Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. – Bertrand Russell, Harper’s Magazine, March 1926
Four score and four years after Sir Russell’s words the fortunate few continue to abuse the many; and we many continue to struggle to understand our misfortunes.
The few profit by misdirecting the many, manipulating desires only momentarily consumed through just enough credit to keep us in debt.
The few profit by externalizing the costs of this craved consumption, keeping these manufactured desires cheap with the aid of increasingly unlivable wages and under-regulated environmental damage.
The few profit off of this world’s illnesses, limiting access to medical care by raising costs, pushing the less fortunate into debt and death.
Yet the few continue without adequate restraints.
They do so by turning political leaders into addicts relying on evermore revenue, leaving little time and less opportunity for a common good.
They do so by buying the news that then distracts the many by celebrating the trivial, alienating the discontented, and sensationalizing what can’t be ignored.
They do so by celebrating the commercials manufacturing the desires masked as fantastic needs for their supposedly cheap products.
In the face of all this the less fortunate are growing ever more so.
Yet, whenever some grow dissatisfied, we’re told it’s anything and anyone but the few, who merely do what they choose in the name of liberty; and who would or at least should be against that?
The problem is that such thinly veiled declarations are but rationalizations for greed; and, as Plato knew, a consequence of such greed is a growing need for war.
Of course, the few have found a way to profit from that, too. Today’s wars are paid overwhelmingly by the blood and taxes of the less fortunate, whether living, dead, or not yet born.
All in the name of liberty.
This is why there remains a need to create a world that proves Sir Russell wrong. No one’s liberty should be at the expense of another.
I may be suffering from a case of premature nostalgia. For I look into the future, see a world no longer marshaled by news editors and producers, and longingly recall the newsworld of my past. At least how it was depicted in my favorite movies and TV shows.
When I imagine a future filled with online news sources, anticipating the hours I’m likely to waste sifting through uninformative news about trivial matters I can’t help but romanticize a world where experienced editors guided journalists through meaningful stories in the public interest:
And when I think of the prospect of some bloke like myself typing some words, clicking submit, and sharing a “Blog” with the world, I can’t help but think of the comparatively complicated social process that seemed to be behind our news rooms, as well as the skills it must have taken for an editor or producer to manage the process. Of course, I also think about how much more fun it seems to produce the news this way:
Of course the Harry Rosenfelds and Lou Grants of the world likely will have some place in the future. So, it’s important not to be too nostalgic too quickly. But, unless something significantly changes about the nature of popular media, these editors and producers will not be our society’s news gatekeepers. We already live in a world where anyone can attempt to produce the news, and do so without an editor’s eye; and it seems to be getting easier by the month. Professional judgment is no longer required.
At the same time, the idea that a gateless newsworld is doomed to be some “Blogosphere” without standards, best described as a wild west or a state of anarchy, is nonsense. A world where the people no longer rely on experts to judge the news for us, sharing only the worthy, is not the same as a world without standards. Rather we’re entering a world that’s forcing us to reconsider how we apply news standards.
A KEY IS THE TECHNOLOGY
A key, it seems, is to apply our developing technologies mindfully. For, they are creating wonderful news opportunities. How so? Here’s one example. At first glance, this video may seem to be discussing the next generation of communications software, combining email, bulletin boards, and chats into interrelated functions of a single communication between persons. But this open source software will do much more, including function as an editing software for community news sites like Empire Report:
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE EDITORIAL PROCESS?
New technologies such as Google’s Wave are important because they allow us to communicate collaboratively. Collaboration is important because, while there is a meaningful difference between a single news professional and a single amateur, the difference becomes less significant when you compare a single professional (or even a small number of professionals) and a community of committed amateurs.
Admittedly such technologies allow for a wide range of collaborative models; and some are going to be better news models than others. So I’m not sure exactly how successful community news sites will look in the future. In the end, which models end up working is going to be discovered through experimentation. However, I’ve already seen enough to be optimistic about the future of community news. At least I’ve seen enough of Empire Report’s growing news community to be optimistic about our ability to become the future’s editors.
NEWS STANDARDS
There is one catch. I think it’s going to be important for community news sites like Empire Report to pursue their editorial experiments with an eye on news standards. For a successful experiment is going to be one that, in part, creates a “newsworthy” editorial process. We want to have a clear conception of what we mean by this so we can create technology that achieves our goals.
