Sales trainers tell us that sometimes, when objections
involve falsehoods, one must be firm. Reconciliation only goes so far. “That’s
just wrong,” we must say, if it is indeed, and we have facts to back it up.
I feel that way a lot lately. There is so much false
information being promulgated on both sides of the political spectrum.
Unfortunately, much of it flows through the so-called “hate-media” and onto
social media. I’ve never listened to or watched false news programs or hate-filled
broadcasts. Lately I’ve decided to dismiss any unsupported posting on the
internet. That’s pretty much all of them.
Call me old-fashioned, but I respect traditional journalism.
I know that it has a doctrine involving both fact-checking and verification
through multiple sources. Do they sometimes miss the mark? Certainly, we are
all human. To guard against this, I rely on multiple news sources, including
- The New York Times
- The Washington Post
- The Los Angeles Times
- The Guardian (from England)
- The Christian Science Monitor (recently recommended by a
highly-respected journalist).
Call me unfair, but I tend to disregard televised news
sources. With the death of the giants like Walter Cronkite, TV news too closely
resembles the nightmare presented in Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film “Network.” Now
we have, added into the mix, unschooled readers of the news pontificating on
highly complex matters of governance, military matters. or foreign policy, reminding us of another
great film “Broadcast News."
Life imitating art. Who in the world would have “thunk it?”
I won’t go into magazines or websites. They are out there. I
would just point out that anything posted by the Brookings Institution or Michael
Neiberg is sound and unbiased.
Just thinking. |
No comments:
Post a Comment