They say that if you are dissatisfied with "news" from the mainstream press, you should go to the alternative press. For some, that sounds like good advice. For me it sounds pointless. I say this for two reasons: (1) The alternative press is just as biasED and disinterested in the truth as the mainstream press is. And (2) even if the alternative press is more truthful than the mainstream press, I am still going to have to live in a world where most people get their "news" from the mainstream press.
On the first point, I think a good example there was when FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting or as I like to call them UNFairness and INAccuracy in Reporting) mentioned the mainstream press's disregard of the Cassini space probe's dangerous nuclear power core as one of the most censored stories of 1997. Yet at the same time, FAIR didn't mention a space-related story that was even more censored than Cassini's nuclear power core: The experimental reusable vertical-take-off-and landing rocket craft known as the Delta Clipper. Yes, people should have been allowed to know about the dangers of Cassini's nuclear power core. But don't the public have just as much right to know about the Delta Clipper -- a non-nuclear, pollution-free launch vehicle?
About the second point, knowing about alternative news won't exactly do you any good if you live in a world that primarily operates on a different set of principles. It's comparable to knowing that the Earth is round while the majority think the Earth is flat. I mean, how can you adaquately employ such alternative knowledge when the majority are likely to punish you for it despite the fact that you're right?
So what is the solution to the problem of mainstream and alternative news? I definitey don't have the solution to that problem. All I can say about it is that that's what we get for living in a world without consensus.
On the first point, I think a good example there was when FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting or as I like to call them UNFairness and INAccuracy in Reporting) mentioned the mainstream press's disregard of the Cassini space probe's dangerous nuclear power core as one of the most censored stories of 1997. Yet at the same time, FAIR didn't mention a space-related story that was even more censored than Cassini's nuclear power core: The experimental reusable vertical-take-off-and landing rocket craft known as the Delta Clipper. Yes, people should have been allowed to know about the dangers of Cassini's nuclear power core. But don't the public have just as much right to know about the Delta Clipper -- a non-nuclear, pollution-free launch vehicle?
About the second point, knowing about alternative news won't exactly do you any good if you live in a world that primarily operates on a different set of principles. It's comparable to knowing that the Earth is round while the majority think the Earth is flat. I mean, how can you adaquately employ such alternative knowledge when the majority are likely to punish you for it despite the fact that you're right?
So what is the solution to the problem of mainstream and alternative news? I definitey don't have the solution to that problem. All I can say about it is that that's what we get for living in a world without consensus.
posted by:
|
Michigan
|