What should these news standards be? I think it’s time we figure this out. I’ll start the ball rolling by publishing three brief commentaries on presentation standards, journalism standards, and ethical/legal standards for Empire Report. Each is meant to be nothing more than a brief introduction and conversation starter.
I don’t know about you. But I’m excited. For, while I remain nostalgic for our dying newsworld, and I don’t enjoy sifting through insufficiently edited online news, I foresee amazing possibilities.
Okay, I admit it. I’ve partaken in more impulse shopping than I’d like to admit. But, hoping it’s never too late to teach a dog a new trick, I recently decided to become a more informed consumer.
Only how? I knew commercials weren’t going to be very helpful:
I figured I’d start by learning about labels; for they provide important information, no?
And, the more I thought about it, the more I was compelled to start by learning about food labels. After all, what I eat matters. What I feed my son matters. It can have short-term effects and long-term consequences.
Of course there are labels and then there are labels. Some labels are mere marketing devices. I write “mere” because I quickly found out that there are no standards for them. Sure, one can try to sue a company for fraud; but such laws don’t protect us from unclear claims.
Since these labels don’t tell me anything, they don’t help me be an informed consumer. They’re meaningless.
On the other hand, I learned there are key terms with legally recognized definitions. Take poultry, for example. The U.S.D.A. (United States Department of Agriculture) has created a list of nationally recognized terms which companies can’t use unless the product meets the U.S.D.A.’s standards (PDF 130k).
Now I was getting somewhere. All I needed to do was learn these standards, ignore the other labels, and I’d be a more informed consumer.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t so easy. Take a distinction that seems as straight-forward as “fresh” and “frozen.” “Surely,” I thought, “frozen food was stored below 32 °F , and fresh food had never been frozen.” How wrong I was.
First, let’s look at “Fresh” poultry. Here’s the U.S.D.A. standard:
The temperature of individual packages of raw poultry products labeled “fresh” can vary as much as 1°F below 26 °F within inspected establishments or 2 °F below 26 °F in commerce.
Wait a moment! Poultry that’s been stored below 32 °F can be labeled “Fresh”? Why is that?
Well, according to the U.S.D.A., while water begins freezing at 32 °F, its effects aren’t significant until poultry is stored below 26 °F: “Below 26 °F, raw poultry products become firm to the touch because much of the free water is changing to ice.”
In other words, if it’s fresh enough to pass my grandma’s “touch test” it’s fresh enough for the U.S.D.A.; and they’re recognizing that poultry can still pass grandma’s test at 26 °F.
I don’t know about this. I don’t see what the “touch test” has to do with health and nutritional issues. I’d feel more informed if the U.S.D.A. reassured me that poultry’s health and nutritional value wasn’t altered when it’s stored below 32 °F and above 25 °F. As is, all is know is that “Fresh” poultry will be more “juicy” than poultry that’s not “Fresh.”
Now, let’s look at “Frozen” poultry. Here’s the U.S.D.A. standard:
Temperature of raw, frozen poultry is 0 °F or below.
When I saw this my first thought was that there’s something fishy about poultry. If “Fresh” poultry is stored at 26 °F or above, then won’t “Frozen” refer to poultry that’s stored below 26 °F (or, given the standard’s leeway, below 24 °F)? The U.S.D.A. even seems to admit this:
Most consumers consider a product to be fresh, as opposed to frozen, when it is pliable or when it is not hard to the touch.
So why would the U.S.D.A. associate “Frozen” with poultry that’s been stored below 1 °F? Because poultry that’s been stored above 0 °F is different:
Although they may not be frozen solid, they are in a semi-frozen or “hard-chilled” state.
In other words, “Frozen” means “frozen solid”; and poultry that is neither “Frozen” nor “Fresh” likely has been only partially frozen.
Okay, so these terms have been re-defined in ways that likely would mislead a consumer that hasn’t learned to speak “U.S.D.A..” But, does it really matter? It depends if there’s a qualitative difference between “Frozen,” partially frozen, and “Fresh” poultry. Thankfully, according to the experts at the U.S.D.A., there isn’t:
The quality is the same. It is personal preference that determines whether you purchase fresh or frozen poultry.
In other words, some folks like juicy poultry. Some folks don’t care. That’s all. But wait a moment! For the U.S.D.A. also says:
The faster meat and poultry freezes, the smaller the ice crystals will be. Smaller ice crystals will do less damage. Products that are flash-frozen by the manufacturer will have superior quality to fresh products frozen by the consumer.
