I’m really getting sick of hearing the word “bungled” associated with health reform. The Democrats haven’t “bungled” reform—the Republicans have stone-walled it every step of the way, from the day Obama entered the White House. Apparently that’s good and effective politics, since it’s succeeded in making a lot of Americans cynical about the whole process and snide about Washington—a situation that never bodes well for incumbents.
In spite of giving lip service to the need for health reform, every blessed one of the Republican House and Senate members have refused to cooperate on any part of a health reform package—and that’s after 12 years of ignoring the whole issue while they were in the majority. Now, a year into the new administration, I hope they’re proud of what they’ve accomplished—or not accomplished, depending on how you look at it.
Conservative estimates are that about 45,000 people die each year from lack of access to health care—in other words, they can’t afford it. We know that a large percentage of personal bankruptcies—some say as many as 60%—result from debts due to lack of adequate and affordable health insurance. If projections of bankruptcies filed during 2009 are anywhere near accurate, that means that the 100% failure of the Senate Republicans to negotiate in good faith about health reform is at least partly responsible for 840,000 economic tragedies for families and small businesses.
That’s over 1,000 deaths of individuals and 21,000 bankruptcies per Senate Republican (and Joe Lieberman, whatever he is these days—I can’t keep track). In all fairness, it has to be said that some of the lily-livered “Conserva-Dems” from conservative districts have to share some of the blame for dithering and hiding behind the backs of the more out-and-out, true “conservatives” (or, as I suggested yesterday, “reactionaries”). So maybe not every Senate Republican can be blamed for 1,000 deaths and 21,000 bankruptcies.
But how many is enough?
Come on, people. Let’s just get this damn thing done.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Conservative vs. Reactionary
Yesterday I had lunch with a group of educated, influential women, one of whom has a Ph.D. in computer science. Her job involves creating computer models for application to particular scientific questions. Somehow the subject of global climate change (GCC) came up, and one of the women expressed doubt: “They say the climate fluctuates naturally,” she said. “Maybe the temperatures would be rising, anyway, even without human interference.”
I glanced at the scientist, and she rolled her eyes. She simply drew a graph in the air—a simple 45-degree line showing the dramatic upward trend of global average temperatures in recent decades—and said, “That’s not natural.” Then, not wanting to spoil a good lunch by arguing, we moved on to other subjects.
After our recent discussion here about GCC, I was wondering why almost all the books recently published are about “debunking the myths” about GCC and most of the ones I read in the 70s and 80s are out of print. (Another great book I neglected to mention, incidentally, is Extinction, by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, first published in 1981.) As we were leaving, I asked my scientist friend why the people who knew best weren’t writing books about GCC anymore. “Once something’s established as fact,” she said, “people aren’t interested in ‘if.’ There’s no ‘if’ any more when it comes to climate change—just ‘when?,’ ‘how much?,’ and ‘what can we do about it?”
I see what she means. Among educated, scientifically oriented people, GCC is an accepted fact, and what we know about it is implicit in discussions of many things, from politics to polar bears. Rational people have long since stopped talking about “if.”
The same thing is true of other subjects about which facts have been tortured to death in recent years for the sake of politics: evolution, the efficacy of torture, the safety of children’s vaccines.
In the public discourse in America, we’ve continued to use the same terminology in recent years, as the right has drifted further and further toward the fringe and as sane fiscal and social conservatives have tended to get mixed up in the public mind with celebrities of spite like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and numerous clueless members of Congress. That seems unfair, because I believe there are thoughtful, intelligent, reality-oriented conservatives out there who might have something to contribute, if only they weren’t continually shouted down by the loudest voices representing ignorance and extremism.
So I propose that we dust off that good old word “reactionary” and put it back to work. Let’s start calling deniers of GCC, evolution, and Obama’s American citizenship “reactionary.” Let’s help them find their own identity, with others who believe that the government is plotting to take away their guns and socialize medicine and education. Then let’s use the word “conservative” to mean what it used to mean—rightfully and responsibly concerned about things like government spending and what “freedom of speech” should mean in a technological world.
How about that—wouldn’t it make things simpler?
I glanced at the scientist, and she rolled her eyes. She simply drew a graph in the air—a simple 45-degree line showing the dramatic upward trend of global average temperatures in recent decades—and said, “That’s not natural.” Then, not wanting to spoil a good lunch by arguing, we moved on to other subjects.
