Thursday, January 5, 2012

From both sides now

by Bianca Green

I don't think every side should always be presented in every argument.  This whole debacle about the Tea Partiers et al never ever ever getting equal time for their points of view is ridiculous to me because if I am presented with information that I find to be ridiculous, and I do enough reading to ascertain that it is ridiculous, why should I continually bow to the information and let it be presented?  If there were three people in a room of a hundred who thought (and I'm going to go all hyperbole here) elementary students should be allowed to bring guns to school, should that idea get treated as totally legitimate and should it be weighed and debated against the idea that it's not a good idea at all?  Or should it be ignored/given almost no credence because it is patently ridiculous?  I don't have to hear an argument from every possible angle for and against every. single. thing.  At some point, some things have to be accepted by the majority as Generally Accepted.  Like gravity.  Cliche go-to choice there, I know.  But the point is, it's a theory, but come on, we (the majority) have pretty much accepted it's a Thing.  I don't have to hear from Jim Bob in Bumblescum Nowhere who believes that actually we're all sitting in the invisible hands of an angel and that gravity is all fake to make an informed decision about whether or not gravity is a Thing.  Again, hyperbole.  But still.

I hear these complaints about one side being totally ignored all the time, and I simply don't see the evidence for it.  Different news hubs are going to present things with different slants sometimes.  Do I want my news sources to present information in a totally unbiased way?  No.  No, I don't.  Not if "unbiased" means giving total equal credence to both the reasonable and totally unreasonable alike.  At some point, discernment has to take place.  And if someone else's news sources are going to discern differently, that's of course their choice.  But personally, there's a level of discernment between reasonable and totally wacky that I'd like to enjoy in my news reading.

(This rant brought to you by listening to a radio caller on NPR's Talk of the Nation complain that his side never gets presented in print every anywhere!  Dude, if your views are never presented, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your views, because if they're so underrepresented, maybe it's because they're wacky.  Maybe it's you, dude.)

No comments:

Post a Comment