So “Flash-frozen” poultry has “superior quality” to other frozen poultry. If this is true, but “Frozen” labels don’t tell me how it’s been frozen, then I don’t know if there’s a qualitative difference between “Frozen,” partially frozen, and “Fresh” poultry. For, I don’t know if or how much “Frozen” or partially frozen poultry has been “damaged.”
Come to think about it, I don’t even know what I’m getting when I buy “Fresh” poultry. Well, I know it may be only slightly damaged, for whatever that’s worth. I guess I feel a little more informed, if not reassured about my poultry.
To learn more you can go to the U.S.D.A. web site’s Food Labeling Fact Sheet (P.D.F. Version).
Special Note- This report was created, in part, as a class activity on newsworthy reporting and commentary. Special thanks to my Critical Thinking students for challenging me to think about why this commentary’s topic matters.
When someone finds out I teach at Santa Rosa Junior College, it’s common to hear among their words an ambivalent sense of respect and skepticism. Most persons I meet obviously respect what I and my colleagues do. But many seem to question how we do it. Among other things, it’s common to hear about biased faculty. Unfortunately, this allegation often is heard from individuals who haven’t taken a class, but it’s also heard from reasonable sounding individuals who have taken classes.
Admittedly one reason for this is, like seemingly all professions, some teachers are better than others; and, among the things some do better than others is minimize their biases. But another reason is that college is notorious for expecting students to think critically. Especially those Critical Thinking classes.
What’s Critical Thinking? What’s a Critical Thinking class? The first question would take more than one commentary to cover, but I’ll begin to answer it by answering the second question. Among other things, it was my least favorite college class. Now it’s the class I most frequently teach. And I love it!
So what is it? While there are different approaches, most Critical Thinking classes focus on fine-tuning skills associated with identifying, analyzing, and evaluating arguments. By “argument” I don’t mean what happens right before a lot of couples break up. I don’t mean a “verbal fight.” I’m not even using it to mean a “debate” between two or more persons with contrary beliefs. Unfortunately, some arguments – in the sense I’m using the term – do degenerate into verbal fights, but most don’t; and, a lot of arguments – in the sense I’m using the term – can be found in debates, but they don’t have to be pursued as debates.
So how am I using the term “argument”? It’s an attempt to justify a claim by appealing to one or more reasons. Each argument has a “conclusion,” the claim that it’s attempting to justify; and each argument has at least one (often more) “premise,” a reason(s) attempting to justify the conclusion.
Lots of arguments address controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, racism, or the “War on Terror.” Since it can be and often is emotionally draining to discuss such topics, let alone fine-tune one’s ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments about them, Critical Thinking classes can be challenging and frustrating, even when the instructor and students are being open-minded toward contrary opinions. On the one hand, improving one’s ability to think critically under such circumstances is important, which is one reason these courses are important. At the same time, this is another reason why these classes — like a lot of college classes — can seem like biased environments. It’s easy to walk away from a Critical Thinking class wondering if others think you’re closed-minded when you’re just emotionally drained and resisting the course’s call to continue. I’ve taught the class for 15 years and I feel that way sometimes.
So, while I do include controversial topics, I also include lots of examples about which persons don’t have strong opinions. Some of my favorites are commercials:
While it may take some practice to be able to identify this commercial’s conclusion, and it might even seem confusing at first, it’s not likely to be controversial and it is likely to be fun. If you think of commercials as attempts to persuade an audience to take a course of action, that “course of action” can be treated as a conclusion. So what is this commercial trying to persuade its audience to do? No, it’s not an attempt to promote Middle English culture. Nor is its goal to convince you that “Starburst Berries and Cream are fun.” In the end, it’s attempting to persuade its audience to “Buy Starburst Berries and Cream.” This is the course of action it’s attempting to convince us to take.
Of course, there are risks when using commercials as class examples. For example, it can be especially difficult to identify a commercial’s premises. Part of the reason is that so many commercials are so darn good. They’re good at grabbing and keeping our attention by being entertaining; and they’re good at associating positive emotions with their products. Only when the task at hand is to identify its premises these things can be distracting:
Even worse, the same things that make this commercial so good also make it bad. For the ways it grabs one’s attention and provokes emotions are unclear and irrelevant. In fact, this commercial is so unclear and irrelevant it’s understandable if you finish it scratching your head. Why are we supposed to buy Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain?
