Blogging, accuracy, community

Blogging is an exciting and very immediate form of communication. It’s obviously different than the writing that one does for magazines, newspapers and other publications due to the lack of editorial input and control. This can be both good and bad. Good in the sense that the lack of constraint can promote freshness and an edge that many mainstream media sources lack. However, because of the lack of checks, inaccurate information can be transmitted.

I feel fortunate to have some dedicated readers of my writing and they occasionally “let me have it” when I post something that they think is bogus, inaccurate, or even pompous.

In my haste to write yesterday’s American Acquiescence, I inaccurately made the connection between television viewing and the increases in the rates of ADD/ADHD. When I wrote, “we’ve decided that we’ll plop our kids in front of the television six to eight hours per day and then, we wonder why he/she has attention deficit disorders and can’t read,” I incorrectly made the correlation between plunking kids in front of the television with incidences of ADD and ADHD in our country.

One of my readers (who also happens to be a dear friend), informed me that there is no connection whatsoever. Because I wasn't as informed as I should have been on the subject, I did in fact do a bit of reading on the subject last night, and I now am better informed about it. While excessive television viewing is detrimental and even hazardous to children, it hasn't been determined to be a direct cause of ADD, or ADHD. There is some evidence however, that seems to indicate some link between television viewing and and increased incidences of hyperactivity, impulsiveness and difficulty concentrating. According to a study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics, "Every added hour of watching TV increased a child's odds of having attention problems by about 10%. Kids watching about three hours a day were 30% more likely to have attention trouble than those viewing no TV." While the researchers accounted for many factors beside television that might predict problems concentrating, the fact that the TV-attention link remained is reason to be concerned about the negative effects of young children's exposure to excessive television.

This brings me back to blogging as a form of communication. The type of writing that I put up on my blog is closest to types of journalism and op ed writing than anything else. While I certainly don’t have the editorial constraints that someone at the NY Times or even the Peoria Journal Star might have, I do fact check what I put up and do my darndest to link information in an attempt to be factual and accurate. Even with print media and television, mistakes, inaccuracies and outright lies are disseminated, despite the supposed editorial checks and balances. Just ask Dan Rather about that one!

Unlike mainstream media, bloggers can use reader feedback to create an immediacy in the area of accurancy that is comporable to the immediacy of the content generation.

This raises an interesting point about the community aspects of the blogosphere. Because a writer will attract a group of regular and semi-regular readers to his/her site, a certain expectation is created. The writer feels a sense of urgency to write quality material, at least occasionally. The readers give feedback via email, or comments. BTW, don’t be shy about using the comments feature in order to provide feedback on what I write. You can post anonymously if you don’t have an account with Blogger. Or, you can register and post by name.

All of this creates the type of give and take that the best blogs possess. I don’t claim to be a world-class writer, or even blogger at this point. I do offer honesty, effort, as well as a commitment to being accurate, however. To be anything else defeats the purpose of coming here and sharing my thoughts and news of the world with you.

Conspicuous consumption

I found this at Asfo_Del's blog, Living on Less; she found it at Infoshop News. The quote pretty well sums up my feelings about the narcissism that shrouds America in a fog of self-indulgence.

"To the owner of the Ford Excursion who implores us to "Support Our Troops" I say this: 'You, sir (or madam), are a monumental jackass. At this moment, American troops are risking their lives to protect your inalienable right to live your life in an impenetrable fog of selfishness and stupidity....' I sometimes wonder if anything short of dynamite can shatter your complacent fantasy that the Iraq war is about bringing democracy to the Middle East. The truth is that every Arab from Casablanca to Khartoum could be cutting his brother's throat, and yet this would remain a matter of indifference to our government if not for the need to ensure that you will be able to fill your Excursion with cheap gasoline. To expect others to sacrifice everything for you, while advertising by your own behavior that you will sacrifice exactly nothing for them, is the height of political and social immorality. And to do so while claiming your political views are an expression of "moral values" is an obscene joke."

