05
Aug
2003
Let's look at the current headlines for a moment.
Kobe Bryant's alleged criminal conduct. The alleged rape might have deserved a brief mention at the time the complaint was filed, but the news stations continue to make it the top story, complete with legal strategies and in-depth analysis of such. But how is this remotely news? More importantly, who cares?! My guess is that most of America couldn't care less. We've had enough of some poor-thing athlete in trouble, whose alleged criminal conduct only appears to elevate his celebrity status.
Episcopal Church allowing a gay bishop into its ranks. While this certainly qualifies as news, its handling leaves much to be desired. The issue is tagged as the church's "controversy," but there is no debate being had as to what that controversy entails. We listen to countless opinions, almost always doggedly either for or against. Therefore, the main theme viewers are exposed to is the "rift" an affirmative vote will cause. Meanwhile, there is an absolute canyon of information in between and nobody is bothering to even take a peek. There is no question that the issue is deeply complex and huge in scope. But why not take this opportunity to put it on the table and examine all viewpoints? Start from scratch.
Most gay individuals will tell you that being gay is not an option; it is who and what they are. Imagine if circumstances were reversed and same-sex relationships were the norm. If you were heterosexual, society condemned you, even persecuted you. Is there anything you could do to change your sexual preference to accommodate your peers? How would you convert your sexual proclivity to a different gender, your same gender? Could you somehow force yourself to be attracted to your same sex? Most of us could not. Yet this is what we demand of homosexuals. It is somewhat misleading to state the homosexual issue as "sexual preference" because while it is so, it suggests a choice in the matter. The only choice gays have is to ignore their sexuality altogether, and that is an unreasonable expectation.
Society needs to explore homosexuality in terms of the human condition. It is a matter for science first and foremost. The church is shortsighted in condemning the gay population solely based on a handful of biblical scriptures. I wonder about the context of these. There is much in the Bible that the church ignores either to accommodate more modern times or out of respect for the social context in which it was written. Morally speaking, when you compare the few times homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible with the thousands of times that tolerance, compassion, understanding, and love of each other are mentioned, the moral directive seems clear enough.
Assuming there would be a terrible rift in the church if it votes in an openly gay bishop, the question is: Why? What is the actual fallout of this? What are heterosexuals afraid of? Is this a matter of law? Are we on a slippery slope to create special laws for specific groups? Why are such laws necessary in the first place? Gays are fighting for legal marriages because their unions aren't recognized as such. Why not? Where is the disconnect between civil rights and human rights? Where was the gender card originally played in terms of lawmaking? But again, what is the fallout if gays had equal rights under the law? Why aren't we asking, and at least attempting to answer, these crucial questions? If we did, now that would be news!
The state of the economy. Big news, except the news stations aren't delivering. My fear is that it would require critical-thinking skills apparently lacking in the current anchors and sanctioned pundits. Americans are deliberately being shut out and shielded from this vital information. My bet is that this is done to keep fear at bay, so consumers will continue to spend. The stock market would be especially hurt if investors slowed down any more than they have because of lack of confidence due to the recent exposure of rampant corporate deception and fraud, exposure of criminal conduct that has gone unaddressed with virtually no consequences for the perpetrators involved. Confidence will never be restored until these thieves are held criminally accountable. Congress can make all the laws in the world, but until they are enforced with the full weight of our legal system, such efforts will not make much difference in the level of confidence of Americans.
Meanwhile, let's not forget that CNN has a completely separate 24-hour international news broadcast for the rest of the world. Americans see their very own 24-hour entertainment broadcast posing as news. The difference in the two stations' relevance is profound. Believe it or not, the international version is still discussing bin Laden, still examining the consequences of America's war with Iraq in terms of its economy and how it impacts the global economy. Oil is a big theme everywhere but here. Why? Why? Why?!
Certain economic indicators point to a slow recovery in the economy, yet the unemployment rate is up at approximately 6.2 percent. Greenspan has lowered the interest rate 13 consecutive times. Who has benefited the most from this? Are corporations able to reduce their payments and meet their debt obligations as a result? But if this interest adjustment is the only thing between failing and succeeding for some corporations, is it enough to allow management to fix the systemic problems that are otherwise occurring, or is it just a short-term fix so that banks don't have to foreclose? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of various economic indicators that deserve our scrutiny, information that should be considered "need to know," which is the short definition of "news."