Unfortunately, whether or not it’s most advertisers’ intended effect, this tendency to be unclear and irrelevant is a common result:
In fact, among the thousands of ads I’ve identified, analyzed, and evaluated over the years, clear and relevant information is rare. I’m not aware of any precise data; but clear and relevant information is rare enough that it takes dedication and practice to be an informed consumer.
This is one reason why Critical Thinking courses are important, and yet another reason why they — like a lot of college instruction — can seem biased. For it’s difficult to include commercials in a Critical Thinking class without exposing how poorly they tend to inform their audiences. Even if an instructor avoids discussing controversial subjects such as 1) impulse buying versus informed consumption, 2) the notion of manufactured needs, or 3) the breadth and depth of misogyny within adversiting, the degree to which commercials fail to inform us can be a difficult reality to face; and it’s a natural reaction to wonder if the person who exposes this has an agenda.
Despite these risks, I still include commercials in my Critical Thinking classes. For I do have an agenda: I’m committed to teaching Critical Thinking. I’m committed to fine-tuning our ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments, especially commonly heard arguments that affect our daily lives. Though, just between you and me, I also like that they allow us to have some fun in Critical Thinking classes. I’ve just learned that, unless commercials offer good reasons to do otherwise, I should enjoy them the same way I enjoy this popular satirical commercial:
The words cause me to pause: “Do commercials systematically use pornography to sell products?” It’s like asking if someone is an adulterer. Of course, commercials may not systematically use pornography. But, despite my pause, I feel a need to ask.
So what is pornography? Encarta provides a common definition: “Films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal.” In this sense, commercials do systematically use pornography, no?
It’s often in beauty ads; and it’s a staple in beer commercials:
Some advertisers find ways to work it into car commercials:
Some especially imaginative advertisers even worked it into this vegetarianism ad:
Admittedly these ads aren’t as explicit as what’s usually called “pornography.” But their poses and behaviors are sexually explicit and intended to arouse an audience; and, some seem to be getting increasingly explicit as time passes:
So, while one may debate which commercials are pornographic, it’s obvious some fit our definition. But it’s unrewarding. For it doesn’t explain our question’s significance.
Obscenity
The question, “Do commercials systematically use pornography to sell products?” is like asking if someone is an adulterer, in part, because labeling them “pornography” raises a second question: “When, if ever, are commercials obscene?”
If by “obscene” one means material that “depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct,” this doesn’t seem obscene, especially if “patently offensive” means excessively graphic or explicit. But is this the only relevant definition? No. It get’s emphasized in legal discussions because they’re trying to determine which erotica, if any, should be banned. But that’s not my concern.
I’m concerned with whether or not they’re ethically obscene. Am I making up a definition? No. It’s a common usage. For example, Encarta, Merriam-Webster, and dictionary.com all offer ethical/moral definitions for “obscene.”
But when should something be considered ethically obscene? Here’s my proposal: An act is ethically obscene when it demonstrates a blatant disregard for the individual(s) involved. It treats these individual(s) like they don’t matter, like their interests and well-being are irrelevant, they’re a mere means to the action’s goal(s).
So, whether or not a commercial is ethically obscene depends upon whether or not it treats anyone’s (e.g., models, audience) interests and well-being as a mere means to its goal.
Do commercials do this?
Misogyny
In “Misogyny-r-us” I claimed that advertising systematically promotes misogyny. By this, I don’t mean merely a manifest hatred toward women. Rather, I see misogyny as a range of emotions — including mistrust, disdain, dislike, hatred, and others — associated with the subjugation and exploitation of women. Among the ways commercials promote misogyny is by creating beauty myths that transform women into unnatural sex objects and/or depicting their sexual behaviors in ways which subjugate them to the status of men’s sex toys. Am I going too far? If so, you should be able to explain why the above ads neither subjugate nor exploit women in these ways? This one too:
Violence Against Women
For years many have claimed that pornography leads to violence against women; and Andrea Dworkin went further, charging that “pornography is violence.” Such claims may seem too speculative, if not blatantly false. Whether or not they are depends, in part, on our understanding of “violence.”
If we follow the World Health Organization and define violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power… that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,” then no pornography, including pornographic commercials, are not violent.
