What do we think we're doing?

VoteHawaii.com ^ | June 3, 2005 | Mike Hu

[MikeHu]

Or are we thinking at all anymore? It’s easy not to. The morning newspapers direct us that we MUST solve the pressing problems of the European Union or we SHOULD put more pressure on the North Korean dictator — on the top of our “To Do” lists for the day. However, it’s been my observation that those who actually solve a problem are those closest to it, are directly affected, involved, and in charge, rather than all the armchair quarterbacking on the other side of the globe.

Usually when those becomes the pressing issues of the day in our local news, they’re trying to distract us from the real issues confronting us in our actual lives. In the world of mediated reality and information, it’s easy to confuse the “realities” going on the other side of the world for that which is the world we are responsible for — directly and personally. The surest way “they” can get us to ignore the problems of our actual effectiveness, is to have us solve imaginary problems as though it is an equally great achievement and effectiveness — and then we wonder why the world is not a significantly better place because of our “opinion” of Michael Jackson — or the American Idol — or who should be running the country in 2008.

So while the special interests are on the offensive promoting the latest boondoggle, the newspapers are doing a lot of propaganda on the promise of “paradise” if the latest panacea is implemented — but when they are on the defensive, the issue disappears as a matter of no consequence because it’s already been “settled.” Far from being the most objective source of news and information, the mainstream media has become the most easily corrupted, manipulated and biased, necessitating the emergence of these new modalities of information exchanges.

It is the greater possibility of these times — enabling each to think for themselves, rather than requiring and allowing the self-appointed demagogues and authoritarian figures to do this for us — under the guise of “objectivity and impartiality.” We make no such claims here; you have to decide those things for yourself. The intelligent, involved, unbiased citizen — is the only solution.

[MikeHu]

The meaning of it all.

[MikeHu]

Bias is the proper study of every discipline, and every intelligent person, no matter what their specialization or expertise. Journalism is the only discipline dedicated to convincing its audience that they are objective and beyond bias -- rather than it is the bias that is the filter of their perception and limits their understanding.

There is an interesting article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin highlighting this discussion, entitled, "School video preaches tolerance," but it was only about tolerance for homosexuals and not tolerance for everyone in general, as one critic at the end was summarily dismissed. When one starts discussing tolerance only for homosexuals, or only for blacks, or only for Hawaiians -- that is not tolerance but bias.

So how these people can promote mutually contradictory points is what George Orwell -- a marginalized journalist of his times who predicted this growing danger of the media to blur relevant distinctions and foment its own unchecked biases -- called "doublethink."

Intelligence is manifested behavior and not potential that has yet to be manifested. A large part of this manifestation is what people get focused and involved with -- the significant or the trivial. In game strategy or war, one of the most effective strategies, is getting the opponent to fight every battle rather than just the significant ones -- so one's energies are dispersed too widely to be effective at any one -- that is the critical one.

[MikeHu]

Here’s the link to the article:

http://starbulletin.com/2005/06/04/news/index7.html

Don't laugh; that's the approach to solving all their problems -- by creating multiple problems, and then trying to solve each one as though it is unrelated to any other.

Of course the bias against homosexuals is not just the bias against homosexuals; the bias against blacks ins not just the bias against blacks; the bias against Hawaiians is not just the bias against Hawaiians; etc.

One has to understand the nature of bias -- that works the same in every bias. That's why in our current great debate on the traffic solution, the pedestrians demand sidewalks exclusively for themselves, then the bicyclists demand exclusive bikeways for themselves, the cars demand exclusive lanes for their use, carpools want exclusive lanes for carpools, buses want exclusive lanes for themselves -- and now the rail solution takes the exclusive right of way to its logical end. None of them are the solution; that is the very nature of the problem.

The answer is that there are not resources enough for everybody to have it all exclusively for themselves; we have to learn to share, and in that way, become more resourceful -- which multiplies the resources.

And that's the only thing they won't do, won't even consider.

[MikeHu]

Here’s a handy guide for detecting bias in the media:

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/crime/detecting_bias_news.cfm

Detecting Bias in the News

At one time or another we all complain about “bias in the news.” The fact is, despite the journalistic ideal of “objectivity,” every news story is influenced by the attitudes and background of its interviewers, writers, photographers and editors.

Not all bias is deliberate. But you can become a more aware news reader or viewer by watching for the following journalistic techniques that allow bias to “creep in” to the news:

1. Bias through selection and omission

An editor can express a bias by choosing to use or not to use a specific news item. Within a given story, some details can be ignored, and others included, to give readers or viewers a different opinion about the events reported. If, during a speech, a few people boo, the reaction can be described as “remarks greeted by jeers” or they can be ignored as “a handful of dissidents.”

Bias through omission is difficult to detect. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of outlets can this form of bias be observed.

2. Bias through placement

Readers of papers judge first page stories to be more significant than those buried in the back. Television and radio newscasts run the most important stories first and leave the less significant for later. Where a story is placed, therefore, influences what a reader or viewer thinks about its importance.

3. Bias by headline

Many people read only the headlines of a news item. Most people scan nearly all the headlines in a newspaper. Headlines are the most-read part of a paper. They can summarize as well as present carefully hidden bias and prejudices. They can convey excitement where little exists. They can express approval or condemnation.

