Orson Scott Card Makes a Good Point

[t1tdave]

I am a little late in finding it, but thanks to Snopes, I have. And I think everybody should read it; not because I think it should necessarily change your vote (it isn't changing mine; I knew much of this and decided Obama was the lesser of two evils anyway), but because you should be aware that many of us live in a bubble, created by voices that

Comments

[syntart]

I would perhaps lend a little more credence to it if he weren't also doing what he accuses others of. But he's not a journalist, so it's okay, right?

[t1tdave]

I'd agree totally if his point was just that the Democrats suck, too. But his point is that we're not being told the truth. Maybe it is because, like he claims, journalists in general prefer one team over the other, or perhaps it would require a media outlet to admit they missed something, or maybe it is just that the whole truth is complicated and explaining it would take away from the ad space. He doesn't have to present both sides of the story to make that point; he just needs to demonstrate that some inconvenient truths don't get shared.

[syntart]

I think what would have been better, for me, would be someone who discussed that concept in specific to our culture and the mass media, and then pointed out that there actually are news outlets that are telling the truth out there ... if we, as citizens, would get off our asses, stop allowing ourselves to be hand-fed hand-picked "truths," and go and find them. For instance, I find that foreign reporting of American events actually offers an interesting perspective.

The problem isn't the profession of journalism per se, but rather, the culture of American journalism.

And here's where I have a problem with OSC: he isn't interested in that. His point isn't to tell us that we're not being told the truth; we know that already. His point is to tell us "the other side sucks, too."

But honestly? We know that already, too.

[t1tdave]

I totally understand; I do not like his political positions, either. And if I wasn't already aware of most of the points he makes from other sources, I would not have assumed his article contained facts. But even if his motives are questionable, he does have a point in my opinion: the world view we get is filtered heavily by those who provide us with it, and we tend to forgive and hold blameless the leaders we like/elect and accuse and assume guilty those we don't.

[ammitnox]

If he said that the sky was blue, I would wonder what his angle was.

[t1tdave]

Wow... I didn't realize the anti-OSC vitriol was this strong, or I would have dug deeper for a different commentator.

[booyeah]

But feeding the confirmation bias gets big ratings! Surely he wouldn't ask news organizations to sacrifice shareholder value just to give politicians a fair shake?

[syntart]

Which is exactly why I like to emphasize the dichotomy between the profession of journalism and the American culture of mass media and journalism. The second beast is exactly what you say: driven by capitalist philosophies in a consumer driven world.

[disoculated]

After the de-regulation in the 90's, there are virtually no private sources of mass news media left outside of ancient newspapers (that are being killed by the Internet). It's all big business. And big business mostly plays news that's either in it's interest, or deliberately create controversy that generates ratings.

That's the way it's always been. Hearst and yellow journalism and all.

OSC doesn't have a point about "the last honest reporter", he's just being petulant that the things he wants to hear aren't making the list of what the big corporations think is eyeball-grabbing.

[t1tdave]

It wasn't the "last honest reporter" part that I wanted to point out, of course, but the "everybody's guilty" part. Though it occurs to me that OSC was, perhaps, a good choice for the other half of my point: if you don't start from a place where his views are generally anathema to yours, he sounds just as reasonable, and his anger just as well placed, as your favorite pundit's. And, as I said, while his intentions may be petulant, his facts happen to be correct (generally, I haven't checked them all). It has what Mr. Colbert brilliantly called "truthiness." I think that's what I've been trying to get at; neither side has a monopoly on truthiness.

[cheetahmaster]

A good article!