Chicken Big

Good morning!

As I groggily open my eyes (on a world on the brink of financial chaos, no less!), I say to you, "Welcome back! Where have you been, dear friend?" Hope we see each other frequently from now on.

In reference to a podcast discussion I participated in recently for one of my many jobs, as well as a debate I engaged in with a dear friend, I offer the following to pair with your morning java as you begin your day. In my humble opinion:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0925/p25s10-ussc.html -- This is an example of potentially yellow journalism painted white. It's a factual story, ethical and sound as far as I can tell, but it also contains elements that could be used to fuel rhetoric-driven propaganda, designed to manipulate the minds of the public. It could easily be turned into the kind of lie that claims to be the unfettered truth, slanted to make you think a lack of oil refineries is causing a crisis and that oil quality standards are bad. 

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm -- This is an example of potentially white journalism painted yellow. It is an assertion of facts driven by an agenda. This is the truth that people need to know -- the truth because it contains a factual reveal beneath the surface and beyond rhetorical discourse. It sucks when a journalist steps his foot in his facts, though, because it tarnishes them to the people who need to know them the most. Perhaps he thought that shouting at Bush was the best way to be heard; maybe he just couldn't control himself.

So is the CSM writer the bad guy and the BW writer the good? Pshaw! Who are we to indict either way? They are simply we ourselves.

See, any way it goes, I implore you, Dear Reader, to get to the business of researching the citations in both of these stories. (I'm far too lazy, of course -- unless I just want you to learn something by doing it yourself.) Always test what you're told. Information is too abundant and too fluid (beyond, even, the confines of Google), to just sit there and repeat what you've been told. I know you may be an authoritarian conservative moderate, and I perhaps, like many prophets, you are wont to knell "Doom!" I love you anyway and because of that. I believe in the importance of you being on watch.

I also believe that it's our responsibility to test the truth before we signal that clarion call. I know that you have and do. I fear, however, that we dilute -- and even poison -- the power of our voices when we cry "Darkness!" Say it has been revealed to us that the sky is falling -- have we found out what it all really means or have we instead succumbed to our fears (grounded in harsh realities, but warped by the same), and created a panic far worse than the threat? Lest we forget (or continue to obfuscate), a pretty influential visionary once had a dream that showed that the world only will every really end for those who are at least partially to blame (that would be those who aren't blameless).

In effect, the world can't end unless you go along with it. So, even with the National Guard at posted at gas stations – and knowing that bean sprouts are nutritious, delicious, and grow in a couple of weeks -- are you the one who starts a run on groceries or the one who rolls up her sleeves and starts farming?