[Neurons] 2021 Neurons #69 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEDIA'S ETHICS

[Michael Hall]

From: L. Michael Hall

2021 Neurons #69

October 18, 2021

 

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEDIA'S ETHICS

 

More than 25 years ago, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher of
Humanistic Psychology wrote several books about social problems.  He wrote
ruthless critiques about the danger and damage of the media.  This is what
he wrote in 1974 in the book The Art of Being:

"Another helpful attitude is one of one of deep distrust.  Since most of
what we hear is either plainly untrue, or half true, and half distorted, and
since most of what we read in the newspapers is distorted interpretations
served as facts, it is by far the best plan to start out with radical
skepticism and the assumption that most of what one hears is likely to be a
lie or a distortion.  If this sound too grim and cynical, I might add that I
do not man this quite literally but that I want to emphasize that it is much
more healthful than the opposite premise, namely, to believe that people say
the truth until the opposite is proven. (44)

 

How about that!  And if that was the case in 1974 when we still had true
journalists, I wonder what Fromm would think today when most so-called
journalists have become social activists and political commentators? 

Most of what we hear is either plainly untrue, or half true, and half
distorted. 

Most of what we read in the newspapers is distorted interpretations served
as facts.

 

This is definitely not the way to get to the facts of a case or the truth of
a story.  Now in court, a witness is asked to swear that he will tell "the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."  Over the centuries, it
became clear that if we want to get good evidence upon which to build our
understandings and make legitimate evaluations, we need truth in these three
dimensions so we can to determine the facts of a case.

 

For a judge or a jury to adequately, appropriately, and rightly think
through the facts as known in a context and to make an intelligent decision,
we need the evidence of facts.  Only in that way can we draw conclusions
that will be as just as possible.  Such facts, which will always be
fallible, and therefore will inadequate to varying degrees, that will still
be is the best chance we have. 

 

In court, when jurists are chosen, they are questioned pretty thoroughly by
lawyers on both sides to determine if they are capable of making unbiased
decisions.  We ask if they have any vested interests in the case?  Do they
have any allegiances that might be compromising to the case?  We ask them if
they know the defendant or the claimant or members of the state who brought
the case to the court?  We ask if they are related to anyone?  We ask if
they have any biases against the police, the company, and so on.  Are you
willing to make an evaluation based on the facts?  

 

If all of these things are important for deterinining the truth, as best as
possible, in a court of law- it seems even more so in the court of public
opinion.  That is, media ought also to be held to the standard of telling
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

           Will you present the facts even if they do not fit the editorial
policy of your newspaper, television station, or the ownership of the cable
network?

           Will you present facts on both sides of an issue so the
listeners can then make up their mind and decide?

           Will you eliminate as best you can all of the cognitive biases
and fallacies?

           Will you make retractions and connections on the front page or
in the beginning of a broadcast?

 

Today perhaps our biggest problem in getting "the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth."  So much of what is presented is only partially
true; some of it is completely untrue.  Trump called it out when he called
it "fake news."  But he's not the only one  Just this past week, I heard
Biden pounce on CNN for "fate news."  Whenever the facts presented are not
true, but are partial, the media's ethics are in question.

 

So what is a person to do?  One thing I do is that I switch channels
constantly as I watch the news.  I also compare what and how the various
broadcasts present the same story in different ways.  I also keep note of
what is not presented.  What mostly strikes me is what the mainstream media
does not present-what they simply leave out.  They just ignore so many of
the stories. Right now, the biggest story missing is the open borders and
the influx of tens-of-thousands of people entering illegally. 

 

Given how polarized the media has become, how biased, how agenda-driven, how
the media spins the news to fit their ideology- we have to become more
skilled in critical thinking. 

 

 

 

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D., Executive Director 

Neuro-Semantics 

P.O. Box 8

Clifton, CO. 81520 USA                             

               1 970-523-7877 

 

 

132607 NeuroSemantics Executive Learning Front Cover

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20211017/01e8d777/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24788 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20211017/01e8d777/attachment-0001.jpg>