Scarf Progress

Monday, April 9, 2012

Why I listen to NPR

I remember thinking that listening to people talk on the radio had to be the most boring thing imaginable.  There were no catchy tunes to invade my head or even pictures to amuse.  As I get older and discover that my music is starting to be classified as 'classic' I also find that my choice in diversions has changed.  Instead of looking to escape into a fantastic story of fiction or flight of fancy in music I enjoy feeling like I have gained knowledge or at least insight.  There is a sense of permanence in information that is non-existent in most fiction.

In years past,  sources of information while few in number where at least easily recognizable.  The daily newspaper, encyclopedia and almanacs where a reference and public broadcasts on tv and radio engaged with the new media of the day.  The encyclopedias and almanacs are no longer printed and the Internet has made access to news nearly real time.  The broadcast media has exploded and hundreds of channels are ready to be watched or recorded for our pleasure.

This multi-faced approach has exposed a lesser known fact of news and information reporting.  Information is interpreted.  We learn from a game of telephone that as information is passed from person to person, that information is changed.  One's viewpoints and beliefs are injected ever so slightly into the story.  We label sources are being 'liberal' or 'conservative' but even this is a biased viewpoint to suggest that every thought can be reduced to a simple one dimensional continuum.  I could describe myself as generally conservative but with some decidedly libertarian beliefs and the occasional hippie bent as I advocate locally sourced food. 

I have heard it said that you can wake up in the morning and someone in the media already agrees with you.  To extend this, there are many in the media that disagree with you in varying levels.  On the way outside end of a spectrum or circle or sphere (choose your own metaphor) are the advocates like Ann the vulture and Rachel the mad cow who are not so much trying to report as trying to reduce recent happenings to support a general thesis that they are propounding.  I usually give them a complete miss as I think at least half of what they discuss falls into the realm of fiction and not information anyway.  Just slightly in of that are the national level media including AP news sources, NPR and even aggregaters like Yahoo news.  They still show a bias in word choice and which news trends to follow but mostly they stick to supportable information.  I'll include that the best source of information is direct observations but in the absence of that possibility, one has to do the best they can with the resources at hand.

I could choose to seek sources that reflected my own thoughts and feelings.  This would certainly make for a comforting existence where the sources of information I look to are mostly in agreement with me but I think this is not good for me.  I listen to NPR (and other main stream media) as a way to challenge my own thoughts.  It stands as a reminder that every story told reveals the desires of the storyteller.  I gain a comfort in knowing that I am not only listening, I am thinking.  If I find myself disagreeing with a news items coverage, I have to take a moment and work out why I disagree.  I sometimes find that I am not in disagreement which thought would perhaps have never occurred had I not risked changing my mind.  I am not an argumentative person by nature but I don't want to become complacent or lazy in my thoughts and beliefs.  Just like going for a run or to the Gym exercises the the body, listening daily to someone you may disagree with is exercise for the mind.

7 comments:

  1. I love the way you made your word-choice point with Rachel the mad cow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, BTW good on you for distributing veggies. Is it a CSA or more of a co-op buying program?

      Delete
    2. Co-op buying program, I think. I had to look up CSA. The big point of it is fair-trade, and locally grown.

      (You wouldn't be willing to switch Rush Limbaugh's name for someone who doesn't call women sluts for using prescription birth control, would you? Someone who doesn't make me sick to my stomach hearing his name. O'Reilly or Beck or any of the others whose names I don't remember? Or swap out which one's name gets messed up? I'm sure there are a few out there for Rush, it just sounds like an easy name to alter.)

      Delete
    3. Fair point, I'll switch out to Ann Coulter.

      Delete
    4. Now you've messed up both names. You're not being so obviously biased now. :)

      Delete
  2. I was at the grocery store this morning when I realized that you could be showing an even scarier bias now! When you had Rush's name there it was whole and correct -- showing respect for him even though I don't think I know anyone who agrees with his current politics. Now that it's two women, both are pejorative. This bias stuff is all twisty!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chalk it up to ham-handed attempt at parity.

      Delete