Fake news, manipulations, lies, understatements, texts written under the thesis, scandals from nothing. All these terms among many news recipients of portals, tv programs or press are well known. Among the more pessimistic (or possibly realistically?) attitudeists, they associate more with journalism than specified neutral words as an article, column or reportage. Many of us want to have views, but besides not to be a typical typical of a “bubble” or a tribe who believes in the message depending on whose mouth or keyboard it comes out of, not whether it conflicts with common sense or a reality that can be observed. What can we do to gain cognition of the world, which will be as uninfected as possible with propaganda, in all the bustling of media relations with parties, the collapse of journalistic ethics and the constant being the subject of marketing and socio-technical procedures? How do we do that so that the concepts from which I started this text describe the phenomena that we will see, not the ones that we will fall victim to? I don't know if there's 1 right answer. surely there is not 1 simple and easy to apply and effortless. In my opinion, you gotta start with absolute basics.
Fundamentals, which is what I'm certain of.
I erstwhile went to a gathering with Marcin Meller as part of the promotion of his book to autobiographical fields, to the half of his earlier texts. I don't remember much of it, but 1 conviction has come to mind. Then I heard that people don't watch news shows to find out what's going on in the planet just to make themselves firm in their views. Over the years, this is possibly even more evident with the well-described creation of information bubbles or social polarisation. Besides, we can say ourselves sometimes that we get carried distant erstwhile any news goes across our established “truth” and spoils easy division into good and evil, which we besides want to present to ourselves in circumstantial public individuals. However, it can be marginally mentioned that already years ago, G.K. Chesterton (died in 1936) described the quality and deficiency of objectivity of British media stating that any media favorable to the government would describe a whale thrown on the seashore as something wonderful for England, and opposition media would find how bad this is for the state and society. Unfortunately, I see an analogy between this satire and many journalists who become advocates for politicians.
It is already a troupe that it is possible to get better money from the viewer's excitement, so in this direction the media follows. However, I would like to thin on the question of the very views in which we should assert ourselves by looking at information services. We should ask ourselves why we have such, not different views. Where did they come from and whether or not they request verification, due to the fact that their origin is not the consequence of serious consideration, but of increasing up in a circumstantial home or being in a circumstantial environment, according to the expression “who stops with whom ...”.
And here I propose you start with absolute basics, although they may seem in many environments beyond the head horizon. From asking myself what I think about the intent of life, life after death. If I have certain views to which I am convinced, this is the best basis to go to the next levels (in this case, to call these levels higher, since this is expected to be the foundation). Slowly, of course. If we have a peculiar religion (as in my case Catholic) we can specify our strategy of values, which is acceptable in relations with another people and in public or in conducting business. As well as what is unacceptable, both privately and publicly, in proportion to what should be legally prohibited and what should only be the origin of shame for individuals. If I am not full aware of my religion in social or economical matters, it would be worth uncovering out. Then you can decision on.
Level above – ideas, economics, politics
Often it is that the views on economics are more defined in people than in religion or ideas. These last 2 spheres are something that can be disposed of as abstract and focused on what lives. The first thing we'll think about is economics, money, and the distribution of goods. For various reasons, people are defined according to economical criteria. Especially young people frequently take utmost views (although I do not usage this as a negative term). Depending on the focus on a peculiar section, the young man is alternatively liberal, emphasizing the freedom to spend his own money and the unwillingness to be punished for becoming rich or paying attention to the mediocre and then he is more likely to mention to himself as supporting redistribution or socialist. Often, specified views arise from what an effective talker he will encounter. As in many another cases, generalities and clichés decide to follow a circumstantial idea. It is hard to require that everyone has large economical cognition erstwhile even well-known economists present different approaches. In the optics I would like to present here, economical views are not the most important. It is crucial that they be uncontested with a lower level, or for example, if I am a Catholic, then I should know the teaching of the Church in social matters alternatively than creating dogmas from economical theory. However, if 1 is curious in specified matters as public finances, he should arm himself with cognition of the subject, so as not to be easy deceived by seemingly consistent stories that are not based on hard data.
Policy is besides a serious and broad issue. It is simply a field with many traps. Politicians are known for lying, saying what people want to hear and what will give them applause. That makes it harder to find a organization that could represent us. And we would like to find one, assuming that: (a) we want politicians to prosecute any common good, (b) we want to choose them consciously, (c) this choice should consequence from the convergence of policy objectives with our view of reality.