After our recent discussion here about GCC, I was wondering why almost all the books recently published are about “debunking the myths” about GCC and most of the ones I read in the 70s and 80s are out of print. (Another great book I neglected to mention, incidentally, is Extinction, by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, first published in 1981.) As we were leaving, I asked my scientist friend why the people who knew best weren’t writing books about GCC anymore. “Once something’s established as fact,” she said, “people aren’t interested in ‘if.’ There’s no ‘if’ any more when it comes to climate change—just ‘when?,’ ‘how much?,’ and ‘what can we do about it?”
I see what she means. Among educated, scientifically oriented people, GCC is an accepted fact, and what we know about it is implicit in discussions of many things, from politics to polar bears. Rational people have long since stopped talking about “if.”
The same thing is true of other subjects about which facts have been tortured to death in recent years for the sake of politics: evolution, the efficacy of torture, the safety of children’s vaccines.
In the public discourse in America, we’ve continued to use the same terminology in recent years, as the right has drifted further and further toward the fringe and as sane fiscal and social conservatives have tended to get mixed up in the public mind with celebrities of spite like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and numerous clueless members of Congress. That seems unfair, because I believe there are thoughtful, intelligent, reality-oriented conservatives out there who might have something to contribute, if only they weren’t continually shouted down by the loudest voices representing ignorance and extremism.
So I propose that we dust off that good old word “reactionary” and put it back to work. Let’s start calling deniers of GCC, evolution, and Obama’s American citizenship “reactionary.” Let’s help them find their own identity, with others who believe that the government is plotting to take away their guns and socialize medicine and education. Then let’s use the word “conservative” to mean what it used to mean—rightfully and responsibly concerned about things like government spending and what “freedom of speech” should mean in a technological world.
How about that—wouldn’t it make things simpler?
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Courage to Agree
Rumor has it that two men met on a virtually deserted Capitol Hill yesterday, braving the snow and, potentially, the disapproval of their peers to talk with one another.
Could it be that a Republican—a freshman Southern Senator, no less—has the guts to really seek common ground with a Democrat? Could it be that an outgoing Democrat might still have the energy—after over 35 years of public service and a year of solid, indiscriminate opposition to every Democratic initiative—to keep working toward accord instead of sitting back and waiting out his time in office?
The Republican, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, was elected in 2006 and won’t be up for reelection until 2012. Therefore, he may feel he can afford the risk of actually bargaining in good faith with the Democratic majority. Nevertheless, it takes guts for a Republican to be the least bit conciliatory these days, lest he or she end up savagely attacked by the Republican caucus and challenged in a primary by hard-line conservatives (ala Dede Scozzafava).
The Democrat, Senator Chris Dodd, has a long history of bipartisan cooperation with his ideological opponents—until the past 13 months, anyway, at which point the Republicans in Congress closed ranks to form a solid wall of opposition to anything being accomplished in a Democratic administration that might resemble progress.
But thanks to a spate of bad weather, these two men had a little time on their hands. And it appears that they chose to spend it in the service of their country, trying to get a little something done.
I have a fantasy. I’d like to think that all over Washington, D.C., this week, long-time Congressional colleagues are meeting in groups of two or four, in coffee shops and restaurants—away from the cameras and microphones, reporters and lobbyists that make it so hard to focus on substance rather than appearances. I’d like to think they’re remembering how they once liked each other, exchanging news about their families, sharing their frustrations, and then maybe—just maybe—tentatively agreeing to agree, rather than disagree.
If such a thing were happening in Washington, wouldn’t that be lovely? That would be “cool” of an entirely different kind. It seems to have happened once (even though the colleagues in question were caught out by the press). Maybe it could happen again. And again.
And if so—let it snow, let it snow.
Could it be that a Republican—a freshman Southern Senator, no less—has the guts to really seek common ground with a Democrat? Could it be that an outgoing Democrat might still have the energy—after over 35 years of public service and a year of solid, indiscriminate opposition to every Democratic initiative—to keep working toward accord instead of sitting back and waiting out his time in office?
The Republican, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, was elected in 2006 and won’t be up for reelection until 2012. Therefore, he may feel he can afford the risk of actually bargaining in good faith with the Democratic majority. Nevertheless, it takes guts for a Republican to be the least bit conciliatory these days, lest he or she end up savagely attacked by the Republican caucus and challenged in a primary by hard-line conservatives (ala Dede Scozzafava).