4. Bias by photos, captions and camera angles

Some pictures flatter a person, others make the person look unpleasant. A paper can choose photos to influence opinion about, for example, a candidate for election. On television, the choice of which visual images to display is extremely important. The captions newspapers run below photos are also potential sources of bias.

5. Bias through use of names and titles

News media often use labels and titles to describe people, places, and events. A person can be called an “ex-con” or be referred to as someone who “served time twenty years ago for a minor offense.” Whether a person is described as a “terrorist” or a “freedom fighter” is a clear indication of editorial bias.

6. Bias through statistics and crowd counts

To make a disaster seem more spectacular (and therefore worthy of reading about), numbers can be inflated. “A hundred injured in aircrash” can be the same as “only minor injuries in air crash,” reflecting the opinion of the person doing the counting.

7. Bias by source control

To detect bias, always consider where the news item “comes from.” Is the information supplied by a reporter, an eyewitness, police or fire officials, executives, or elected or appointed government officials? Each may have a particular bias that is introduced into the story. Companies and public relations directors supply news outlets with puffpieces through news releases, photos or videos. Often news outlets depend on pseudo-events (demonstrations, sit-ins, ribbon cuttings, speeches and ceremonies) that take place mainly to gain news coverage.

8. Word choice and tone

Showing the same kind of bias that appears in headlines, the use of positive or negative words or words with a particular connotation can strongly influence the reader or viewer.

——————————————————————————–
Excerpted from Newskit: A Consumers Guide to News Media, by The Learning Seed Co.

[MikeHu]

The best literary treatment of this crime by information is Shakespeare’s Othello — in which Iago, his chief informant, colors the world so that Othello destroys everything he loves dearly in the world. He sows suspicion and distrust; it is a corruption of power. You see it in grade school teachers who turn an entire class against one student as another abuse of such power so one learns early on to conform, to obey — without hesitation or question.

Agatha Christie kills off her own hero, Hercule Poirot, in his realization that there was a criminal so devious and ruthless that while never committing the deed himself, causes others to do so by misinforming and disinforming the perpetrators so they can arrive at no other course of action. People who work with criminals and sociopaths, quickly identify such personality types as “manipulators.”

While claiming to be objective and impartial, they are setting up each of us with vicious partisan attacks on one another by casting every social interaction as an argument, a battle, a terrible misunderstanding — rather than that the whole meaning and purpose of communication, is to reach an understanding.

I think it might have been Abraham Maslow who described the two essential character types as being the “authoritarian” personality and the “egalitarian” personality. The former’s world view is that the “reason for being” in life is to dominate every other. These people believe it is they themselves who ought to be the President of the United States, and are resentful and bitter to anybody else who isn’t themselves holding the office. They may attempt to disguise their envy and hatred with political rhetoric — thinking it is okay to hate, as long as it is for the “Democratic” cause.

The vast majority of people however, fall into the desire to be egalitarians — but are stirred up by the authoritarians (demagogues) to regard all others but their special interest group as the perennial enemy. It’s another version of the Hatfield and the McCoys, Democrats against the Republicans, liberals against the conservatives, left against the right, up against down. Every thought and issue must be a divisive, contentious issue — exploited to the benefit of these few demagogues. One of their great joys is in fact watching the slaughter of one innocent group against another — that they have provoked and orchestrated, as an exercise of their “power.”

In an Information Age, crimes of information (misinformation, disinformation, omission, deception, etc.) become increasingly the major challenge of these times — and require this understanding before attempting the resolution of any other. That is the great discussion taking place at the cutting edge of awareness in every forum. We need to challenge this assumption that everybody is entitled to be biased — because obviously, that is the root of our problems, every one of them. The solution to bias and partisanship is not more bias and bipartisanship — but obviously, nonpartisanship — but if one maintains from the beginning that is “off limits,” there is no end to the problems.

Hawaii is one of the few places in the world right now, in which the defense of our biases and prejudices, is honored as our wonderful Island tradition.

[MikeHu]

It may seem counterintuitive, but it's easier to change a whole culture and society, than it is to change one person in that society -- while everyone else remains the same. In fact, it's nearly impossible to see one steer stampeding against the general movement of the herd. It ain't going to happen, but even if it did, it would not happen for very long. Wise shepherds of their flock, realize this and use this knowledge to their advantage -- or even they find themselves trampled, in learning not to read the flow.

And while many demand change, they insist that everything else has to remain the same -- but that is not the way change happens; real change changes everything -- because everything is in relationship to every other. Understanding this, one then begins to see how it is far easier to change everything, then it is to change one thing, while keeping everything else the same.

That's why it is easier to change an entire culture than to change only one person in a culture -- in which everyone else stays the same. Thus, change is never simply more of the same but is a radical departure from the same -- the evolutionary breakthrough, the quantum leap in understanding. In this scheme of evolution, there are agents of change, and agents of continuity -- who are open to change, rather than being merely defenders of the status quo.

As a general rule, those who are in an advantageous position, tend to be defenders of the status quo -- whether they call themselves "liberals" or "conservatives," "Republicans" or "Democrats." They like their privileged positions and want them to continue all their lives -- with a little more each year, please!!! Such people will insist that human nature cannot be changed -- and so everything must stay the same, while the fact is, human nature IS change. So if they can get you to believe that that which cannot be changed are changeable, and that which is easily changed can never be changed, and blur these distinctions so one cannot tell which from which, their control is absolute.

Those are the agents of Futility and Despair.