The Battle to influence Your thoughts. Rev. Wright, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton
Earthwalker
May 05, 2008
How do you think the repetition of cable news coverage influences YOUR perception of reality? It is very probable that you are one of those that still have the ability to do critical thinking for yourself. You may be able to clearly see how the voices in the media have abandoned any attempt to remain neutral, unbiased and non-judgmental. It may bother you when you hear someone TELL you how you think, how you FEEL about an issue. You may have heard one of the talking heads recklessly throw you in a categorical box with others of your age group, gender, race, income bracket, religion or political ideology. Then immediately follow with some stereotypical assertion. You may realize how they sound so matter-of-fact. No hesitation. No acknowledgment whatsoever that there ARE other views, directions, possibilities or options.
The dissemination of information is a huge responsibility. I would even assert that the human sensory perceptions of hearing and sight are thee most significant tools we posses as a means to form our sense of reality. The information we hear and see becomes the way each of us view reality. My simplistic opinion but I believe to be generally accurate.
If the aforementioned opinion is mostly agreeable with you, then how about taking an easy test to see if what you sense makes sense.
For instance, does Senator Obama's appearance define his racial categorization , or does his actual genealogical heritage take precedence?
If a man of Asian decent impregnates a woman of European decent, what racial label do we affix to the child?
If this same child were raised by the Asian father and his family, would we ignore that fact and insist that he/she is white?
If you were taught to believe that a person's racial category is defined solely by skin color, would you ignore your own heritage if, let's say, a grandchild was conceived by an offspring and someone of another skin tone?
Do you know what continent mankind originated from?
If the human specie was created by or evolved from 'something', wouldn't we ALL have an ancestral, genetic or blood-oriented commonality?
Before I change direction, in fairness I must divulge that my own issues are intertwined with the previous line of questions. Being that I am of dark complexion and of African, French and Native American heritage, I too have been categorized and prejudged according to my outward appearance. When I was a child, the thought that a skin head or clan member could aggressively hate me even though it was quite plausible that he and I were more closely related by blood than the person standing next to him, didn't make sense. Hate didn't make sense. A blind and irrational belief of hatred for a categorical group, was till then, not a part of my reality. I would wonder as an inquisitive child does, "why do they hate me?" "Why do they hate all people that look like me?" The mind of a child seeks answers. At times, a child learns things that lead to even more questions. Wanting to learn, wanting to know. At times a child learns things that have no rational answer. No place to 'file' this newest information. No prior exposure, no similar experience that could assist in understanding. In an attempt to bring to an end my successive queries, I was told,
"Son, it just is."
Or, was.
That is where we are. Still trying to learn or unlearn the relevance and rationality of race.
Rev. Wright has recently been thrust onto our public airwaves. The television news and radio talk show coverage of his comments have intentionally decided to ignore the historic reality that gave birth to his content and focused our attention in a present day context. However rational or irrational Rev. Wright's opinions are, why has the main stream media made a decision to repeat the most inflammatory segments?
You can imagine the lengthy meetings that news agencies conduct in order to maximize their ability to attract viewers. Management and editorial staff deciding what to 'air' , must be a critical aspect of each media outlet. I admit to possessing no factual knowledge of the formula that news outlets and talk radio use when deciding how to use their air time, but it doesn't take a genius to see some of the probable scenarios. I'm guessing that stories that are racially, politically, or sexually inflammatory. Or contain violence, destruction, emotional conflict, duress or death . This is by far not a complete or factual list, but you too have seen or heard the topics chosen.
Now we can add 'uncomfortable theological comments' to the list. You would think that the major media sources have ample staff that could creatively find ways to retain the interest of their potential viewers. You wouldn't think that 7 straight days of the same recorded comments, one sided commentary from the host and predictable responses from supposed expert guests, is what they came up with.
I'm again at a point of indecision. When attempting to settle my position on why most of the media conglomerates have fixated on the Rev. Wright 'story' (using the term story very loosely) I get stuck floating back and forth between 2 possible motives.
They have found an inflammatory topic deemed controversial enough to drag it out as long as possible. 'Just keep bringing on fresh faces to reply to the same questions'. (Somewhat like the attention whores on the Jerry Springer show. You have a pretty good idea where this is headed)
This second possibility requires a level of complicity that involves 'the story', an agenda and a sequence of actions that intentionally manipulate the direction of the flock. It is a bit dramatic and admittedly leaning toward a conspiracy theory, but I can't ignore the fact that all parties involved are extremely intelligent. I can't imagine that Rev. Wright, one of his fellow Pastors or someone in his circle weren't able to foresee the array of possible reactions to his speaking tour. Someone, or he himself, should have known that the timing of such a controversial topic could be detrimental to Senator Obama's presidential campaign. I also have a problem divorcing the media outlets in question, from the ability to rationalize the possible reactions to cyclical airings per day, 7 days in a row (and counting) and how the decision to do so might influence voters in the upcoming months and in November. There is no way anyone can convince me that neither Rev. Wright or the media outlets did not at least contemplate the fact that their actions could have an affect on the election process presently underway.
