Things I Want to Get Off My Chest:
A little rambling, but just some stuff I've been wanting to say:
I just spent an entire semester in mass media classes. You know: reportage.
Some 40 to 50% of the curriculum in each class centered around media ethics. Yes, they exist. They are taken very seriously, too. The senior level class on media law and ethics required me to write several legal briefs on SCOTUS decisions involving the media, like Sullivan and Hustler, to name only two of the 22 I wrote.
It often felt that's all we ever talked about: honesty. Proper sources. Named and clearly identified sources. Take no bribes, not even so much as a doughnut at the Town Hall meetings you attend and report on. Remain untainted. Report no whispers, no matter how delicious, if you cannot verify. Verify, verify, verify. Do the best job you can. Distort nothing, invent nothing. Quote accurately, and if you can't get it right, don't write.
Verify, verify, verify.
It strikes me that this is entirely the wrong way to teach and train the next generation of "lying media."
There are unethical people in every walk of life. No one wants you to believe everything you hear, 28th, just because it's on the news. Grown ups know the news spins just like everyone else. We know that news has always been, first and foremost, entertainment. You don't really expect to make life-altering decisions based solely on what you learn through entertainment, do you? Dude, the Matrix is just a movie. Dan Rather is/was just a talking head. Geraldo is a joke.
But we don't do a 180, and dogmatically resolve to believe nothing we hear on the news, no matter what. Because, you see, it isn't about belief. It's about proof. About verification. About delving into numerous sources, even conflicting sources (don't you need to see all the facets of the diamond to ensure total clarity? Mmm-hmm) to try to get the whole story. If possible.
We do the sensible, logical, rational thing: we find these other sources, and check them. We might even check the sources against still other sources.
Now, we are only human, so we can rarely spare the time to completely explore every issue to death. Those who sincerely have an interest in getting at "truth" usually try to do enough so that we're satisfied we are pretty close to soundness...and then we keep an open mind for when new information comes to us. At which point, we should be willing to re-evaluate our position, with the new info considered.
For some things, there comes a time when, still reserving that right to change our minds, we say with something fairly close to confidence that we "know" this.
For me, I feel I have already reached that point with the events of 9/11.
I am confident that the facts show that 19 Moslem Extremists, mostly Saudi nationals, hijacked four American airliners. Three of them were flown into structures, and the third crashed into a field in Penn.
The impact and subsequent fires were sufficient to cause the structural integrity of the twin WTC towers to fail. The towers collapsed, killing thousands of people. Debris from this event took out a large portion of another nearby building, and also caused fires, and that building also collapsed, several hours later.
The Pentagon was also hit by a hijacked commercial airliner. Many people died. Many were injured.
I know people can be smart, and devious, and yet inept, all at the same time. I believe my government has probably always been peopled with men who were and are largely in it for the power, "public service" not really making the tops of their lists. Not truthfully. Some are better at the "serving the people" part than others, and some stink large at it. But I hold them all at least somewhat suspect. I always have, as far as I can remember. I was a kid and a young teen during Nixon's years, and I told my Mom back in 1969, "I don't like that man. I don't trust him."
No, I do not swallow everything my government tells me. However, I do not reject out of hand everything it says, either. Both are the actions of a fool.
If any one of you could just show any proof....of LIHOP or MIHOP or some variant....any proof at all. Just one bit that I can look at and can't look away from, because there it is. A document, a scientifically conducted study, something..... But so far, nothing. Not one piece that meets my limited, simple standards.
What you CTers seem to do reminds me of taking the pieces from several jigsaw puzzles of flowers, mixing them all together, randomly tossing out about half, and then standing over the table, wearing boxing gloves and blindfolded, trying to put them together to make a picture of Queen Elizabeth. And you all wonder why we who call this forum home are at turns frustrated with and laughing our heads off at you. Often, both at once.
You sneer at us for using ad hom arguments by opening the post with an ad hom. You demand we post links to confirm what we state, then refuse to even click. You set up strawmen to falsely accuse us of setting strawmen; you fling red herrings as if it were Lent; you derail, deflect, detract, and then you run to a new thread, or open a new thread, and you do it all over again.
I like to come here like I enjoy going to the zoo. I like to stare at you, and occasionally poke at you through your bars of obstinate ignorance. I don't take any of you seriously anymore....I can't. I don't just read what's said here, you see. I go elsewhere, just as I told you a good critical thinker worth his or her salt will do. I've seen Loose Change, more than once. I wrote two news articles (for class only) on the film and the "movement."
I often read over at Loose Change Forum. I've read some of the articles you guys link to. I've given them serious consideration, and have cross-checked them.
I've tried to see it your way. I really have.
You have it wrong, so far. I am reasonably convinced you have it all wrong. I will, however, always entertain any proof you ever manage to show.
But, as usual, I'll refrain from holding my breath.
That's all. Let the poo-flinging recommence.
