Only Human...

I’m only human, of course… like everybody else. I had relaxed in my motel room for the evening and turned on the tube for a weather update before the inevitable nap kicked in. A local station came on first, and that walk-in bath commercial with Terry Bradshaw taking a bubble soaking was on... Their weather forecast was said to be coming up next, though; so, I decided to just get their take on things.

Usually a good idea, because locals seem a little less focused on drama and reporting mostly ‘devastation’, plus, naturally, local forecasts have more relevance to my personal needs than what might be going on with the wildfires in California or the flooding in New England, as significant as those are… Unfortunately, no ‘devastation’, little to no 'local' coverage on the 'all weather' channels.

I then stayed with those folks to also gain a little ‘local color’ on what might be going on in town… Soon, however, programing inevitably switched to the national news. Naturally the lead story was something awful about the president, followed by more breaking revelations about other ‘atrocities’ committed by his gang of thugs and criminals. Really? Are he and his subordinates possibly that evil?

I switched to an alternative news source, and the stories were of all the successes and wonderful things the incredible chief political leader and his amazing, highly competent team are accomplishing… Really? Are he and his team possibly that good?

How can it be possible for reasonably well-educated, arguably intelligent on-camera personalities to take the identical ‘facts’ and draw such diametrically opposed conclusions? Can the explanation be as simple as one group being moral and righteous, while the other is evil and sinister? Could it be they all are actually performing just like ordinary human beings…?

I wondered about that… throughout the remainder of the evening and again the following day while gliding along on our girl. I do that a lot, and it’s one of the principle reasons I don’t, and won’t, ride aggressively any more… Nowadays, I enjoy thinking about stuff broadly far more than I do highly focused technical riding and momentary adrenaline rushes… Riding for this trekker has become more about the spiritual journey and the intellectual stimulation and far less of a sport for thrill-seeking and distraction from the problems and challenges of everyday life, as it clearly had been at a different stage of my life.

After much thought, I concluded the differences I’d observed the evening before were matters of refraction and marksmanship. When we begin to consider and interrupt 'new' information, we start from the platform of our 'base', as we habitually do; that is, with 'the essential truth’, the important, relevant ‘basic facts’, the ‘fundamental reality’. We can then sift through large bodies of information and other inputs and discount or cull the bits and pieces that don’t agree with our basic, 'accurate' understanding, and we can latch onto those that do support our ‘correct views’.

It’s all out there, so this is not a particularly difficult chore. In time, we stitch together conclusive proof our original thesis, that base platform, was absolutely correct all along… We can then pat ourselves on the back and feel good about our astute acumen and moral superiority. How can those who see things differently than we do be so wrong? Are they simply stupid, morally bankrupt, or just totally ignorant?

All inputs and bits of information are filtered through our own very personal, unique belief and value systems. Those new ‘shards of information light’ are refracted through the prism of our perception of reality, our unique 'logic of life'. Those things that fall within our 'truth spectrum', that seem to ring true, are believed and absorbed, while those that don’t ring true are ‘exposed’ as false and dismissed immediately.

True objectivity requires the extremely difficult, nearly impossible task of somehow stepping out from behind our prisms and viewing things in a completely honest, unbiased way… including serious and fair consideration of seemingly antithetical views. That starts with a basic question of ourselves: Am I searching for the unknown truth about an important subject; or, do I merely seek validation of what I already ‘think must be true’?

Rare in the best of times, virtually non-existent in times of high polarization and outright interpersonal warfare. No time for that high-minded stuff now, we’ve got an offence and defense to mount! Infidels to straighten out! Societal virtue to rescue!

Starting out with ‘the answer’ then searching only for ‘facts’ that confirm our correctness reminds me of shooting the gun first, then painting a target around the bullet hole. We can get a bullseye every time that way… However, have we really proven our superior marksmanship? We can have greater confidence in the ‘correctness’ of our views and maintain the façade of 'intellectual' this way, but only if we're willing to ignore that obvious flaw in our analysis. HINT: No person, place, or thing is all good or entirely bad! Those professing such expose their own shallowness of thinking...

