Category: values

Journalism will not return until reporters supply the who, what, where and when. Why and how are supplied by the reader only!

When I was a youngster (long long ago ) I went to college.  “Yes,   I even graduated with a BA then on to get a law degree at night”.  one class I explored as a undergrad was journalism. Even back in the Stone Age, there was too much homogeneity in network reporting. We in our class monitored national broadcasts.

There was a difference. How was there a difference and more importantly why! Homogeneity in network reporting in my day occurred because reporters as well as news editors shared a common filter. Everyone views the world through their own filters.( common life experiences translated similarly)There were checks on opinions. Opinions were for the opinion page, not news!  News answered the questions, who, what , where and when. Why and how were supplied by the reader after critical thought!

The educational schools in the 1970’s decided that education was about physical/ behavioral differences, and abandoned all checks on journalistic reporting. So, we hire based upon skin tones and sexual preferences and of course gender. ( Back when we thought we could tell. )

Additionally, enter the “New Liberal Elite”. Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. Michelle told us everyone should go to college! How Sociiety produces needed goods and services is tomorrow’s question .

They extended the definition of diversity to cover only those, who accepted the “new world views”. Among these enlightened liberals were militant feminists. These individuals not only believed in female equality , though not true equality, but sameness of outcome for all.
Utilizing Clintonian equality, only 4+ 0 = 4.  Females are bumpy boys in search of their place in society. Transgenders are victims!  Most blacks lack fathers in their home and are economically disadvantaged leading to an  indefinite period of universal black subservience.

This new order led to a predominantly new era in the female educational establishment. Education changed to emphasis on only memorization.  Since all believed in equality of outcome, there was no need for critical thought. Any deviation was educational heresy!

News was easily reduced to one sided sound bites. Why question? There can be only one answer.  These soundbites were perpetually repeated without regard for the who, what where and when they were based upon.

Why the deviation in an article about news? Understanding where we are requires understanding how we got there.  The movement was incremental.  It required the public’s buy in on each step! We blindly accepted!  Led by suburban republican women and a beaten down Beta Republican who male population.

It’s time to return news to asking, who what, where and when. Time for push back against lies perpetrated by news media. Who was killed on Jan 6? What were the causes of death. When did they die? Democrats have an answer that includes a stroke victim.Republicans say two. Both members of ”the mob”. We should know answers to these and other questions.

I’m Liberal! If I don’t like your views, I just call you names and don’t Engage you, then erase you!

Have you ever shared a traditional view of the world, the economy, small government? If you have you have faced the Democratic liberal mob. These folks follow the current left wing “expert “. You are not allowed to voice disagreement with the expert’s views.
You accept or face erasure from validity. If you live in an area, your very livelihood can be threatened by venturing a viewpoint contrary to the current urban mobacracy.

Enter one brave or naive NFL Kicker. He dared speak his opinion, which runs afoul of over 50 years of liberal secular school teachings. His speech was at Benedictine College, a smaller Catholic College. He dared challenge the feminine role hierarchy.
Actually, hear what he said here. https://youtu.be/-JS7RIKSaCc?si=N40s8o7TLS7HjcBD

Since hearing Mr. Butker’s speech, I have witnessed the flocking of the feminist liberal carrion. First they mischaracterize his remarks as “anti woman”a sin. The role he spoke of was that of a traditional female homemaker and mother, wife. His views challenged the liberal role which all women must conform to. Live like men they implore! After all you are essentially no more than bumpy men given a bad lot in life by the vile patriarchy. Failure to conform demonstrates misogyny and limits all women in the modern society. How this occurs, when 47% of the population is male is another mystery. As is why men fail to defend themselves and women’s traditional role, remains a mystery.

After all to be a good modern society member, we must believe in overpopulation and minimize the reproductive role of women in child rearing in this society. Hail Thomas Malthus! Bring on your “brave new world.” How do we expand the use of the “Malthusian belts” and raise awareness of excessive population growth! “Down with all that stand in our path.” Better they not be heard. Tolerance is only a worn talking point or Sunday school principle! This is the “real world”. Spoiler alert! Malthus was wrong! Human ingenuity exceeded his understanding.

For those, who preach overpopulation and climate change, I encourage you to read: “Superforecasting”. This book looks at human future forecasting and emphasizes that continuous revision is essential to accurate predictions. A model therefore requires continuous updating as circumstances change. Liberals have continued to eschew the same narrative since Malthus and global warming!

Expert, Thomas Robert Malthus died in 1834. The starvation he prognosticated never came to fruition! Many say it was staved off by economic growth brought on by land discovery and free enterprise economics! Liberals insist starvation was confined to the third world by colonialism. It is in vogue to berate the traditional woman’s role in reproduction as female limiting because they are multitaskers, who can do so much more! After all every 100 lbs young woman can take down any man. Natural anatomy be damned. Never let science interfere with the liberal narrative!

Mr. Butker did not say all women should stay in the kitchen, “ barefoot and perpetually pregnant. He said 2/3 of women saw their most fulfilling role as that of wife and mother. No modern workforce female would ever admit having such feelings, even in a generation, where feelings are all that matter to many liberal women. This is especially true since the feminist movement continues to denigrate the female traditional role, what they refer to as seeking an “Mrs degree”. They continue with their pejorative slur. You can witness their tantrums visibly displayed on social media platforms.

Our schools continue to side with anti family activists like BLM. BLM has recently dropped its anti nuclear family message from its website. It now started with Treyvon Martin. As a matter of fact, the entire wikipedia page has been rewritten, much as in the book “1984”. Contrary to previous beliefs, BLM apparently didn’t exist prior to Treyvon Martin. Much as in the book “1984”, our Modern culture responds to criticism by sanitizing that is which found offensive.

