of the time will be spent backpedalling and correcting previous statements. Obviously, if an allegation is constructed, the members of the White House or high ranking government officials will initially protect their own (as long as it fits with their agenda). I believe Michael Flynn knew exactly what he was saying and deliberately planned to respond with the ignorance is bliss card.
Another important factor brought up during this week's On the Media is the comment regarding who was conducting the investigations into the allegations. For example, Sessions should not be apart of the investigation since he is grouped in with the conspiracies. If the goal is to get to the truth, then the investigation needs to be contracted out to an outside source with no ties to either side. It would be near impossible to stay objective in an investigation knowing you had some sort of involvement causing the investigation in the first place. Democrats are looking for blood and the other half is coming up with excuses... if only the nation could come together to progress rather than trying to implode itself.
"Leak State"
Dumb but not criminal. It surprises me how this phrase is used as an excuse for poor decision making. Specifically, the sentence was in reference to Michael Flynn and the ongoing investigation into his connection to Russia. According to an article written from Business Insider, "Trump senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said on the "Today" show on Tuesday that it was Flynn's inability to properly communicate with Pence that ended his relationship with the White House, not his collusion with Russia". Again, Flynn is dumb but not criminal. I find it hard to believe a man who was the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency supposedly did not understand what is appropriate and what is not.
Miscommunication between high ranking officials should not happen. With national security on the line, those serving in these positions should be able to handle the responsibilities respectfully and with integrity. Their actions have a direct effect on the country and the citizens within. That being said, an issue I see arising often is the lack of accountability. When the Michael Flynn scandal was discovered, the Trump administration denied the claims. When Buzzfeed released the dossier claiming Trump had ties to Russia, there was an instant denial. I feel when these situations occur, the first action should not be to disregard all claims or the rest of the time will be spent backpedalling and correcting previous statements. Obviously, if an allegation is constructed, the members of the White House or high ranking government officials will initially protect their own (as long as it fits with their agenda). I believe Michael Flynn knew exactly what he was saying and deliberately planned to respond with the ignorance is bliss card.
Another important factor brought up during this week's On the Media is the comment regarding who was conducting the investigations into the allegations. For example, Sessions should not be apart of the investigation since he is grouped in with the conspiracies. If the goal is to get to the truth, then the investigation needs to be contracted out to an outside source with no ties to either side. It would be near impossible to stay objective in an investigation knowing you had some sort of involvement causing the investigation in the first place. Democrats are looking for blood and the other half is coming up with excuses... if only the nation could come together to progress rather than trying to implode itself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)