The Democrat, Senator Chris Dodd, has a long history of bipartisan cooperation with his ideological opponents—until the past 13 months, anyway, at which point the Republicans in Congress closed ranks to form a solid wall of opposition to anything being accomplished in a Democratic administration that might resemble progress.
But thanks to a spate of bad weather, these two men had a little time on their hands. And it appears that they chose to spend it in the service of their country, trying to get a little something done.
I have a fantasy. I’d like to think that all over Washington, D.C., this week, long-time Congressional colleagues are meeting in groups of two or four, in coffee shops and restaurants—away from the cameras and microphones, reporters and lobbyists that make it so hard to focus on substance rather than appearances. I’d like to think they’re remembering how they once liked each other, exchanging news about their families, sharing their frustrations, and then maybe—just maybe—tentatively agreeing to agree, rather than disagree.
If such a thing were happening in Washington, wouldn’t that be lovely? That would be “cool” of an entirely different kind. It seems to have happened once (even though the colleagues in question were caught out by the press). Maybe it could happen again. And again.
And if so—let it snow, let it snow.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Snowbama
I figure I might as well join the crowd and blame the president for the lousy weather blanketing the East Coast. The minority in Congress seems hell-bent on blaming him for everything else!
I’ve long been opposed the attitude that weather is “bad” or “good.” I generally find weather, in general, interesting. However, there’s certainly such a thing as too much of a good thing, and a lot of people have been experiencing that lately!
Which brings me to the topic of the ignoramuses on FOX News and elsewhere who’ve been using the record snow falls in the East to mock Al Gore and the whole concept of global climate change. (They might as well lump in the horrific mud slides in California, too, while they’re at it—an example of what happens when cycles of extreme heat and dryness are followed by wildfires and soil erosion—then lots of rain.)
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh—these geniuses pretend to believe that “global warming” can’t be real if it’s snowing outside. (And it’s hard to say which is worse—being ignorant enough to believe what they’re saying or lying about something so critically important.)
Since at least the late 1970s, when I first started reading about climate change, scientists have said that an overall increase in global temperatures would ramp up the natural cycles of the atmosphere and start causing extreme weather events across the planet, as well as extremely rapid melting of polar ice. That’s all been happening—at alarming rates and faster than most estimates predicted.
Just ask residents of Bangladesh, New Orleans, Florida, and now Washington D.C. about extreme weather. Records are now being broken every year in terms of temperatures, precipitation, and the number and severity of storms. What used to be “100-year” storms and “500-year” storms are becoming annual events.
From a global perspective, the first decade of the 21st Century, which just ended, was the warmest on record. Pretty much every year that goes by is either the warmest year on record or close to it. When even George Bush admitted to the need to start getting serious about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, I thought we’d finally start making progress as a nation toward being responsible global citizens and concerning ourselves about the well-being of our children and grandchildren.
Apparently, I was wrong. In the minority, Republicans have clearly decided to ensure that NO progress occurs on ANY issue whatever, be it saving the planet, helping the millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance, or reforming the financial industries which—just a few short months ago—nearly thrust the entire world into another Great Depression with their irresponsible lending and investment practices.
Evidently the Party of No has NO time to help save the plant—not when there are elections to consider and money to be made from special interests.
And there are ALWAYS elections to consider.
I’ve long been opposed the attitude that weather is “bad” or “good.” I generally find weather, in general, interesting. However, there’s certainly such a thing as too much of a good thing, and a lot of people have been experiencing that lately!
Which brings me to the topic of the ignoramuses on FOX News and elsewhere who’ve been using the record snow falls in the East to mock Al Gore and the whole concept of global climate change. (They might as well lump in the horrific mud slides in California, too, while they’re at it—an example of what happens when cycles of extreme heat and dryness are followed by wildfires and soil erosion—then lots of rain.)
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh—these geniuses pretend to believe that “global warming” can’t be real if it’s snowing outside. (And it’s hard to say which is worse—being ignorant enough to believe what they’re saying or lying about something so critically important.)
Since at least the late 1970s, when I first started reading about climate change, scientists have said that an overall increase in global temperatures would ramp up the natural cycles of the atmosphere and start causing extreme weather events across the planet, as well as extremely rapid melting of polar ice. That’s all been happening—at alarming rates and faster than most estimates predicted.
Just ask residents of Bangladesh, New Orleans, Florida, and now Washington D.C. about extreme weather. Records are now being broken every year in terms of temperatures, precipitation, and the number and severity of storms. What used to be “100-year” storms and “500-year” storms are becoming annual events.
