It is a commonplace that, in order to boost circulation, the (so-called?) news media tend to emphasize cloud-pleasing stories which – given human nature? – tend to the violent and seamy. It has been suggested that an appropriate response would be to balance this reporting with positive news as well. As German economist Max Roser put it (here I am quoting from an article ["The Big Question," by Joshua Rothman, July 23, 2018, p. 27] that quotes a book [Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now] that cites Roser), a truly evenhanded newspaper “could have run the headline NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN EXTREME POVERTY FELL BY 137,000 SINCE YESTERDAY every day for the last twenty-five years."
However, I think this does not really redress the imbalance because even the bad news is distorted … and not nearly bad enough! So let me make a modest journalistic proposal (although this could also serve as a personal philosophical or ethical exercise): Each day (perhaps one week later in retrospect to allow for facts to develop and for some reflection first) select what seems (to the editor or to you or to whomever) to be the worst and the best news story of that day.
The basic idea is that in the new global village there is guaranteed to be something really awful and something really wonderful we could learn about every single day. Actually of course many things ... and different assessments (including opposite ones) by different people. So there need not be a single version of this blog or column or whatever form it takes. Everybody (who is sufficiently informed) could do their own. And then may the best blog win (judged by the readership, critics, oneself, Republicans, Democrats, whomever ... so of course there would be many blogs having the title "best" as well), but there could also be several favorites for anyone.
The point is twofold. On one hand, to make sure bad news, which is artificially emphasized by the media, is put into some balance with good. On other, to make sure the kind of bad and good news the media love is sidestepped in favor of more objectively chosen news items. (Of course even that "point" represents a subjective valuation of mine -- doubly so, in fact: as regards valuing objectivity, and as regards what counts as objective.)
It will also turn out that what is (the best or worst) news each day might not be new. Thus, somewhat mirroring Roser, I could see simply running the headline (that is, featuring as the worst news) BILLIONS OF INNOCENT SENTIENT BEINGS NEEDLESSLY CONFINED, TORTURED, AND SLAUGHTERED every day forever.
But this does bring us to a point of paradox, namely, that what is most newsworthy may violate the very essence of what its name implies, and surely a basic human requirement – novelty. It is really no news that what is not new is not news at all. Ergo …? Don’t look to the news to find out what’s going on!
Popular posts from this blog
by Joel Marks December 29, 2015 It’s nothing short of a miracle. Pressure points, aka trigger points – have you heard of them? I could not tell you what the underlying physiology is. But I learned about them in practice from a good friend of mine, who is a masseur and also the creator of a line of simple tools for self-massage. When a number of years ago I began noticing that sign of exceeding the normal lifespan of Homo erectus, namely, lower back pain, Allan gave me a squash ball to place between my back and the wall and then roll across. The aim was to discover a pressure point which was somehow responsible for the “referred pain” in my back. After some experimenting I found a spot on one side of my spine, seeming to be in a cord that ran up and down the side of my back parallel to the spine (there being another cord on the other side as well). How did I know it was “the” spot? Because it hurt sharply when the ball rolled over it. Lo and behold, after doing this for no
The other day an old friend told me of her regret about the decision she had made in her early life to go to graduate school A rather than graduate school B, because it may have shut off some career opportunities. Philosopher that I am, I immediately dismissed her concern by pointing out that her beloved daughter would not even exist had my friend made a different decision. My friend did not at first see the connection, so I explained that I was referring to the utter contingency of which sperm meets which egg; so the slightest alteration of prior conditions would mean a different person, or no person, would have been born. Although she then saw what I was getting at, this did not lift her regret. I chalked it up to the usual irrationality of nonphilosophers (which also includes all philosophers when they revert to being just plain people, which is really just about all of the time, even in their professional role). But some musing on another subject has now given me a differ
OK, this is not a new theory of the Trump Presidency. From the very first it was speculated that he had become an accidental president, never expecting to win and perhaps not even wanting to, but with some ulterior motive most likely linked to marketing the Trump brand in his future business dealings. Of course there were also darker murmurings (and indications) that he was a Manchurian candidate … perhaps even an unintentional and totally befuddled one more along the lines of Being There . But Trump’s behavior since losing the election to Biden has been (and continues to be as I write) so off the wall, so seemingly intended to make him look as bad and bonkers and just plain pathetic as possible, as to suggest, and indeed support another theory I myself (along with others, no doubt) had entertained from the very start, which is that he’s doing it just for a joke, just for the sport. Basically he wants to see just how far somebody can go in putting one over on people.