Posts Tagged ‘Facts’

WE NEED INFORMATION TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS

April 5, 2017

One of the biggest mistakes most people make is drawing information from only one source or sources of only one dimension. In order to arrive at a conclusion (a reasoned decision based on facts and evidence), a person has to avail themselves to all facts and information possible. The conclusion must be drawn without regard for personal preferences or desired outcome.

The reason, as I see it, for the extreme divisiveness between our political viewpoints at present is that most people are predetermined to accept a particular result. They (we), refuse to consider evidence contrary to the desired conclusion. Neutral thinking is no longer taught, learned or accepted.

We, of the general public, must rely on the sincerity of the source(s) from which we derive our conclusions. Unfortunately, very few of those origins are unbiased. The information our government affords the public always has a slant or bias. Politicians believe they are responsible for determining how we must feel and think. To remain in office, it is necessary for them to influence how we think.

We all have dispositions toward particular radio and TV stations. We tend to read books, newspapers and magazines that generally agree with our viewpoints. We gravitate to information that reinforces and builds upon what we inherently know or believe.

Introducing nonconforming data into preferential thought frustrates the mind, thus it is disregarded. When such happens, when we discard facts or evidence because it conflicts with a foregone conclusion, we diminish our capacity for reason. We subject ourselves to invalid consequence due to illegitimate presumptions.

Our political system, meant to be adversarial, has become viciously antagonistic. Democrats refuse to work with Republicans because they are not Democrats. Republicans likewise block proposals offered by Democrats. Compromise to modern politicians is ‘you agree with me or else’! Correspondingly, the public takes similar positions. President Trump is not protested for what he has done politically. He is disavowed and derided because he is not a Democrat.

The lack of civil political discourse by those in office as well as the citizens who elect them is exactly why we had to endure the past eight years. It is the reason for the polar change to a character and style of complete opposite.

There is no middle ground in politics today because we refuse to listen and accept that which is different from what we ‘inherently’ know or want to be true. There is no compromise or concession. We have enacted rule by edict and opposition by anger over the past decade. The future does not look pretty.

The average life expectancy of a democracy is 200 years. We have exceeded that mark. We need to look at what we’re doing to our country and our individual lives. We must look at, see and consider both sides within the political arena before moving forward. As a society, we’re not making good decisions.

The governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil and China only serve those in charge. Are your decisions derived from full information?

“FAKE NEWS” AND THE NEED TO REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

December 14, 2016

We have fairness in broadcasting today. Not all of it is to the liking of the left leaning outlets controlling about 85% of the news, and that seems to be the problem. There was little rebuff with the repeal of the original 1949 FCC mandate because by 1987 the majority of news outlets had a significant liberal influence. The few others were scoffed and marginalized by the many. Truly, the only controversy came when facts surfaced that did not coincide with the coveted stories of the day.

The Fairness Doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949, required that broadcast licensees present controversial issues of public importance with honesty, equity and balance. Federal oversight included reprimands and fines for noncompliance issued at the discretion of the FCC commissioner. The guidelines (typically acceptable for any government agency) were ill defined and arbitrary. Print publications were not included in the doctrine.

With the wider opportunity for voices other than those deemed “the only truth”, liberals now want to change our speech and the presentation of ideas. Political correctness, inclusiveness and gender fluidity all allow for pigeonholing today’s non-conformists or traditionalists as bias and bigoted. Liberals (socialists) want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine with tighter guidelines and more controls that align with their agenda. Ergo, fake news.

The latest seems to be Russians hacked the DNC to overturn the election outcome. It makes all Russians suspicious whether or not anyone of Russian descent or even anyone inside of Russia had anything to do with the information theft.  Where is the mention that the emails were true or that they were generated and distributed by a phony, lying, deceitful, conniving and unlikable Democrat candidate?

How better to take control of a population than to create a situation and amplify it to the point of crisis? Fake news is a perfect way of introducing a problem. Simply fabricate some “news”, The Russians Did It – The Russians Did It, post it on the World Wide Web, await the inevitable dispersal and declare it phony information pressed by the opposition. By making it appear as if it is coming from your opposition there is cause to declare and allege it’s false thereby proclaiming immediate credibility for your side. This practice has been around for decades and known as False Flag incidents or operations. The new twist is nothing more than progressive adaptation.

Journalism is no longer objective reporting of recent circumstance or events. It has become increasingly biased, opinionated and political whenever possible. By tweaking what is said or how a situation unfolds, the reporter can influence the thinking of those receiving the information. It need not be entirely false, misleading is generally sufficient. It’s all in the presentation.

A headline like “Cop Shoots Black Man” is all many will read or hear. It’s all many want to hear. It’s all they need to know. The underlying story might be that the black man was a terrorist who tried to assassinate the cop or tried to evade the cop and blow up a bank building or such. It may also be later revealed that it was not a black man, but a man in black clothing. The lack of information is as important to the story as that presented. None-the-less, the original story will incentivize some to riot.

With a new administration on the horizon, expect desperate cries of need for an Information Czar or Minister of Truth to oversee and direct our enlightenment. It will be nothing more than an attempt to further subjugate us under the ruling thumb of pro-socialists. It may well come in the form of another attempt to re-institute an updated Fairness Doctrine.