I’ve been hovering around these forums for about a week, and although I’m very intimidated by the erudition of most of the regulars I think it could be fun and (hopefully) enlightening to try to contribute every once in a while. So, by way of introduction, here are a couple of questions:
My knowledge of current affairs is paltry compared to that of most (if not all) of the people posting in this forum.
I tend to gravitate toward the Left, but I have a hard time trusting sources with too much of a bias either way.
So what I want to ask is: what approach do you feel is best for learning about the sociopolitical milieu? Should I look at information from the extremes and try to glean some truth dialectically? Where do you all go for your news and historical information, and do you consider it to be truly unbiased?
I guess an underlying question here is whether there’s such a thing as an unbiased account of events - either contemporary or historical - in the first place or if the ideological coordinates of the people providing and absorbing the information necessarily subjectify their perceptions. If this is the case, what point is there to arguing? Is it the hope of changing the opponent’s mind, or is that even entirely possible if the two individuals are different enough to have interpreted the information differently in the first place?
Crap, I’m sorry, this started out as a simple question and turned into a headache.
As I pay very close attention to current events, here
is what I do, I read everything. I read blogs on the left,
blogs on the right, I read a couple of newspapers, I watch
cnn AND foxnews, (left and right) then I think about what I
see. For example, when I see terror alerts done 60 days
before an election, I ask myself, who does the terror alerts
benefit? GOPhers candidates are the logically candidates.
Always ask yourself, what does this news mean to…?
Thinking politically means thinking in terms of who does this
help and who does this hurt. Research, research, research,
that is the name of the game in understanding current news.
This makes sense. I guess in asking the question I wasn’t giving myself enough credit as a capable critical thinker. I suppose this would represent the synthetic move in the dialectical approach I mentioned.
Then look at it all objectively, and find the median. That is as close to “factual” as you can ever get with respect to politiks.
And always remember:
Politics equates to “poly”, meaning many, and “tics”, meaning blooding sucking parasites - that’s the baseline qualifier for any political “thought” or “thinking”.
Kropotkin:As I pay very close attention to current events, here
is what I do, I read everything. I read blogs on the left,
blogs on the right, I read a couple of newspapers, I watch
cnn AND foxnews, (left and right) then I think about what I
see…Thinking politically means thinking in terms of who does this
help and who does this hurt."
Brazen: This makes sense. I guess in asking the question I wasn’t giving myself enough credit as a capable critical thinker. I suppose this would represent the synthetic move in the dialectical approach I mentioned."
K: Actually the only person you need to trust is yourself.
Take certain principles and ask yourself does this news aid
or hurt this principle. For example, I take freedom as the key
principle of American society, so when I see the news I ask myself,
does this news aid freedom or hurt freedom? Now someone
else may take security as the key feature of American society,
(I think they are wrong but…) and they must ask themselves,
how does this news aid or help security? You can go several
different ways with this. Take the way you feel comfortable with.
Right on. I should worry less about who else I’m aligned with and more about figuring things out for myself based on whatever information is avaiable. That’s how new ideas are developed and expressed in the first place.
In the end, trust no one. They are all grinding one ax or another. Oh and you might sometimes come to the conclusion that you will never know. Remember that what appears to be current affairs and news is whatever they choose to print or broadcast. It just might be that what is really happening is never put before the public.
H.L. Mencken observed (in the 1930’s) that the only people who had “freedom of the press” were those who owned one…
Without a ‘healthy’ mistrust you become the fish on the media hook.
Yes, I feel this approach is a good one. Especially if you incorporate opposing views, and by this I don’t mean views from democrats and republicans, or conservatives and liberals, but truly opposing views like East and West, North and South, rich and poor.
News and historical information is always biased. The more sources from the more divergent viewpoints you incorporate the more likely you are to get to something resembling truth.
Absolutely not.
The news in the West is relatively homogeneous. Nowhere is this more evident than in the USA. This is an indicator that something is amiss with the media.