From a global perspective, the first decade of the 21st Century, which just ended, was the warmest on record. Pretty much every year that goes by is either the warmest year on record or close to it. When even George Bush admitted to the need to start getting serious about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, I thought we’d finally start making progress as a nation toward being responsible global citizens and concerning ourselves about the well-being of our children and grandchildren.
Apparently, I was wrong. In the minority, Republicans have clearly decided to ensure that NO progress occurs on ANY issue whatever, be it saving the planet, helping the millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance, or reforming the financial industries which—just a few short months ago—nearly thrust the entire world into another Great Depression with their irresponsible lending and investment practices.
Evidently the Party of No has NO time to help save the plant—not when there are elections to consider and money to be made from special interests.
And there are ALWAYS elections to consider.
Friday, February 5, 2010
About Blind Faith and Conspiracy Theories
Here’s an interesting take, from a global perspective, on conspiracy theories.
Please pardon the profanity, but I believe the most interesting statement in this article is that “there’s a huge temptation among people to believe there is a master plan, because otherwise the suggestion is we’re interdependent and the world is chaotic — and that’s a mindfuck.”
In America, there are a very large number of fundamentalist Christians—people who believe that the Bible should be taken literally and that a savage (but somehow, at the same time loving) God personally orchestrates every little thing that happens on earth—from who lives or dies in the aftermath of an earthquake to who wins the Super Bowl. (No one’s ever satisfactorily explained to me how supporters of two teams can both deluge the heavens with their prayers, but one side or the other always loses.)
Surely it’s very comforting to think that nothing happens by accident and that everything we ever need to know can be found between the pages of a single book. But it’s also irresponsible. That kind of magical thinking separates reason from belief and makes people prone to believe pretty much anything. (In fact, it’s a tenet of many fundamentalist sects that God deliberately lays traps for reasonable people; a Ph.D. candidate in paleontology, of all things, once told me that God planted dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith.)
Of course it’s easier to believe—especially if you hang out with a group of like-minded individuals—than to think. Thinking is hard work. But there’s a lot of truth in the old adage, “God helps those who help themselves.” If you believe that everything happens for a reason, then we have brains for a reason. I submit that there is no God in his (or her) heaven playing a cruel game of cat-and-mouse in which reality is never what it seems and truth is encoded in an enigmatic and self-contradictory tome to which only a privileged elect have the key. (And oh, how pleasurable it must be to see oneself as one of the elect.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not disparaging either religion or Christianity—just fundamentalism, which essentially means blind adherence to a pre-packaged doctrine or set of beliefs. Nor do I think that everyone who attends church is prone to slavish, mindless obedience or blind faith. But the fact that religious beliefs are so often disconnected from reason and reality is one good reason to be adamant about ensuring the separation of church and state.
The intrusion of fundamentalism into the national discourse has caused a great deal of mischief, especially in recent years. The notion that “everyone’s entitled to their beliefs”—right or wrong, rational or just plain loony—is dangerous in a nation in which the beliefs and attitudes of the people continually influence and shape the government. I’m not at all sure that people are “entitled” to be wrong—especially when that wrongness is not the result of a mistake but rather of a stubborn, emotional adherence to beliefs that contradict reality on the basis of reasonable evidence. (Of course I'm speaking here about moral, not legal, entitlement.)
It takes open-mindedness to accept the fact that we are—increasingly—interdependent, both nationally and globally. It takes courage to concede that the world, if not exactly chaotic, is full of situations in which we may have to suspend judgment and struggle long and hard to find the truth.
Those are two things America could use more of—open-mindedness and the courage to tolerate uncertainty.
Please pardon the profanity, but I believe the most interesting statement in this article is that “there’s a huge temptation among people to believe there is a master plan, because otherwise the suggestion is we’re interdependent and the world is chaotic — and that’s a mindfuck.”
In America, there are a very large number of fundamentalist Christians—people who believe that the Bible should be taken literally and that a savage (but somehow, at the same time loving) God personally orchestrates every little thing that happens on earth—from who lives or dies in the aftermath of an earthquake to who wins the Super Bowl. (No one’s ever satisfactorily explained to me how supporters of two teams can both deluge the heavens with their prayers, but one side or the other always loses.)
