Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Sunday, March 31, 2002 Uh oh! I got into trouble. The Daily Rant has located St. Mark of Sacramento (Actually I prefer St. John Mark the First, Pope of his own bad self). Nor would I think anyone who saw me in action would consider me very devout. (No more daily Mass for me.) Ben Kepple takes issue with my essay on reporters and news gathering here. My essay is here. I think Ben represented my viewpoint with long quotes quite fairly. I am little surprised how gored his ox was, but if he believes his profession is noble than he ought to defend it tooth and nail. I do believe that Benjamin is earnest in his desire to be accurate and fair as a reporter, but I am rather more convinced that I would not wish to be reported on in some other context of civic, personal, criminal conflict by him (or anyone). I wouldn't mind having a drink with him, though. I stand by what I wrote, and I think a great many people who aren't reporters will agree with me about the degree of vampirism in the profession. Ben's claim to disinterestedness rings a little hollow when, as he mentions, the marketplace demands a certain level of controversy. On the one hand, he says he doesn't care about his interest in sales, slant or ratings. He says: "What self-interest? Do you honestly think a reporter, who either a) makes next to nothing, and/or b) makes far less than his superiors in the organization, gives a damn whether his story will sell papers? No. That's not his job. His job is to report the news. When he is done, he can go to the bar and drink." But admits: "Newsmen respond to one thing: the Market. If readers stop buying the paper because they are disgusted with the coverage ... the coverage will change. This is because reporters are subservient to their editors, who are subservient to the Publisher, who is in charge of making sure the whole bloody enterprise stays afloat somehow." Whether a reporter makes a little or a lot of money is hardly relevant. Certainly the reader could care less, but the Publisher cares a lot, and if he can prey on the worst in people and make more money, I think he might just instruct his employees to be provocative. Part of Ben's Rant is to blame humans (as I do, also) for their foolishness: "Again, don't blame us for people's failings. If people are overly drawn to the media because of their own greed or some other failing ... that should be their concern, not ours." People are weak and childish. Ben knows this and says nothing is wrong if he and the Media use it to their advantage to sell a product and make a living. He says people have a right to defend themselves in the media. But they have no such right. They only have rights to defend themselves in court. The media is not a fair or neutral place for self-defense. Ask anybody who's ever felt his words were taken out of context, truncated; or recorded in a moment of great stress or anguish when they weren't thinking clearly; or were simply unprepared and caught completely off-guard. Nor is it simply a matter of ethics as Ben implies (and that his ethics are high), but rather something of the nature of the beast. There is a difference in performing work in a manner that will be edifying to others or that will be merely distracting, meretricious, or exploitive of the worst in them. It's like the Christian girl who agrees to a nude scene in a movie because "it was authentic to the character" as if to say that modesty is relative, expedient, and conditional. Yes, if you're drowning, for heaven's sake shuck the burqa (although that doesn't fly in Saudi Arabia - no escaping the flames if you're not properly dressed and escorted). Almost lastly, do we need the Media as Ben says to examine and investigate things which are tedious or difficult for the citizen? Yes. Individuals may act as the citizens they are and question public employees and officials to their heart's content and offer the fruit of their labor for a price to others. More than that is debatable - the morality of gossip, instigation, provocation, challenging then enter the picture among other things. Ben concludes with "one (last) outraged comment: Would St Mark of Sacramento kindly come down from his raised platform and realize that in order to change this Godless, secular world, one must engage it instead of withdraw from it? " Well, as some may have noted thus far, I'm not real big on changing the world (anymore). I find it hard enough to change myself or maintain an even keel. But I am all for engaging others person to person. (You'll also find that hermits can be happy people with happy thoughts, and happy Easter..) posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:24 PM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
