![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hrjYes, this is a rant. You have been warned.
Whatever your opinions are about hot-button news topics, can we all agree that even brief in-passing references to those topics should not contain outright violations of objective truth?
This rant is immediately precipitated by yet another new reference to "the 17-year-old ban on gays and lesbians in the military known as 'don't ask, don't tell'". No, the ban on gays and lesbians in the military has been going on a lot longer than 17 years. We are not ending a 17-year-old policy, we are ending a policy that -- whether explicitly stated or not -- has been in place for the entire history of our country.
Here's another one. How many supposedly objective news reports casually described the recent tax-cut debate as contrasting "tax cuts for the middle class only" versus "tax cuts for the very rich"? Not merely ignoring but outright misrepresenting the fact that everyone --low, middle, or upper income -- received that first set of tax cuts?
And it isn't only the supposedly-objective media who are the offenders here. Even politicians whose objectives are undermined by the misleading shorthands spew them on a regular basis. Is it too much to ask that people THINK about what they're saying? And actually say things that make sense and align with what they are trying to communicate?
For that matter, while I'm ranting, can we stop with the fixed-formula sound-bite labels for what ought to be fuzzy, complex, nuanced topics? When you reduce a deeply considered position to a two or three word label you leave no room for discussion, partial agreement, or compromise (much as I've come to hate the "C word" these days). How can we have intelligent discussions about very real differences of opinion and approach if all we ever do is the equivalent of hitting each other over the head with protest sign slogans? There's a reason I decline to put bumper stickers on my car. (The only one I considered adding in the last few years was one that said "My opinions are too complex to fit on a bumper sticker.")
No, I don't know why I'm so grumpy today. I just am.
Whatever your opinions are about hot-button news topics, can we all agree that even brief in-passing references to those topics should not contain outright violations of objective truth?
This rant is immediately precipitated by yet another new reference to "the 17-year-old ban on gays and lesbians in the military known as 'don't ask, don't tell'". No, the ban on gays and lesbians in the military has been going on a lot longer than 17 years. We are not ending a 17-year-old policy, we are ending a policy that -- whether explicitly stated or not -- has been in place for the entire history of our country.
Here's another one. How many supposedly objective news reports casually described the recent tax-cut debate as contrasting "tax cuts for the middle class only" versus "tax cuts for the very rich"? Not merely ignoring but outright misrepresenting the fact that everyone --low, middle, or upper income -- received that first set of tax cuts?
And it isn't only the supposedly-objective media who are the offenders here. Even politicians whose objectives are undermined by the misleading shorthands spew them on a regular basis. Is it too much to ask that people THINK about what they're saying? And actually say things that make sense and align with what they are trying to communicate?
For that matter, while I'm ranting, can we stop with the fixed-formula sound-bite labels for what ought to be fuzzy, complex, nuanced topics? When you reduce a deeply considered position to a two or three word label you leave no room for discussion, partial agreement, or compromise (much as I've come to hate the "C word" these days). How can we have intelligent discussions about very real differences of opinion and approach if all we ever do is the equivalent of hitting each other over the head with protest sign slogans? There's a reason I decline to put bumper stickers on my car. (The only one I considered adding in the last few years was one that said "My opinions are too complex to fit on a bumper sticker.")
No, I don't know why I'm so grumpy today. I just am.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-19 06:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 03:53 am (UTC)I think Clinton actually thought DADT was a step in the direction of tolerance: rather than chasing you down to kick you out of the military, we're going to turn a blind eye to your sexuality as long as you don't force us to acknowledge it. But in the process, it forced thousands of military personnel to lie to their superiors and co-workers, thus becoming a security risk, in order to keep their jobs; how self-destructive is that?
[In the same way, Mohammed can be viewed as a crusader for women's rights: he decreed that two women's testimony in court was equivalent to that of one man, and that a man could have only four wives, or as many as he could support, whichever was fewer. Previously in that culture these numbers were both infinite.]
no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 04:30 am (UTC)Bonus spun-up article relating to that: http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/
no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 06:40 pm (UTC)