In theory, it's a good thought to get to know the organization programs. Unfortunately, it's the beginning of the road. Programmes may look nice, but of course you gotta look at politicians' hands and have a memory of how they behaved erstwhile they had a greater influence on the state (especially if they had already ruled). Ideical declarations can aid alternatively to reject any parties erstwhile even in this sphere they preach something that is contrary to our values. However, an overall assessment of what can be expected from the parties and their leaders must be based on reflection of what has been done or abandoned. Listening to the statements of politicians may be a valuable indication, but knowing that they say what people want to hear, you request to be able to compare words with deeds, achievements, and frequently even have cognition or promises at all to be fulfilled. It would be good to check from a time distance what was actually done in the past years to find what policies the governments of circumstantial parties can carry out. It may turn out that the emotions that they caused along with the media did not correspond to the importance of matters (or the deficiency of specified a weight entirely) and after a fewer years we can laughter at ourselves, that we got upset or fooled by something that was not actually there. The “heating” of themes and emotions frequently makes it memorable. Through this we know well who is evil and vote for another strong against this evil.
"Turn off tv – turn on thinking"?
The popular slogan in any circles "Turn off tv – turn on thinking" is intended to be a consequence to propaganda. Without absorbing openly biased content, manipulated, selectively selected and stimulating strong emotions, we would have ensured independent reasoning and a more appropriate view of reality. Well, there's no way to disagree with this approach to any extent, but if we were to consider specified a simple method as a solution, then at most a partial one. It is actual that ‘television is lying’, but the rejection of news programmes will not give us a better thought of what is happening in the world. There are many advantages to turning off tv. little demotion, focus on your family, possibly your neighbors. We can have a calmer and healthier life. We may even be able to better measure whether prices are expanding faster at this point than in the erstwhile government, or possibly it is better in this respect. However, if we want to learn something about, for example, the war between Israel and Hamas, then the rejection of tv transmission due to its propaganda saturation will not make us get reliable information through this step. We can get information from our neighbor, the Internet, etc., but they gotta come from somewhere. We are not able to be anywhere in person, and even that would not warrant us appropriate viewing. Even as they say, a soldier on the front doesn't know very well what the full situation looks like strategically, much little operationally. In another words, we're doomed to any kind of middleman, if we want to know something that doesn't concern us directly.
Switching off tv is simply a good start. alternatively of following the “track” and getting excited unnecessarily, it is good to devote this time-saving 1 (at least for a period of time) to building up ideas to which we are convinced. He can make an assessment of his values, he can read on theological, historical, philosophical topics. It is simply a good thought to limit the number of information received and to read only a fewer short news without comment and to think about it calmly, to measure whether we are looking for “guilty” bad news besides easily. In addition, you can remember any scandals that erstwhile upset us and see what they did. It may turn out that any arrest was just a spectacular distraction, and the detainee was quietly released a long time ago.
The media like to give us circumstantial “dogmas” in which people must believe “at a certain level” and “anti-dogmas” which request to be discredited. It is worth reasoning about what constitutes specified non-negotiable fields and to find any reliable analysis of these circumstantial myths, or possibly the truths, or possibly even research. Both the absorption of specified “dogmas” and “antidogmas” on the basis of religion in what lying media call a lie is the way in the incorrect direction. Even if we sometimes find out the fact by accident is simple imitation or negation, that is not a good way of thinking. But they should be turned on.
I believe that we will not avoid propaganda, and we must choose whether we want to follow the media of the various parties to the dispute or those that approach matters like ourselves. Everyone should make their own approach to the subject. The most crucial thing is to have your views, to know where they come from, to have cognition and to take distance from the emotions that politicians and the media generate. The better you prepare yourself, the little dangerous it is to media propaganda, although it is hard to effectively defy it. And erstwhile emotion comes to mind, it may be better to halt reading and take care of “your own garden” or something more distant. Take a break, think, and just get back to the media. There's no request to be tense that journalists have opinions. They better not hide them and become advocates of politicians pretending to be impartial. It is better to read the texts of honest (even communists) than propagandaists on any side. May we be able to separate them from each other.
