WHAT TO BELIEVE?

14 08 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

It is palpable that the great majority of the populous reads, writes, and comprehends voluminous quantities of information. After all, compared to yesteryear, today’s mediums of dissemination are diverse in source and variable in means. So why the abrupt discrepant of meaningfulness? How can the content of an identical issue result in dissimilar interpretation?

Predetermination! A belief does not require facts, the truth of the matter, or the consideration of evidence to the contrary. A belief only requires the stubborn determination of adherence. All of us homo sapiens, seemingly, secure emotional comfort from our underlying beliefs.

Challenging our tight-fist predetermination with conflicting information respective of the empirical veracity of evidence does not automate a change of one’s predetermination. As a consequence, persuasive discourse, void of deductive logic, regresses into the counter-intuitive dilemma of irrational persistence.

The reasoning of persuasion is to initiate consensus. The presumption of achieving consensus is that such an achievement prompts a willingness to change an opinion or edit a particular predetermination… Well, not necessarily.

Words seldom change opinions or predetermination; however, they do validate existing beliefs. It is events, particularly in our hyper-technological media environment that action enables. Words trail the event. Subsequently, the first words after the event, even if inaccurate, are the most powerful — because these words expose the tone, intent, and more often than not create the ongoing basis of understanding. In this hyper-partisan political environment, like sirens to Ulysses, the tone and intent beckon one to a particular, usually ideological, perspective.  

Facts are subject to analysis, clarification, and explanation, hence versions. Truth is elusive, tenuous, and often indefinable. Nonetheless, one needs to have core beliefs. When speaking of political beliefs, one believes in a limited government or not. In, at all risks therein, individual liberty and freedom — or not. The rule of law, a nation of laws or men, the literal interpretation of the constitution or a continuum of court opinions that counter the meaningfulness of the founders.

Well, I’ve had my say, so now we can all retire to our respective corners…

Advertisements




THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS

3 08 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

The assumptive: Journalists/reporters forthrightly inform the public of a post or current account of the newsworthy happening, aftermath, or outcome. Possibly, but not necessarily so, the factoid said to the imprudent and the imprudent agreed. Adding, the factual is not relevant. Relevant, the imprudent accentuated –- are eyeballs trained on our network or newsprint. 

The application of the six W’s: who, why, when, where, what, and how. However, in today’s highly competitive media business, the means has no necessitated relevance to the facts. The guideline for success in the business of news reporting is malleability. Never let the facts abate the story’s sizzle.  Additives, such as stretching liner aspects of the story with hyperbolic insinuations or the theatrics of journalists/reporters demonstrating a clairvoyant forte, and/or media folks experimenting with mindreading psychoanalysis is the norm.

The antecedent paragraph has particular applicability to those espousing a political/ideological perspective. There is no better exhibition of the political/ideological differing as for the daily press conference presided by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The daily press conference is an unscripted highly rated reality show. The questions posed by attendees are 90 % inane — or wholly immaterial. The show’s producer should fire the show’s writers; and the director ought to focus particular attention on the animatronics of the actors posing as journalists.

But of course the press conference is a theatrical audition, a forum wherein questioners seek to provoke a newsworthy response; a place where the prize is “gotcha” questions. Embarrassing Sarah, as the cameras zoom in for the close-up, is a score for the reporter.

Seemingly, the mainstay du jour of the politically motivated liberal progressive is to disallow, limit, usurp, and disrupt. The “du jour” of the socialist activist is to implement their agenda. If the means of such implementation include financially supporting ANTIFA, subverting statutory laws, as well as defiling the laws of the land, the socialist is undeterred.

The resolve of the socialist activists in their persistence of Machiavellian principles is comparable to the tenacity of Mao and Stalin.

But the media, enthralled with Trump, his family, and their indict Trump agenda considers the ANTIFA fanatics “free speech” proponents and Trump their Bête noire.

Regarding the media’s obvious liberal progressive political/ideological bias and malleability of the facts, I consider such an irreconcilable constant. The truth of the matter wrestles with the prejudice of the observer and interpreter. The facts of the matter are a moving target, easing its way around empirical definition to the relativity of contingencies. This quandary has the ancient roots of stoics and sophists.  

Withstanding my objections to the meaningfulness of liberalism, progressivism, and socialism, I do believe their participation in the political discussion is imperative. So those of us that disagree, forbearance is a critical behavioral trait; besides, comparative analysis is logical and deductive.