Raynine
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2023
- 1,157
- 1,805
- 1,938
I have been watching Scott Pelley and I do not judge him too harshly. He is what he is and what he has always been. I think he really believes his actions are justified because he is part of something that served its purpose and evolved as it did. But being part of something powerful blurs the vision if you are too close to it. It ran its course and so did he. The management called for a change and he did not understand why. Pelley did not change, his audience did. Institutions rarely notice when they have outlived their purpose and Pelley was an institution. But institutions run on the bottom line like everything else and that is what determines what endures. Pelley's response got him fired so maybe it's for the best.
These are certainly strange times. There has never been a time when information is as available as it is now but there is no point in our history when the public perception of reality looks more skewed. So, what is going on? From the standpoint of an observer with eight decades in the bank, the only thing new is technology; politics has always been there. What used to take full crews of experts to report unfolding news can now be done by individual citizens with cell phones.
This is a double-edged sword. Selective presentations can now be managed to lead an observer much like an attorney in a courtroom that might show just one side, leaving out damaging evidence. If a video does not show the trigger of an event it can influence the observer. An agency can report the effect without showing the cause. This alters public perception and this observer sees it happening more often.
I first became seriously concerned about this after Jan. 6, 2021, political protests following a contested presidential election. Instead of being reported as a large protest, a riot, or civil disorder, the event was labeled as an "insurrection", a term with loaded implications that suggest planning and coordination—Is there evidence of that?
The labeling as an insurrection invited skepticism. When something that remains in dispute is reported as fact it adds to divisiveness which could be the root of a much larger problem. Rallies, protests and sloganism are taking over where civil discourse once moderated disagreements. Everything is enhanced by technology which is particularly good at labeling and labeling matters. Core problems leading to divisiveness are not addressed, they are inflamed.
In the past straight news was just that; no editorializing at six o'clock. Today's news has become veiled opinion on all sides; it has simply gone in that direction. News agencies once presented facts, modern writers and broadcasters deal in branded, emotional outrage to support politics. Today's news consumers get emotional narratives disguised as news. If our society is polarized, modern news reporting is certainly a contributor. This is recognized and many news consumers are voting with their feet.
There is nothing clear or substantial to suggest that this phenomenon was conscious or planned, it just happened. Even late-night entertainment became politically focused and entertainers became comedic versions of Scott Pelley. There is nothing wrong with a mix of politics in entertainment, but it becomes something else when politics is the main ingredient.
I think a correction is in place and it may take awhile, but like Pelley's firing things may improve, I hope so.
These are certainly strange times. There has never been a time when information is as available as it is now but there is no point in our history when the public perception of reality looks more skewed. So, what is going on? From the standpoint of an observer with eight decades in the bank, the only thing new is technology; politics has always been there. What used to take full crews of experts to report unfolding news can now be done by individual citizens with cell phones.
This is a double-edged sword. Selective presentations can now be managed to lead an observer much like an attorney in a courtroom that might show just one side, leaving out damaging evidence. If a video does not show the trigger of an event it can influence the observer. An agency can report the effect without showing the cause. This alters public perception and this observer sees it happening more often.
I first became seriously concerned about this after Jan. 6, 2021, political protests following a contested presidential election. Instead of being reported as a large protest, a riot, or civil disorder, the event was labeled as an "insurrection", a term with loaded implications that suggest planning and coordination—Is there evidence of that?
The labeling as an insurrection invited skepticism. When something that remains in dispute is reported as fact it adds to divisiveness which could be the root of a much larger problem. Rallies, protests and sloganism are taking over where civil discourse once moderated disagreements. Everything is enhanced by technology which is particularly good at labeling and labeling matters. Core problems leading to divisiveness are not addressed, they are inflamed.
In the past straight news was just that; no editorializing at six o'clock. Today's news has become veiled opinion on all sides; it has simply gone in that direction. News agencies once presented facts, modern writers and broadcasters deal in branded, emotional outrage to support politics. Today's news consumers get emotional narratives disguised as news. If our society is polarized, modern news reporting is certainly a contributor. This is recognized and many news consumers are voting with their feet.
There is nothing clear or substantial to suggest that this phenomenon was conscious or planned, it just happened. Even late-night entertainment became politically focused and entertainers became comedic versions of Scott Pelley. There is nothing wrong with a mix of politics in entertainment, but it becomes something else when politics is the main ingredient.
I think a correction is in place and it may take awhile, but like Pelley's firing things may improve, I hope so.