E-mail the news stations with your concerns. By accessing their Web sites, you can e-mail them directly from there. Believe it or not, your opinion matters. With just one e-mail at a time, we consumers can make a difference. It starts with you.
www.wqad.com (ABC)
www.whbf.com (CBS)
www.kljb.com (Fox)
www.kwqc.com (NBC)
www.msnbc.com
www.cnn.com
www.foxnews.com
www.abcnews.com
www.nbcnews.com
www.cbsnews.com
www.c-span.com
Episcopal Church allowing a gay bishop into its ranks. While this certainly qualifies as news, its handling leaves much to be desired. The issue is tagged as the church's "controversy," but there is no debate being had as to what that controversy entails. We listen to countless opinions, almost always doggedly either for or against. Therefore, the main theme viewers are exposed to is the "rift" an affirmative vote will cause. Meanwhile, there is an absolute canyon of information in between and nobody is bothering to even take a peek. There is no question that the issue is deeply complex and huge in scope. But why not take this opportunity to put it on the table and examine all viewpoints? Start from scratch.
Most gay individuals will tell you that being gay is not an option; it is who and what they are. Imagine if circumstances were reversed and same-sex relationships were the norm. If you were heterosexual, society condemned you, even persecuted you. Is there anything you could do to change your sexual preference to accommodate your peers? How would you convert your sexual proclivity to a different gender, your same gender? Could you somehow force yourself to be attracted to your same sex? Most of us could not. Yet this is what we demand of homosexuals. It is somewhat misleading to state the homosexual issue as "sexual preference" because while it is so, it suggests a choice in the matter. The only choice gays have is to ignore their sexuality altogether, and that is an unreasonable expectation.
Society needs to explore homosexuality in terms of the human condition. It is a matter for science first and foremost. The church is shortsighted in condemning the gay population solely based on a handful of biblical scriptures. I wonder about the context of these. There is much in the Bible that the church ignores either to accommodate more modern times or out of respect for the social context in which it was written. Morally speaking, when you compare the few times homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible with the thousands of times that tolerance, compassion, understanding, and love of each other are mentioned, the moral directive seems clear enough.
Assuming there would be a terrible rift in the church if it votes in an openly gay bishop, the question is: Why? What is the actual fallout of this? What are heterosexuals afraid of? Is this a matter of law? Are we on a slippery slope to create special laws for specific groups? Why are such laws necessary in the first place? Gays are fighting for legal marriages because their unions aren't recognized as such. Why not? Where is the disconnect between civil rights and human rights? Where was the gender card originally played in terms of lawmaking? But again, what is the fallout if gays had equal rights under the law? Why aren't we asking, and at least attempting to answer, these crucial questions? If we did, now that would be news!
The state of the economy. Big news, except the news stations aren't delivering. My fear is that it would require critical-thinking skills apparently lacking in the current anchors and sanctioned pundits. Americans are deliberately being shut out and shielded from this vital information. My bet is that this is done to keep fear at bay, so consumers will continue to spend. The stock market would be especially hurt if investors slowed down any more than they have because of lack of confidence due to the recent exposure of rampant corporate deception and fraud, exposure of criminal conduct that has gone unaddressed with virtually no consequences for the perpetrators involved. Confidence will never be restored until these thieves are held criminally accountable. Congress can make all the laws in the world, but until they are enforced with the full weight of our legal system, such efforts will not make much difference in the level of confidence of Americans.
Meanwhile, let's not forget that CNN has a completely separate 24-hour international news broadcast for the rest of the world. Americans see their very own 24-hour entertainment broadcast posing as news. The difference in the two stations' relevance is profound. Believe it or not, the international version is still discussing bin Laden, still examining the consequences of America's war with Iraq in terms of its economy and how it impacts the global economy. Oil is a big theme everywhere but here. Why? Why? Why?!
Certain economic indicators point to a slow recovery in the economy, yet the unemployment rate is up at approximately 6.2 percent. Greenspan has lowered the interest rate 13 consecutive times. Who has benefited the most from this? Are corporations able to reduce their payments and meet their debt obligations as a result? But if this interest adjustment is the only thing between failing and succeeding for some corporations, is it enough to allow management to fix the systemic problems that are otherwise occurring, or is it just a short-term fix so that banks don't have to foreclose? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of various economic indicators that deserve our scrutiny, information that should be considered "need to know," which is the short definition of "news."
E-mail the news stations with your concerns. By accessing their Web sites, you can e-mail them directly from there. Believe it or not, your opinion matters. With just one e-mail at a time, we consumers can make a difference. It starts with you.
www.wqad.com (ABC)
www.whbf.com (CBS)
www.kljb.com (Fox)
www.kwqc.com (NBC)
www.msnbc.com
www.cnn.com
www.foxnews.com
www.abcnews.com
www.nbcnews.com
www.cbsnews.com
www.c-span.com