However, if we merely remove the word “physical” from W.H.O.’s definition, isn’t misogyny — especially systematic misogyny — violent? I think so; and I see the following commercial appealing to our interest in countering its effects:
Impulse Consumption
What do commercials achieve by employing these strategies? In some sense it depends upon whom you ask. But, from the perspective of a critical consumer, someone who is committed to making informed consumption decisions, advertising’s dogged reliance upon sexual strategies are distractions. They’re temptations attempting to entice one to consume impulsively rather than thinking critically.
Pornography
So, do commercials systematically use pornography obscenely? When they rely upon sexual material that subjugates and/or exploits women (or men) for the purpose of enticing us to consume impulsively rather than think critically, I say, “Absolutely!” But what do you think? Do commercials systematically use pornography to sell their products? Are they ever obscene?
When I say the words aloud I feel a need to pause: “Do commercials systematically use misogyny to sell their products?” I realize the significance of the question. It’s like asking if someone is abusive. That the answer isn’t an obvious “No” is, by itself, concerning. But it needs to be asked. For, enough ads seem misogynistic to warrant a closer examination. Am I overreacting? Let’s see.
First, what is misogyny? Encarta offers a common definition: “a hatred of women, as a sexually defined group.” This provides a thought-provoking clue to our question, I think; for it notes that the misogynist’s hatred is directed at women’s sexuality.
But is this definition complete? I don’t think so. Dictionary.com adds an important point, defining misogyny as, “Hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.” This helps by pointing out that misogyny is more emotionally complex than hatred. In fact, I see it as a stew of emotions, including hatred, dislike, mistrust, disdain, and others, easily and often affecting how we behave.
What causes misogyny? Historically, the most common answer has been gynophobia, or the fear of women. But I think a more subtle answer has been developing since Kate Millet’s ground-breaking 1968 article “Sexual Politics” and her 1970 book elaborating upon this article.
For Millet, our cultural discourse reflects a systematized subjugation and exploitation of women both within the private realm and within social institutions, causing a sexual politics that promotes misogyny.
For reasons I’ll explain soon, I think Millet’s ideas provide important insights into the nature of commercial advertising. Let’s see if I’m right.
Compared with contemporary ads, this famous Coppertone ad is strikingly innocent:
Among the things this ad illustrates is that mere nudity is not misogynistic, even if it is being employed as a means to sell a product. But does this ad treat its subject respectfully or exploit her? For example, is she striking an unnaturally hypersexualized pose resembling a “pin up model” more than a young girl? What do you think?
Similarly, compared with the other ads we’re going to consider, this Budweiser ad is remarkably mild:
Among the things this ad illustrates is that promoting sexuality is not, by itself, misogynistic, even if it’s being employed to sell a product. But how does it sexualize its subjects? Does it treat her respectfully or subjugate her? What do you think? Notice that it associates beer with clothing, depicting both as attempts to be sexually confident. How does this, along with their poses and positioning, and the call for him to “LIVE LIKE A KING,” portray each person’s confidence? I’ll ask again: am I reading too much into it, or does this ad subjugate the woman? What about this one?
Personally, I think all of these ads promote degrading messages about women, messages that are witnessed not only by women and girls, but by men and boys. They’re examples of the misogynistic ways beauty often is sexualized in our ads, turning women into unnatural sex objects. Am I going too far? Do you still think so after watching this Dove ad?
Even if commercial depictions of female beauty aren’t misogynistic, what about their depictions of female sexual behavior? For example, as Jean Kilbourne has been reminding us for years, advertising commonly disembodies women, focusing exclusively on specific body parts which are given hypersexualized significance:
The point is not that it’s misogynistic to be attracted to breasts. The point is that ads systematically reduce women to flesh and blood “sex toys,” reducing their significance to a commercially-convenient account of some particular body parts’ sexuality. This depicts women in a way that is disrespectful to them as persons, no? It’s degrading. If so, this promotes misogyny, no?
Isn’t this why the following commercial is portrayed as a fantasy? Isn’t this why the two women at the end of the ad are shown disapproving of the fantasy?
I give this commercial some credit. At least it depicts women disapproving of this misogynistic fantasy. Yet, even if this ad’s ending transforms its misogyny into a shameful pleasure, it still promotes that pleasure, no?
