Shortly after I posted that suggestion that NPR was not really "liberal" as some might think, I heard commentary by NPR on this, and it summed up my sense of things.Though NPR is embraced by a lot of people who may be left of center, who consider themselves democratic or progressive, the station commentators consider NPR to be "Main Stream" media.
You can find a transcript of the program I'm talking about at
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/03/11/04
The following was quoted from Bill O'Reilly: "BILL O'REILLY: 'NPR has now devolved into a totalitarian outfit functioning as an arm of the far left. There’s no question about that.'"
That is a great quote to demonstrate something about what I mean by Responsible (vs Irresponsible) Speech. Let's take the word "totalitarian." Is NPR really totalitarian? What would be Bill O'Reilly's motive for calling it that? "Totalitarian" is a strong word, with plenty of connotations that may not match up with NPR. Is it responsible to use an exaggerated, emotionally-laden term to purposely color something you want to describe in darker, more sinister shades?
What about "arm of the far left?" Here is a good point: I have read some of Noam Chomsky's works, which some would consider the "far left," in which he depicts America as the central base of what he calls the "Military-Industrial Complex." Michael Moore may have similar perspectives, with his take on 911 and American Health Care. Whether those views are "far left" or not, NPR has not taken a strong stand in their favor. They may give such views a more favorable airing than conservative stations would, but they have clearly declared that Michael Moore's films are not be well substantiated. I hear callers into The Diane Rehm Show and Talk of the Nation who espouse views about the "Military-Industrial Complex." They are not given a lot of air time and usually, if not always, are cut short by the commentator giving a gentle rebuke for being "too extreme," and then contradicting the callers with "facts." They give the same treatment to callers on the far right, who esteem conspiracy theories and private armies. If NPR was really an "arm of the far left," would it shut down those who call in with far left views in similar ways that they shut down those who call in with far right views? I really don't think so.
Well, I'm going to read through the transcript of the On the Media show of March11th and see what NPR has to say to substantiate that it is, indeed, "mainstream." I, for one, happen to think the station is closer to "main stream" than "far left."
I'm sorry, Mr. O'Reilly: I think that your statement about NPR is not responsible speech, and that it makes you look more like someone who is trying to stir up people's emotions than someone who is trying to speak fairly and responsibly.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Responsible Speech is Self Critical
Responsible Speech can handle self criticism. Why? It's because responsible speech, though the motive of "getting something across" that the speaker/writer feels passionate about, is not out to "prove it is right." Suppose I say something in this blog that offends someone? Or, better yet, suppose I say something that isn't true, and someone calls me out on it? Well, I contend that a "responsible speech" response would not be to get into a "shouting" match. Among the motives of responsible speech are:
1. To want to get the facts right.
2. To be open to learn from others' opinions, views, perspectives, and
3. To say something accurately, without misrepresenting facts or spinning just to prove your point.
Responsible Speech comes from a place of wanting to be "responsible" about what one says. That means, the responsible speaker is not insecure about admitting mistakes and uncertainties.
With that in mind, I'm going to slightly "retract" something I said, because I want to research it more diligently before I make the claim. It is about what is typically considered "liberal" media. I'm reviewing some resources right now that help define what "liberal" is and is not. I'll adjust or correct what I said in a previous post when I feel I'm ready.
However, in the mean time, I will say clearly that I don't think it is "responsible speech" to claim something or someone is "liberal" by one or two traits perceived as "from the left.". A case in point, and this may make some people upset, was Glenn Beck's claim several months ago. It was to the effect that, if a church spoke about "Social Justice," it was a "left leaning" church. I believe he actually told people to steer away from any such churches. I can take this up in more detail in a future post, but I believe that such a "broad brush" painting of any group that merely uses the words "social justice" is not responsible speech.
1. To want to get the facts right.
2. To be open to learn from others' opinions, views, perspectives, and
3. To say something accurately, without misrepresenting facts or spinning just to prove your point.
Responsible Speech comes from a place of wanting to be "responsible" about what one says. That means, the responsible speaker is not insecure about admitting mistakes and uncertainties.
