How Much Do We Really Know?
Tuesday, February 05, 2008 Filed in: Ideas
How much do we really know about what we think we
know? What do we know about the politicians that run
the country?
It's easy enough to say that they're all crooks, whether local, state, or federal politicians. Surely there's one or two politicians not on the take, corrupt, or involved in a sex scandal?
Adults with more than a little wisdom know a few basic, fundamental facts about life. It's better to give, than to receive. What goes up, must come down. What goes around, comes around.
And, one of my favorites, 'the more we know, the more we know less than we thought we knew.'
How much do we really know about the politicians that run the country? Most of what we know about politicians comes from what we read in the newspapers, see on television news, hear on the radio, or, increasingly for many of us in the digital age, what we read online.
In other words, we have little, if any, contact with politicians so we really don't know much about them, or their prospective replacements. Our assumptions are broad and varied and not always kind.
Yet, even politicians who are convicted of crimes or involved in hideous schemes of one kind or another, get re-elected by their constituents-- despite what the general public receives from media.
In a way, we only know what we read in the newspaper.
How accurate is the information printed in the papers, broadcast or television, or published on the internet? How accurate are our textbooks in schools?
An honest answer is simple-- we don't know. We assume that what we read or view is accurate. Is it? Then why all the scandals regarding inaccurate reporting in prestigious news media such as CBS, CNN, the New York Times, and many others?
Who monitors the monitors?
In a sense, all of us monitor those who monitor the world. When circumstances go awry, and they do, a small minority will issue forth a proclamation of noise, complaining about the issue. If the issue is worthy, it is picked up and carried by others. A cascade effect sets in, and changes occur.
Except for those times where we watch O.J. Simpson, or Anna Nicole Smith, or Paris Hilton headline the news for days at a time.
Sometimes I think that those who control what we see and hear and read don't want us to know what is really going on, so they fill us with the fodder of sensationalist, non-news events that captivate our attention spans-- for the day or two that such is possible.
It's easy enough to say that they're all crooks, whether local, state, or federal politicians. Surely there's one or two politicians not on the take, corrupt, or involved in a sex scandal?
Adults with more than a little wisdom know a few basic, fundamental facts about life. It's better to give, than to receive. What goes up, must come down. What goes around, comes around.
And, one of my favorites, 'the more we know, the more we know less than we thought we knew.'
How much do we really know about the politicians that run the country? Most of what we know about politicians comes from what we read in the newspapers, see on television news, hear on the radio, or, increasingly for many of us in the digital age, what we read online.
In other words, we have little, if any, contact with politicians so we really don't know much about them, or their prospective replacements. Our assumptions are broad and varied and not always kind.
Yet, even politicians who are convicted of crimes or involved in hideous schemes of one kind or another, get re-elected by their constituents-- despite what the general public receives from media.
In a way, we only know what we read in the newspaper.
How accurate is the information printed in the papers, broadcast or television, or published on the internet? How accurate are our textbooks in schools?
An honest answer is simple-- we don't know. We assume that what we read or view is accurate. Is it? Then why all the scandals regarding inaccurate reporting in prestigious news media such as CBS, CNN, the New York Times, and many others?
Who monitors the monitors?
In a sense, all of us monitor those who monitor the world. When circumstances go awry, and they do, a small minority will issue forth a proclamation of noise, complaining about the issue. If the issue is worthy, it is picked up and carried by others. A cascade effect sets in, and changes occur.
Except for those times where we watch O.J. Simpson, or Anna Nicole Smith, or Paris Hilton headline the news for days at a time.
Sometimes I think that those who control what we see and hear and read don't want us to know what is really going on, so they fill us with the fodder of sensationalist, non-news events that captivate our attention spans-- for the day or two that such is possible.
