I've tried to focus on the stories that are being missed and the idea
of presenting other viewpoints. (Of course often the same thing.) I I
did make a difference once with coverage of the demonstrations before
the war--some meat (reasons for the demonstrations) was added to the
stories at least a couple of times instead of the focus on totally
irrelevant facts and observations. But I have found that reporters
come and go so fast that one step up and two steps back seems to be the
Reading the letters to the editor in this morning's San Diego Union
Tribune, I was struck by the immense challenge the truth faces. Three
out of eight letters under the heading, Terrorists, Iraq and the Press,
declared (in response to the 9/11 commission's finding that there was
no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attack) that the
administration had not claimed that he had anything to do with 9/11.
True as far as the word "claimed" went. But in that case the thought
should arise, how did 79%, or whatever it was, of the American public
believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Obviously
these folks would rather not think but accept the surface facts that
bombard them or those that fit their ideological bent. Yes, we all
fall prey to such tactics. So how does the truth bloom?
These folks do not change their mind by being exposed to the ideas and
facts of a contrary view. I guess time and the way events play out
eventually help change those whose minds are not set in concrete.
Especially when disaster strikes them. Then I would say that a change
is often an emotional response not a logical conclusion from the facts.
American schools have much to answer for in this area. Churning out
compliant, complacent worker bees does not require including logical
thinking in the curriculum.
I am trying to figure out where my energies could make the most
difference. I suppose I shouldn't be wasting my time on that but just
hopping to. After all every little bit helps. But recently I decided
I have to cut back on the time I spend on reading and writing because I
was becoming glued to the damn computer which is not good for my
health. So I have been trying to figure out how to optimize my effort.
On Saturday, June 19, 2004, at 04:54 AM, Doug Brugge wrote:
> I've spent a lot of time proding the ombudsman at the Boston Globe,
> along with a colleague of mine, but she inists on putting all her
> energy into trivial little mistakes and controversies and ignoring the
> really big issues.