With that in mind, I'm going to slightly "retract" something I said, because I want to research it more diligently before I make the claim. It is about what is typically considered "liberal" media. I'm reviewing some resources right now that help define what "liberal" is and is not. I'll adjust or correct what I said in a previous post when I feel I'm ready.
However, in the mean time, I will say clearly that I don't think it is "responsible speech" to claim something or someone is "liberal" by one or two traits perceived as "from the left.". A case in point, and this may make some people upset, was Glenn Beck's claim several months ago. It was to the effect that, if a church spoke about "Social Justice," it was a "left leaning" church. I believe he actually told people to steer away from any such churches. I can take this up in more detail in a future post, but I believe that such a "broad brush" painting of any group that merely uses the words "social justice" is not responsible speech.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Responsible Thinking
I'm sure I'm going to post about this particular aspect of Responsible Speech from time to time, because I believe Responsible Thinking is so critical to Responsible Speech. What do I mean?
When we make rash generalizations, the kind that sound like slogans and give us the feel of "us" verses "them," we are often speaking without thinking. It is easy to do that in an atmosphere of parties and factions feeling they have to "prove" their side is "right." I grew up in an Italian family, and the sense of having to speak with the loudest and most aggressive voice in order to be "heard" was common. I know that Italians don't have the market on that kind of thing, and we have something similar in our culture of pundit-based, passionate rhetoric.
Here is an example of a phrase that, I believe, has not been totally thought through (OK, here comes the controversy!!!): The "liberal media." There are some ways that the "liberal media" is actually quite conservative. I remember the G.W. Bush years, when political correctness even steered radio stations like NPR toward conservative, fearful speech. To me, it was a revelation to hear someone claim that a bastion of what is considered the "liberal media" had a lot of centrist and even conservative commentary. Was it as "right" as many conservatives are comfortable with? No. But it may not be as "liberal" as those who label it so think.
Right now, I'm sure you may be asking for an example, and that will be another post. I'm going to be listening closely for examples in the next few days, and I encourage you to also. I would also welcome any educated commentary about what are truly "liberal" points of view. I would also welcome your supporting your arguments and positions to indicate "responsible thinking" is behind your views. In other words, I would rather not have replies that over-generalize and are looking merely to prove they are "right" or "wrong." One aspect of Responsible Speech is being able to dialog in a safe space for the sake of learning from one another, not just proving a point.
Looking forward to replies!
When we make rash generalizations, the kind that sound like slogans and give us the feel of "us" verses "them," we are often speaking without thinking. It is easy to do that in an atmosphere of parties and factions feeling they have to "prove" their side is "right." I grew up in an Italian family, and the sense of having to speak with the loudest and most aggressive voice in order to be "heard" was common. I know that Italians don't have the market on that kind of thing, and we have something similar in our culture of pundit-based, passionate rhetoric.
Here is an example of a phrase that, I believe, has not been totally thought through (OK, here comes the controversy!!!): The "liberal media." There are some ways that the "liberal media" is actually quite conservative. I remember the G.W. Bush years, when political correctness even steered radio stations like NPR toward conservative, fearful speech. To me, it was a revelation to hear someone claim that a bastion of what is considered the "liberal media" had a lot of centrist and even conservative commentary. Was it as "right" as many conservatives are comfortable with? No. But it may not be as "liberal" as those who label it so think.
Right now, I'm sure you may be asking for an example, and that will be another post. I'm going to be listening closely for examples in the next few days, and I encourage you to also. I would also welcome any educated commentary about what are truly "liberal" points of view. I would also welcome your supporting your arguments and positions to indicate "responsible thinking" is behind your views. In other words, I would rather not have replies that over-generalize and are looking merely to prove they are "right" or "wrong." One aspect of Responsible Speech is being able to dialog in a safe space for the sake of learning from one another, not just proving a point.
Looking forward to replies!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Supreme Court Ruling on "Free" Speech
I heard the news about the latest Supreme Court Ruling on "Free" Speech. Why do I put "free" in quotes? It is because, when one looks at the world of "do's and don'ts" through the eyes of personal responsibility, nothing is free. One makes choices with the aid of her/his judgment about the risks and/or benefits to oneself and others before acting in ways he/she would consider "responsible." It would be "irresponsible" of me to call my boss a jerk, whether or not I believe it's true. It would be "responsible" of me to weigh my words when speaking to a friend or relative at a funeral of someone who died suddenly in horrific circumstances (such as suicide, homicide, or a freak accident).