Surely it’s very comforting to think that nothing happens by accident and that everything we ever need to know can be found between the pages of a single book. But it’s also irresponsible. That kind of magical thinking separates reason from belief and makes people prone to believe pretty much anything. (In fact, it’s a tenet of many fundamentalist sects that God deliberately lays traps for reasonable people; a Ph.D. candidate in paleontology, of all things, once told me that God planted dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith.)
Of course it’s easier to believe—especially if you hang out with a group of like-minded individuals—than to think. Thinking is hard work. But there’s a lot of truth in the old adage, “God helps those who help themselves.” If you believe that everything happens for a reason, then we have brains for a reason. I submit that there is no God in his (or her) heaven playing a cruel game of cat-and-mouse in which reality is never what it seems and truth is encoded in an enigmatic and self-contradictory tome to which only a privileged elect have the key. (And oh, how pleasurable it must be to see oneself as one of the elect.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not disparaging either religion or Christianity—just fundamentalism, which essentially means blind adherence to a pre-packaged doctrine or set of beliefs. Nor do I think that everyone who attends church is prone to slavish, mindless obedience or blind faith. But the fact that religious beliefs are so often disconnected from reason and reality is one good reason to be adamant about ensuring the separation of church and state.
The intrusion of fundamentalism into the national discourse has caused a great deal of mischief, especially in recent years. The notion that “everyone’s entitled to their beliefs”—right or wrong, rational or just plain loony—is dangerous in a nation in which the beliefs and attitudes of the people continually influence and shape the government. I’m not at all sure that people are “entitled” to be wrong—especially when that wrongness is not the result of a mistake but rather of a stubborn, emotional adherence to beliefs that contradict reality on the basis of reasonable evidence. (Of course I'm speaking here about moral, not legal, entitlement.)
It takes open-mindedness to accept the fact that we are—increasingly—interdependent, both nationally and globally. It takes courage to concede that the world, if not exactly chaotic, is full of situations in which we may have to suspend judgment and struggle long and hard to find the truth.
Those are two things America could use more of—open-mindedness and the courage to tolerate uncertainty.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Fox News and the "Liberal Media"
A reader recently asked, “Do you watch Fox News?” The answer: “Not if I can help it.” In fact, I’ve launched a one-woman campaign in my local area to get businesses that stream Fox News on their wall-mounted televisions to change the channel. I prefer not to subject myself to an atmosphere polluted by a steady stream of negativism, hostile rhetoric, aggressive body language, and extremist right-wing propaganda.
That said, I know that the negative emotionalism typical of Fox broadcasting appeals to many. In fact, I think it may even be addictive. Fox listeners often also find their way to right-wing, anti-establishment rants on the radio, listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Lou Dobbs. There’s nothing like a steady dose of outrage to get the adrenalin flowing, and it’s a fact that some people become addicted to the rush.
Extreme right-wing rhetoric has found legitimacy in this country, largely because of Fox News and its cousin-in-print, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Together with hate-mongers on the radio, they’ve coined the phrase “liberal media” and made it stick to pretty much all media outlets that are in the least bit objective or balanced in their reporting of current events, lumping mainstream and left-wing sources together in an “us-against-them” world view.
Where do I get my news? From a wide variety of so-called “liberal media” sources—which is to say, anywhere but Fox News and the WSJ. (I do read articles from the WSJ when someone sends me a link; however, I pass if the author happens to be someone whom I consider to be completely unqualified on the subject or lacking in intellectual integrity.)
One reader has asked repeatedly where I get my information, so for the sake of full disclosure, what follows is a fairly comprehensive list—for now, anyway. (Those who don’t care may wish to skip the following paragraph.)
I like to begin my evening with a nice roundup of the day’s events on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. His “Making a Difference” segment, focusing on heroic actions by ordinary people, is always positive and up-lifting. For analysis of partisan politics, I often tune in to Rachel Maddow, who has a knack for explaining complex issues in plain, simple language. For in-depth analysis and news about science, technology, and the world, I listen to NPR. (I always make a point to be driving around at noon on Fridays, when “Science Friday” is on.) I like CNN’s in-depth reporting of big events, like the earthquake in Haiti. I’m rather obsessive about reading news headlines and articles on my mobile phone, regularly surfing sites like politico.com, Yahoo! News, Media Matters, The Week, and—yes—Fox (whose mobile news service tends toward some kooky human interest stories). I subscribe to a number of online newsletters from various organizations, including The Progress Report, salon.com, and The Southern Poverty Law Center. I get RS feeds from a variety of columnists (left, right, and center), including Thomas L. Friedman, Kathleen Parker, and Mike Madden. I occasionally check out the web sites for members of Congress who happen to catch my attention. For an outsider’s perspective on American culture and politics, I often read news from France and listen to the BBC. When I want background for something I’m writing, I may consult books or look for in-depth articles in magazines like The Atlantic or The New Yorker.