Unfortunately, in an attempt to continue grabbing audience attention, these advertising techniques seem to be getting more explicit. A few years ago, the above Miller Lite commercial was the talk of a Super Bowl. My concern is that in a few more years the following Guinness commercial’s misogyny will seem passe:
My point is not that we should disprove of the sex acts in these commercials. That’s a different issue. Imagine a world where men are depicted in these various ways. Only men! Or, at least, 98% of the time it’s men. What type of message(s) would that convey to men and boys, women and girls? Would it promote misandry? Well, the inverse is the commercial world within which we live, no? Or am I going too far again? What do you think?
Additional Resources: Here are two thought-provoking educational documentaries by the folks at the Media Education Foundation:
Additional Resources: Here are some thought-provoking web sites for interested persons:
Genderstudies.com is designed to help interested persons analyze the gender significance of advertising images.
Media Awarness Network offers materials on media violence and media stereotyping.
National Institute on Media and Family’s web site includes a section on children’s advertising and gender roles.
Like an unwanted house guest, it appears where I least want to see it. Like a piece of smelly old cheese, it’s hard to ignore. But like an ugly baby at a family gathering, I don’t feel comfortable discussing it with most people.
The problem is it’s a guest the rest of the house seems to accept. It’s a piece of cheese that only persons with especially sensitive noses seem to smell. It’s an ugly … well, it’s an ugly baby at a family gathering. Most persons understandably don’t notice or care what it looks like, and those who do understandably get defensive if someone raises the issue.
On the other hand, I think it only seems like an ugly baby at a family gathering. It only seems like an innocent accident of no consequence. And even if most persons can’t smell this rotting piece of cheese, I feel the need to warn others before they eat too much and get sick. And, unlike most unwanted house guests, this one shows no sign of ever leaving.
No, I’m not writing about deliberately mixed metaphors and compounded analogies. When done clearly, I enjoy them. I’m writing about one of my more obscure pet peeves: the term “Opinion Page.”
The word “opinion” litters the media landscape, including national newspapers such as the New York Times and theWall Street Journal, regional newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune, and local newspapers such as the Press Democrat and Independent Journal. Of course it’s also commonly used by magazines, radio stations, television stations, and web sites. So maybe there’s a good reason for it.
Well, there is some reason for it. Apparently early in the 19th century, some folks began to expect journalistic objectivity; so news sources started distinguishing between items which included the editor’s opinion and those that made no mention of it; and, by the end of the century, it had become common for newspapers to offer a distinct section for any piece expressing any author’s opinion. While there are variations, often they take the form of an editor’s or editorial staff’s “opinion,” a paid columnist’s regularly stated “opinion,” a paid or unpaid expert’s one-time “opinion,” or letters representing the general public’s “opinions.”
So it’s not surprising that, when I ask my students to describe the difference between news reporting and news commentary, the most common answer is that reporting is objective and commentary is the author’s opinion. Only what they usually mean by this is that reporting focuses on verifiable claims and commentary is unsubstantiated opinion. In their eyes, commentary can never be anything more than an opinion; and the fact so many news sources use terms such as “Opinion Section” or “Opinion Page” reinforces that it’s “just an opinion.”
First, it’s actually common to find cogent reasoning offering some insights on a newsworthy topic. I think most of my columns achieve this; but you should judge that for yourself. A more substantial example is Paul Krugman. But even on the airwaves, where the medium’s immediacy makes it harder to offer cogent reasoning consistently, I can think of cases without even turning to P.B.S. or N.P.R.. For example, while I often don’t agree with him, KGO’s Gene Burns obviously is committed to, and impressively good at, remaining clear, relevant, and providing some insights on newsworthy topics. And there are others.
The point is that good commentary does exist out there. Unfortunately it’s also common to encounter fallaciously unclear and/or irrelevant reasoning within commentary. So it’s important to remind ourselves that good commentary is, at least in part, well-reasoned opinion about a newsworthy topic. It’s not “just an opinion.”
Second, even bad commentary is not “just an opinion.” For it’s still a commentator’s attempt to persuade an audience to accept a conclusion. That’s the point of commentary! When we forget this, when we forget that each commentator is trying to persuade us, we become vulnerable, we run the risk of being influenced by something we otherwise wouldn’t accept; for we’re not assessing its reasoning in any mindful manner. So, not only is news commentary never “just an opinion,” but thinking critically about news commentary depends, in part, on remembering this.
