Typically I'm able to find something in the news every day that merits discussion on a progressive web site such as this one, but the last few days, encompassed by a 30-hour drive, have separated me from the majority of my usual news sources. At the same time, I have had time to think deeply concerning some of the most important issues in our country today. Some of those issues happen to hit us "at home," so to speak, on ProgressiveU. One thing, in particular, kept creeping into my thoughts as being something that needs to be addressed. This requires some introduction, so please bear with me.
Theoretically, the pupose of the press (an antiquated term; I should say "free market of ideas") in this country is to provide both a source of information and a voice to the people. It is implicitly understood that the purpose of the media is to provide for a better future for the citizens of this country, and, in a global sense, the world.
While this probably sounds idealistic, I don't believe that those simple goals are too lofty for the people involved in the production of this country's media. While there have been numerous controversies, especially since the Nixon administration, regarding the level of bias in the media (is CNN pursuing a liberal agenda? is Fox News "fair and balanced" or a Republican tool?), these have not served to alter the true purpose of the media.
It is also implicitly understood that the "blogosphere" is a part of the media. I'm not referring to sites such as Livejournal or MySpace, which function as personal journals, but, rather, to politically oriented sites such as ProgressiveU. This means that people working to enhance the global marketplace of ideas on a site such as this one should adhere to the ideals upon which the concept of "the media" has grown.
This doesn't mean that it is impossible for a good contributor to the global marketplace of ideas to be biased. There are commentators on both the left and the right who do a remarkable job of initiating discussion regarding political issues, but the very best commentators and thinkers attempt to limit the biases in their work.
What does this mean for the blogging community? Simply that sometimes it might be better if we put our personal feelings (with an emphasis on the word feelings) aside and dealt strictly with facts, with an emphasis on focusing on the most important issues in the world. That sounds like a monumental task, but a site like this one is designed to tackle it head-on. There are bloggers on this site who only post things that directly attack a member of the current administration, regardless of the other goings on in the word at that moment, or on that day. There are other bloggers who only post about religious issues, again regardless of the global context that day. Etc. All of us have our pet issues that we drive into the ground (mine seems to be the Avian Flu... I'm not sure what that says about me as a person...).
As convenient as it would be if the world were black and white, most global issues just aren't that simple, and reporting and describing numerous situations from the same perspective seems more like the advancement of an agenda than a legitimate attempt to be "progressive." Progressivism is interested in making positive advances in our society and in the world, regardless of whether they are conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, reactionary, etc... I think that it is important that we all make efforts to present factual accounts of news stories with pro- and con- sides, where possible, before inserting our own analysis (or, for shorter posts, simply providing sources and reasons for opinions suffices).
For example, as of the time that I am writing this, former Enron executives face life in prison. (Now, bear in mind that I haven't browsed ProgressiveU for several days, so I'm not making personal attacks) A post on this topic that that reads, "Finally, a victory for the people over the Man!" is not so much a bad post as it is an uninformative post. Obviously those men are richer than the people they allegedly defrauded. But is what they did a crime? I believe the legal terms are fraud and conspiracy. But what do you think: guilty? Yes or no? If so, why? If not, why not? I'm not taking one side or the other because I don't know enough about the specifics of their behavior (merely reading summary news souces is rarely enough to understand a complicated issue), I'm simply contending that no one should take sides in a situation unless he or she believes that the facts support his or her opinion!
ProgressiveU, despite the recent intrusion of spam, is turning into a great intellectual community, but we all, myself obviously included, can work to make it better.
well said.
good point. no great point thank you
it is a good point, but I do like reading the religious blogs etc sometimes because they make good points. An I like reading blogs that bash politicians because I like to challenge the write to explian why they do not like said politician other than they are of the opposite party. I like to get into debates, not mean ones, just ones that get me, and other people, using our brains. But then again, this is not Debate U. lol
lol. Maybe there should be a Debate U....
I also like getting into debates, but it's better to have an intelligent and informed debate and back up opinions with facts, then to try to have a debate with someone who's being thick headed and focuses solely on their own opinions.
I understand your frustrations completely. Many people are not necessarily blogging for progress, but rather blogging for the scholarship progressiveu offers, or blogging just to stir things up, rather than express themselves. Samuel