We look ahead. We "watch" what we say. Old proverbs that warn us about how to use or not use speech are common. "Look before you leap." "A fool utters all his mind." "A prudent man thinks before he speaks."
While I understand that, according to our constitution, we have to protect even what may be deemed hurtful speech, what I am concerned about is this: The boundaries of what constitutes "legal" speech are much broader than the boundaries of what constitutes "responsible" speech. And in this culture of "getting the last word," stinging sound-bites, and proud-and-messy mudslinging, the court ruling will, for sure, give some people the idea that they now have the "liberty" to say very hurtful things, and at especially inappropriate times. It's not the constitution that bothers me, its our culture.
And the irony of that is that this "legal loophole" will encourage people who happen to be very keen on "obeying" certain laws, that is, the ones that come from their religious beliefs. Because some believe, in this example, that homosexuality is not approved of by God, and because they want others to follow that "law," even from a position of "caring for" what's best for society, they will use a platform of "lawlessness" to confidently spring forth with words that will destroy and alienate. A "law" in their conscience may assert: "Don't say that." "It is too hurtful." "It is not the right time or place." Etc. "What I can get away with saying" becomes the new guideline, because the law of our constitution allows it, even if the "laws" in our conscience signal a twinge.
Making those excuses to speak hurtfully and hatefully, then, is a form of "lawlessness." Beyond that, it will not encourage the people they want to follow their religious beliefs about "God's law" to suddenly drop their views and "follow Him." It will alienate. It will do damage. It will discourage those on the receiving end from ever considering those religious views. "If I become like them, I will engage in the same hurtful, irresponsible, "lawless" behavior!"
The ruling saddens me, because I know that in this culture some people who think very highly of themselves will be emboldened to hurt and hate others-and much of that will be in the name of "what is right." What separates us, then, from the fundamentalist Muslims who proclaim that their brand of Islam is the only one, and who outright kill those who they consider "infidels?" Does killing the infidels bring more people into the fold? Will hurtful speech advance the causes of those who engage in it? I don't think so!
We look ahead. We "watch" what we say. Old proverbs that warn us about how to use or not use speech are common. "Look before you leap." "A fool utters all his mind." "A prudent man thinks before he speaks."
While I understand that, according to our constitution, we have to protect even what may be deemed hurtful speech, what I am concerned about is this: The boundaries of what constitutes "legal" speech are much broader than the boundaries of what constitutes "responsible" speech. And in this culture of "getting the last word," stinging sound-bites, and proud-and-messy mudslinging, the court ruling will, for sure, give some people the idea that they now have the "liberty" to say very hurtful things, and at especially inappropriate times. It's not the constitution that bothers me, its our culture.
And the irony of that is that this "legal loophole" will encourage people who happen to be very keen on "obeying" certain laws, that is, the ones that come from their religious beliefs. Because some believe, in this example, that homosexuality is not approved of by God, and because they want others to follow that "law," even from a position of "caring for" what's best for society, they will use a platform of "lawlessness" to confidently spring forth with words that will destroy and alienate. A "law" in their conscience may assert: "Don't say that." "It is too hurtful." "It is not the right time or place." Etc. "What I can get away with saying" becomes the new guideline, because the law of our constitution allows it, even if the "laws" in our conscience signal a twinge.
Making those excuses to speak hurtfully and hatefully, then, is a form of "lawlessness." Beyond that, it will not encourage the people they want to follow their religious beliefs about "God's law" to suddenly drop their views and "follow Him." It will alienate. It will do damage. It will discourage those on the receiving end from ever considering those religious views. "If I become like them, I will engage in the same hurtful, irresponsible, "lawless" behavior!"
The ruling saddens me, because I know that in this culture some people who think very highly of themselves will be emboldened to hurt and hate others-and much of that will be in the name of "what is right." What separates us, then, from the fundamentalist Muslims who proclaim that their brand of Islam is the only one, and who outright kill those who they consider "infidels?" Does killing the infidels bring more people into the fold? Will hurtful speech advance the causes of those who engage in it? I don't think so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)