American acquiescence

My wife and I watched the documentary, Super Size Me this weekend. In this film, producer/director Morgan Spurlock becomes the equivalent of a human guinea pig, ingesting McDonald’s food for 30 days.

To say the results are scary would be an understatement. From the rapid weight gain and elevated cholesterol levels in his blood, to the other physical changes occurring in his body, Spurlock shows the Russian Roulette that Americans are playing by consuming unhealthy food.

Watching this movie over the weekend, coupled with an excellent article by Wendell Berry in Orion Magazine, made me realize afresh how corporate culture is destroying the America that I grew up in.

Berry, farmer, writer, poet and essayist, is one of America’s prophetic voices. Crying out like the biblical Elijah, Berry has pointed out that the death of our rural towns and areas of our country signal the death of our unique culture. Berry continues to sound the call for ordinary people to take their communities back from the greedy interlopers ensconced in the corporate suites.

In Spurlock’s documentary, he made the connection between the increase in obesity and the increase in the consumption of fast food, particularly the McDonald’s variety. As obesity has increased, so have the subsequent diseases accompanying it. Heart disease, stroke, hypertension—all of these have increased mortality rates.

What Americans have done is to take part in a Faustian pact with the devil—we’ve traded our small town centers for Wal-Mart and its Chinese merchandise (junk?). We’ve decided that rather than cook our own foods, that are healthier for us, we’ll consume foods laden with sodium, preservatives and saturated fat. We’ve decided that we’ll plop our kids in front of the television six to eight hours per day and then, we wonder why he/she has attention deficit disorders and can’t read.

We’ve spent the past two years bombing the hell out of innocent civilians and decimating their country in Iraq, yet we don’t give two shits about the enemies within our own gates. Rather than railing against homosexuality, bare breasted singers, and profanity in our rock lyrics, maybe the moral purveyors could focus on the real enemies of the people before it’s too late (if it isn’t already?).

It always amazes me how religious leaders, particularly of the conservative stripe, spend the majority of their time attacking the sins of “the flesh”. They have little compunction at all however about not attacking greed, avarice and the havoc foisted upon Americans by the corporate warlords. They continue to do what religious men have done throughout history—provide a cover for those in power to continue to exploit the rest of us.

Bill O'Reilly: Bully and hate-monger

Bill O’Reilly has a strong and devoted following. While O’Reilly claims he’s non-ideological, this is an obvious ruse to anyone who analyzes his nightly right-wing diatribes. With his prime time spot in Fox’s nightly lineup and an additional two hours of radio in many markets across the country, O’Reilly commands a sizeable audience.

While O’Relly dares to promote himself as an objective journalist, he actually is a demagogue—a rather ugly and vicious one at that. O’Reilly regularly attacks his guests on his nightly radio and television shows. Anyone willing to challenge O’Reilly, particularly the more intellectually adept guests, receive the harshest treatment.

Some would argue that this is all part of his persona to garner ratings and an audience. I would counter by saying that O’Reilly is a man who has spent his life bullying and intimidating people and getting away with it.

During the past year, I witnessed a particularly ugly exchange involving O’Reilly and Al Franken. Poor Molly Ivins was on a panel with O’Reilly and Franken to discuss their new books. Each one got about 20 minutes to discuss their works and apparently, O’Reilly thought Franken went on too long and that his subject matter, the lying liars in his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, came a little too close to home for O’Reilly’s taste. For all of C-Span’s viewers, O’Reilly showed himself to be the thin-skinned bully that he really is. All 6’5” of his frame puffed itself up and he began yelling and pointing at Franken. Franken, who stands less than 6 feet, put on his best smart-aleck smirk, which just made O’Reilly crazier. I realized that day what a thug and intimidator this right-wing hate-monger really is. Poor Ivins did her best to try to mediate, but O’Reilly just kept on telling Franken to “shut up.” I seriously thought that the two might come to fisticuffs on live television.

Since then, O’Reilly has attacked the poor, blaming their lack of wealth on their laziness, regularly insulted intellectually superior members of the media for their criticism of President Bush and the war in Iraq, and then, sexually harassed a co-worker (who he consequently tried to intimidate into silence). Now O’Reilly is focusing his hate and vitriol at both Media Matters and Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti Defamation League. Their crimes? Daring to take O’Reilly to task for the remarks he made on his December 3 Radio Factor about Christmas to a caller during the program.