And then there's Senator Clinton. After 8 years of an administration that is notorious for bending the truth, I am not willing to vote for someone that really has a problem recalling the factual events (like her recollection of her visit to Bosnia), or exposed us to the way she intends to deal with the truth.
When we look at how the present administration deals with the truth, and how they expected that you and I would passively remain in the flock, we better make sure the next shepherd we choose is trustworthy. Or we may not just end up close to the edge, but we could actually loose our footing, our homes, our cars and our inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The dissemination of information is a huge responsibility. I would even assert that the human sensory perceptions of hearing and sight are thee most significant tools we posses as a means to form our sense of reality. The information we hear and see becomes the way each of us view reality. My simplistic opinion but I believe to be generally accurate.
If the aforementioned opinion is mostly agreeable with you, then how about taking an easy test to see if what you sense makes sense.
For instance, does Senator Obama's appearance define his racial categorization , or does his actual genealogical heritage take precedence?
If a man of Asian decent impregnates a woman of European decent, what racial label do we affix to the child?
If this same child were raised by the Asian father and his family, would we ignore that fact and insist that he/she is white?
If you were taught to believe that a person's racial category is defined solely by skin color, would you ignore your own heritage if, let's say, a grandchild was conceived by an offspring and someone of another skin tone?
Do you know what continent mankind originated from?
If the human specie was created by or evolved from 'something', wouldn't we ALL have an ancestral, genetic or blood-oriented commonality?
Before I change direction, in fairness I must divulge that my own issues are intertwined with the previous line of questions. Being that I am of dark complexion and of African, French and Native American heritage, I too have been categorized and prejudged according to my outward appearance. When I was a child, the thought that a skin head or clan member could aggressively hate me even though it was quite plausible that he and I were more closely related by blood than the person standing next to him, didn't make sense. Hate didn't make sense. A blind and irrational belief of hatred for a categorical group, was till then, not a part of my reality. I would wonder as an inquisitive child does, "why do they hate me?" "Why do they hate all people that look like me?" The mind of a child seeks answers. At times, a child learns things that lead to even more questions. Wanting to learn, wanting to know. At times a child learns things that have no rational answer. No place to 'file' this newest information. No prior exposure, no similar experience that could assist in understanding. In an attempt to bring to an end my successive queries, I was told,
"Son, it just is."
Or, was.
That is where we are. Still trying to learn or unlearn the relevance and rationality of race.
Rev. Wright has recently been thrust onto our public airwaves. The television news and radio talk show coverage of his comments have intentionally decided to ignore the historic reality that gave birth to his content and focused our attention in a present day context. However rational or irrational Rev. Wright's opinions are, why has the main stream media made a decision to repeat the most inflammatory segments?
You can imagine the lengthy meetings that news agencies conduct in order to maximize their ability to attract viewers. Management and editorial staff deciding what to 'air' , must be a critical aspect of each media outlet. I admit to possessing no factual knowledge of the formula that news outlets and talk radio use when deciding how to use their air time, but it doesn't take a genius to see some of the probable scenarios. I'm guessing that stories that are racially, politically, or sexually inflammatory. Or contain violence, destruction, emotional conflict, duress or death . This is by far not a complete or factual list, but you too have seen or heard the topics chosen.
Now we can add 'uncomfortable theological comments' to the list. You would think that the major media sources have ample staff that could creatively find ways to retain the interest of their potential viewers. You wouldn't think that 7 straight days of the same recorded comments, one sided commentary from the host and predictable responses from supposed expert guests, is what they came up with.
I'm again at a point of indecision. When attempting to settle my position on why most of the media conglomerates have fixated on the Rev. Wright 'story' (using the term story very loosely) I get stuck floating back and forth between 2 possible motives.
They have found an inflammatory topic deemed controversial enough to drag it out as long as possible. 'Just keep bringing on fresh faces to reply to the same questions'. (Somewhat like the attention whores on the Jerry Springer show. You have a pretty good idea where this is headed)
This second possibility requires a level of complicity that involves 'the story', an agenda and a sequence of actions that intentionally manipulate the direction of the flock. It is a bit dramatic and admittedly leaning toward a conspiracy theory, but I can't ignore the fact that all parties involved are extremely intelligent. I can't imagine that Rev. Wright, one of his fellow Pastors or someone in his circle weren't able to foresee the array of possible reactions to his speaking tour. Someone, or he himself, should have known that the timing of such a controversial topic could be detrimental to Senator Obama's presidential campaign. I also have a problem divorcing the media outlets in question, from the ability to rationalize the possible reactions to cyclical airings per day, 7 days in a row (and counting) and how the decision to do so might influence voters in the upcoming months and in November. There is no way anyone can convince me that neither Rev. Wright or the media outlets did not at least contemplate the fact that their actions could have an affect on the election process presently underway.
And then there's Senator Clinton. After 8 years of an administration that is notorious for bending the truth, I am not willing to vote for someone that really has a problem recalling the factual events (like her recollection of her visit to Bosnia), or exposed us to the way she intends to deal with the truth.
When we look at how the present administration deals with the truth, and how they expected that you and I would passively remain in the flock, we better make sure the next shepherd we choose is trustworthy. Or we may not just end up close to the edge, but we could actually loose our footing, our homes, our cars and our inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Print
Email