As for knowing what’s going in the alternative universe of Fox News, I sometimes log on to News Hounds (“We watch Fox so you don’t have to”) and catch unavoidable glimpses of the streamers when the channel is on in public places. Apart from that, I have a few right-wing friends who can usually be depended on to let me know how the spin doctors in the conservative media are interpreting national events.
I see and hear enough hard-core conservative talking points to understand how habitual consumers of extreme right-wing messaging might suffer from cognitive dissonance when exposed to mainstream media. It’d be enough to make anyone uncomfortable—and people who are uncomfortable tend to get angry. Perhaps the only way habitual Fox News watchers could really understand how the rest of us view the world would be to go cold turkey for a few weeks and watch and read exclusively news that hasn’t been—as the British like to put it—“sexed up” to please the conservative palate.
That said, I know that the negative emotionalism typical of Fox broadcasting appeals to many. In fact, I think it may even be addictive. Fox listeners often also find their way to right-wing, anti-establishment rants on the radio, listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Lou Dobbs. There’s nothing like a steady dose of outrage to get the adrenalin flowing, and it’s a fact that some people become addicted to the rush.
Extreme right-wing rhetoric has found legitimacy in this country, largely because of Fox News and its cousin-in-print, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Together with hate-mongers on the radio, they’ve coined the phrase “liberal media” and made it stick to pretty much all media outlets that are in the least bit objective or balanced in their reporting of current events, lumping mainstream and left-wing sources together in an “us-against-them” world view.
Where do I get my news? From a wide variety of so-called “liberal media” sources—which is to say, anywhere but Fox News and the WSJ. (I do read articles from the WSJ when someone sends me a link; however, I pass if the author happens to be someone whom I consider to be completely unqualified on the subject or lacking in intellectual integrity.)
One reader has asked repeatedly where I get my information, so for the sake of full disclosure, what follows is a fairly comprehensive list—for now, anyway. (Those who don’t care may wish to skip the following paragraph.)
I like to begin my evening with a nice roundup of the day’s events on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. His “Making a Difference” segment, focusing on heroic actions by ordinary people, is always positive and up-lifting. For analysis of partisan politics, I often tune in to Rachel Maddow, who has a knack for explaining complex issues in plain, simple language. For in-depth analysis and news about science, technology, and the world, I listen to NPR. (I always make a point to be driving around at noon on Fridays, when “Science Friday” is on.) I like CNN’s in-depth reporting of big events, like the earthquake in Haiti. I’m rather obsessive about reading news headlines and articles on my mobile phone, regularly surfing sites like politico.com, Yahoo! News, Media Matters, The Week, and—yes—Fox (whose mobile news service tends toward some kooky human interest stories). I subscribe to a number of online newsletters from various organizations, including The Progress Report, salon.com, and The Southern Poverty Law Center. I get RS feeds from a variety of columnists (left, right, and center), including Thomas L. Friedman, Kathleen Parker, and Mike Madden. I occasionally check out the web sites for members of Congress who happen to catch my attention. For an outsider’s perspective on American culture and politics, I often read news from France and listen to the BBC. When I want background for something I’m writing, I may consult books or look for in-depth articles in magazines like The Atlantic or The New Yorker.
As for knowing what’s going in the alternative universe of Fox News, I sometimes log on to News Hounds (“We watch Fox so you don’t have to”) and catch unavoidable glimpses of the streamers when the channel is on in public places. Apart from that, I have a few right-wing friends who can usually be depended on to let me know how the spin doctors in the conservative media are interpreting national events.
I see and hear enough hard-core conservative talking points to understand how habitual consumers of extreme right-wing messaging might suffer from cognitive dissonance when exposed to mainstream media. It’d be enough to make anyone uncomfortable—and people who are uncomfortable tend to get angry. Perhaps the only way habitual Fox News watchers could really understand how the rest of us view the world would be to go cold turkey for a few weeks and watch and read exclusively news that hasn’t been—as the British like to put it—“sexed up” to please the conservative palate.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