A caller on the December 3 Radio Factor objected to "Christmas going into schools" and explained that he "grew up with a resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to Christianity," O'Reilly informed him that the United States is "a predominantly Christian nation" and declared, "if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then." O'Reilly labeled the caller's concerns "an affront to the majority," insisting that "the majority can be insulted too." In his letter protesting the comments, Foxman wrote, among other things, that O'Reilly's comment "plays into one of the oldest anti-Semitic canards about Jews, that they are not full citizens of a country and are not entitled to all of the rights afforded to the majority."

The ever-indignant O’Reilly of course resorted to his usual shtick whenever anyone questions his integrity—lashing out and impugning the character of his attackers. O’Reilly, the self-appointed champion of Joe-sixpack and the guardianof all things virtuous, must annihilate any enemies. Agreeing to disagree wouldn’t be subtle enough for the self-declared protector of the journalistic profession.

While O’Reilly claims he was quoted out of context, it is in the full context provided by Media Matters that one can see the ugly ideology of people like him.

Jesus: Too controversial for executives

There are a handful of columnists and op ed writers that I never fail to read. While a good op ed writer will pen columns that make you think, some rise above the pack and consistently produce superior writing. Pulitzer prize-winning op ed columnist Leonard Pitts occupies the upper echelons of opinion writing. Week in and week out, Pitts challenges me, makes me laugh, makes me angry, but best of all—he makes me think—and thinking gets harder and harder each day for a variety of reasons, the least of which is the pervasive nature American groupthink.

You can have your Cal Thomas columns, as well as George Will; these men are nothing but apologists for the masters in the corporate suites. I’ll take Pitts, not because he’s some lackey for the left, but a writer who is gifted enough to transcend ideology.

His most recent column, “Church’s Call For Unity Turns Off Networks” is another that doesn't disappoint. Writing about his denomination, the very open and affirming United Church of Christ (UCC), Pitts is perplexed about a commercial offered by the UCC that was refused airing by the two of the major three networks—NBC and CBS have refused to accept if for airing. CBS cites that it considers the spot “advocacy advertising” and it violates their “long-standing policy” against such advertising. Ah, the moral-crusading corporate media watchdogs. Makes you get all warm and fuzzy inside.

Both of these corporate entities deemed the ad too controversial to air. Controversial? Here’s the ad: Two bouncers working a rope line in front of a church. They turn away a gay couple and what appears to be a Hispanic man and a black girl. A white family is allowed to pass. The text onscreen says, ''Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we.'' A narrator closes the ad, speaking over a montage of old people, white people, black people, Hispanic people, lesbian people, human people.

As Pitts muses in his column, “I mean, work with me here. The maggot eaters of Fear Factor are evidently OK to broadcast. Janet Jackson's nipple somehow makes it to the air. Two half-naked vixens can even wrestle in a pool, arguing over whether their beer tastes great or is less filling. But a commercial that says only that God's love includes us all is too controversial to show?!”

Controversial indeed! I’ll add to Pitts thoughts that I saw an extremely racy ad for Victoria’s secret that bordered on the pornographic during prime time last night. I got to leave early from work due to lack of orders, so I came home, made my dinner and was watching a Seinfeld re-run on TBS when the ad appeared. Yes, controversial only when the executives deem it so.

One other point I want to make and I’ll be on my way; Pitts mentions a study that indicates that many people no longer attend church due to being “angry and alienated.” I confess to experiencing both of these emotions while attending denominational churches, plus several others. It seems logical that the one place that should feel inclusive is church—I mean Xian denominations claim to be following the message of Jesus. Now if Jesus was one thing, it would be inclusive. How else do you explain his embracing the outcasts of his day—the lepers, prostitutes, the Samarian woman at the well—all of which got him hated and eventually killed, by the hypocrites of his day.

Here’s Pitts column in its entirety.