Seeking the truth wherever that may lead us, even if it’s to the conclusion we were completely wrong initially, is far more difficult. Part of the frustration is that the vast body of evidence is usually overflowing with items vague and indistinct, often conflicting and contradicting, almost always overwhelming in sheer volume, yet so very elusive by us having to cypher out the nuggets from the mass of jumbled, confusing inputs… all the while withholding judgement. ‘Cherry-picking correct items' is just simply a much easier process. We take the easy way by choosing to accept whatever agrees with our already formed ideas or is in our own particular best interest.

News people are human beings… and therefore flawed and imperfect just like each of us. They are subject to the same weaknesses, predispositions, and flaws in ‘reasoning’ as are all of the rest of us. Is it reasonable then to expect any more from them than we do ourselves? One could convincingly argue that it is reasonable… however...

The so-called ‘fourth estate’ has been afforded special protections and priorities by our founders, precisely so they could function as a check on power. They are to be the institution offering alternative sources of information, and in particular by serving as the 'gatekeepers of truth'; thereby, holding those who control the reins of power accountable for their actions and the resultant outcomes, and to expose attempts to obscure misdeeds. To the extent they serve in this role, they perform a critical and highly valuable service to the citizenry.

When they allow their own predilections and human-ness to influence their conclusions and actions, on the other hand, they violate that special trust and become little more than propaganda assets of one or another ideology, political party, and/or special interest... They are then no longer referees; they have become players attempting to influence the outcome of power acquisition/maintenance. They subsequently no longer perform a valuable service; they actually do great harm to the welfare of the citizenry, because they operate from behind the mask of 'fairness'. Perhaps it is appropriate to hold them to a higher standard, but is it likely they will comply and therefore improve matters?

This is compounded by the fact humans tend to 'double-down' when their beliefs are being challenged. Particularly for 'journalists' for whom credibility and accuracy are the most prized currency, it is vital to not be exposed as 'wrong' or out of touch. Their target audience likewise wants to maintain the appearance of 'intellectual' and 'in the right', so... hardening views move inexorably towards extremes.

This movement eventually escalates into verbal warfare. When the ammunition of facts runs low, resort to hand-to-hand combat soon follows through personal insults. Neither side willing to consider they could be wrong or even that the other side might have valid points, the 'fighting' continues, and it continues to escalate. An old Chinese proverb states that: "He who resorts to violence first concedes the unworthiness of his argument." In the cyber world, I submit 'personal insults' are that violence.

Another human trait is to focus either upon motives or outcomes…depending upon whether we’re discussing 'our' own actions or those of another. Reasons, excuses, explanations, and alibis are all critically important, when we’re the one(s) being held to account for something. 'What we did' must be viewed in light of 'why we did it'. Wrong deeds aren't really wrong, if we claim to have done them for the 'right' reasons...

When another has injured or offended us, however, then our focus is squarely upon the outcome and consequence of that action, and it is perfectly acceptable to 'impute horrible motives', that is, to fabricate 'hard to deny' motives on the part of others to support our position. This tendency has spill-over effects also… but this piece has already become quite long, so I’ll leave that discussion and the extension of that line of thought for another time… along with many others, significant as they may be...

No attempt is being made here to address the impact of ambition, ego, peer pressure, personal career goals, personality types and traits, orders from higher-ups, or any of the other countless influences upon individuals, their judgements and decisions, and their conduct. Yes, 'news people' are human, to be sure, and they will act just like normal folks... regardless of standards...

Also, no consideration of the 'marketplace' is being offered. In a crowded, highly competitive arena, where 'viewership' and/or 'readership' are the only measures of success and certainly not boring precision and accuracy, or the dull truth, is it any wonder those who 'shout' the loudest or sensationalize through exaggeration and outrageous claims do what they do? The message doesn't really count if it isn't read or viewed, so drawing attention to it becomes essential, perhaps paramount.

Lastly, early influences in a person’s thinking alone can have huge impacts later in life... "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree!" We often groan at 'bias in the news media'... My question is, is it really reasonable or even realistic to expect anything else...? Yes, a convincing argument for moral and ethical responsibility can be made; however, … in the end, we're still talking about ordinary human beings... Caveat emptor!

All of this is just opinion, of course… my opinion. And, as I said at the outset, I’m only human myself and therefore flawed, so I could be completely wrong… You decide for yourself… In the meantime, our girl and I ride on...

DDT