> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Erik Reuter
...
> I'm all for peace activists, as long as they have given a lot of thought
> to their position, the consequences, other alternatives, and the overall
> costs and state their position clearly. This is extraordinarily rare, in
> my experience, however.
Are those experiences primarily via the media, or first-hand?
> Maybe if they were more...not afraid but...nervous, about speaking up,
> they would give a more coherent and well-thought out message when they
> finally do speak up? Most of them look foolish to me, and not because
> they advocate peace, but rather because of how poorly they argue for it.
I almost have to agree, because that's about all we see and read about in
the media. Does good thinking on either side of this issue (or pretty much
any issue) get any mainstream press?
One of the ways that journalistic objectivity did a lot of harm was that it
got journalists, especially in broadcasting, to find people who would take
the "other side" of any issue, in the name of presenting balanced news -- as
the FCC formerly required them to do. Yet it was often ridiculous, as the
media gave air time to people who disagreed with the overwhelming majority.
("And here to present a counterpoint to tomorrow's predict time of
sunrise...") The idea that some peoples' *points of view* are more
interesting than others gave way to the idea that two groups' *positions* on
issues must be reported.
> Respect should be earned, don't you think?
Yep. And how does one earn it in the mass media these days...?
I get more of what I'm looking for, in terms of interesting, provocative
points of view on major issues, right here on Brin-L, than anywhere else I
can think of. And it's certainly not when things degenerate into flame
wars; it's when we manage to earn and give respect with the people with whom
we disagree.
Nick
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
