Reason in the Mass Media World
We live in interesting times! The information on offer is not as widespread as some would believe (most people log on and read only what they want to know!), but it’s a improvement on before, for sure. In the context of Reason, this means that the rational person has far more views to balance, far more opinions to take into consideration. Keeping control of these and staying within the realms of science and logic is therefore quite a challenge!
A major concern in this day and age is the ease with which people can now publish or broadcast material that is utterly unverified. The tabloids have become experts (front page one week; apology in small print on page 52 the next!) and have relatively little fear of rebuke or punishment.1 Just like the lobbyists we discuss in my article ‘Legalised Corruption’, money comes before pride, decency or professionalism.
Often, the truth is not quite as certain and reason is therefore the ability to form a calculated opinion. If a friend provided you with 100 statements – 99 true and 1 false – you would most likely still value their judgment and put the inaccuracy down to a mistake, or even perhaps a deliberate fudge to complete the overall picture.
However one concludes it, this is a situation we face quite often in our mass media world. A useful ‘celebrity’ example is the work of Michael Moore. The man is undoubtedly uncouth, abrupt and guilty of ‘hamming up’ his films to great effect. His interviews are not always completely fair and he most certainly edits clips to suit his argument. By any token, he is a better film-maker than investigate journalist. I do not accept, “What does it matter; it’s just a movie?!” as an excuse2.
Yet, accommodating all of this, I will stand in Moore’s defence. He has brought world attention to the disgraceful actions of President Bush; the lack of US interest in climate change; the appalling US gun laws and corrupt lobby that endorses them; the tragic state of US healthcare; and much more besides. We learn from his work and I have no issue with him making money pursuing his career, although I would certainly feel better if he tidied up (the films and his shirts).
This is ‘Big Picture Thinking’ and it’s about finding a balance. Sadly, many struggle to do that and will ‘talk the talk’ from their armchair all day long!
The Green Lobby in most countries has been immense: standing firm under ridicule for many years. I can not agree, however, with their seemingly anti-science rational behind the campaigns against GM Foods, numerous renewable energy developments and even nuclear power. I address the GM debate in ‘Entering the Brave New World of GM Crops’ and would request of the opposition groups their considered views.
The nuclear debate is a fascinating one. Many of those who marched on Greenham Common are now advocating fission energy as the only viable source of low carbon power3. There are still security (weapons, not terrorism) and storage issues, but, as a child of the 80s and 90s, I have never been sure why nuclear has had such a bad rap!
Biofuels are an energy source that provide the contrary story. Overhyped as the Earth’s savior for a short period (whilst investors piled in, land was purchased, etc) until somebody politely commented that the land was needed for food, or we’d have even bigger problems ahead.
These are just a few vignettes with the same simple conclusion: we must put our faith in science and reason and focus on the ‘big picture’. Concurrently, we must be wary of dogma; and those who go too far or act without all of the evidence being assessed. Anyone that states ‘the truth does not matter if the case is just’ is far too like a religious fanatic for my liking.
1 An interesting further debate is that over the legality of newspaper-speak. Should the paper be prosecuted if something is known to be untrue, should journalists be punished for libel more often, etc??
2 And that equally applies to the ‘movie-history’ of Pearl Harbour, Braveheart et al
3 Expanded on in Sustainable Energy