Harrison Butker spoke truth for many women and men in our society. No society member need step forward. Their actions betray thought! Many in our society are too afraid to say how they really feel. So, “Free Harrison from liberal condemnation”. A person should not have his livelihood threatened because he voiced a currently unpopular sentiment. Don’t let liberal “mobacracy” speak for you or limit or erase your thoughts! Freedom means even liberals must tolerate our non expert, ignorant, non-expert, traditional views.

Still I remain confident. If liberals don’t like your views, they will move heaven and earth to remove you, rather than tolerate your difference. Free Harrison! Stand for free speech. The liberal way is not the only way!

Experts should be on tap not on top!

The new refrain of the liberal academic is “ Trust the expert because they are smarter than you”.

The new refrain of the liberal academic is “ Trust the expert because they are smarter than you”. While an expert is more read and practiced in their area of work, it does not generalize to all life. It may not even signify expertise in their general area of study. They may even be incorrect in their interpretation of the data as well as their conclusions. They maybe correct in their interpretation, but their data maybe inaccurately collected, not representative or what is referred to as outlier data. Science is a search to understand the natural processes of the universe. It is ever seeking answers. Well publicized and commonly accepted natural laws are subject to refinement or correction. There is a level above process, that science can’t explain, values.

Democrats new mantra directs you to follow the lead of the experts. Suppose, you have different values than the expert. Are you wrong to hold different values. Perhaps some will believe you are, (see )When You can’t decide, if you believe in free speech!some won’t! The beauty of our system of governance is that it recognizes, even tolerates differences! Government force is employ only to protect, not in place of a persuasive argument. This doesn’t mean you can’t espouse your point of view or attempt to persuade. It doesn’t mean you celebrate the opposing point of view. You may even believe what is advocated is abhorrent. It does mean you can’t interfere with an individual’s natural right to believe it. If you don’t agree, advance your position, persuade, don’t seek to compel!

Science explains process in the natural world. It doesn’t tell you what you should hold valuable or how to live your life. Simply because you agree with a study, doesn’t make it valid! It certainly shouldn’t be a justification to use mob rule to order the lives of others based upon your beliefs in an expert or study. Experts are a resource to be employed, like a tool, not a ruler to Decide your lifestyle!

If you stand against” categorization by government of mis or disinformation like this post and continue to speak your mind! Free speech demands protection especially that speech you disagree with. There is little need to protect the popular view! Experts are useful, just not as rulers!

When You can’t decide, if you believe in free speech!

Many say, “ Why do I care about speech I disagree with being allowed to be disseminated?” This statement fails to comprehend that not all agree with your world view and possibly even your interpretation of reality.

There is truth, but it is not always simple to find. People are limited by their physical bodies to their experiences and the experiences they have been told of. ( even some that may be outright fabrications advanced by someone promoting a particular point of view ) People are not always truth tellers.
If you weren’t there, you learn from those, who you trust. Perhaps you trust a teacher. They are authority figures. How many students review original sources materials even, if it is suggested I didn’t. In fact I can count on one hand those who read outside sources of any kind and I am an advanced college degree holder.

Besides the physical limitations, individuals may act based upon different facts. These maybe actual facts, but outlying information, unusual occurrences of information We would refer to this as outlier data. It is not misinformation. It is actual data, just unusual in its occurrence .
Individual’s minds use information to organize their world. How do we combat use of outlier data? We combat with more information! More data means less opportunity for outlier data. We also must understand that even observations are limited by financial considerations.

Science focuses on observable processes. Value judgments can’t be scientifically measured. They may be preferred or non preferred viewpoints.  Results can be observed, but those results are data interpretations based upon facts. They can be true. They need not be. Even if the data is correct, the conclusions can be errant.

Remember values are not facts! Not everyone may share your values. Values are not misinformation. Unless they hurt someone else, you are permitted to believe differently than others. Remember Christianity was once a minority set of values in ancient Rome!

Who, What, When and Where are surpassed in Journalism by the feelings behind Why!

Think critically. Insist news is only who, what, where and when.

When I  was an undergrad ( as my daughter says back in ancient times ) I took an entry level journalism class and wrote previously for a high school newspaper. The class and newspaper faculty advisor, drilled into my head, always put in news pieces only who, what, when and where. Why is for your audience. Facts are who did what. Where and when did they do it.

There is a problem in journalism, when why is interjected. Why someone acts maybe undiscoverable. Think about that. What sources really know why? If the actions of many are questioned, (ie stock movement) I contend it is impossible to ascertain. You may identify contributing factors. you may interview some buyers and sellers and cite the most oft listed reason as the reason why for the stock movement.

What you have listed as the reason is still subjective. If you accept that a thorough job was done of interviewing most of the sellers and buyers of a stock, you are still left with a question. Can the interviewees be believed? Some interviewed may not have given the sale or purchase much thought. Some maybe swayed by how the interviewer asked the question. Some may just not tell the interviewer the truth for any of an unknown number of reasons. Who did it. What  was done. Where it happened and when is much less subjective and more verifiable. Sure, a seasoned reporter may have to sift through accounts to determine, who actually witnessed an event. After sifting, some will think they saw something they did not really see. However multiple witnesses where available or dissection of individual accounts can frequently sort the wheat from the chaff. This is why in Court cross examination is so important. Reading requires one to critically think.
Today we are given conclusions, why. In some instances one can glean the who, what, where and when from a thorough reading or listening to a journalistic piece, but not always. This is because the proper pleasing narrative is more important than the actual facts.

What does this mean? Eyes reading an article or clicks in the digital realm are more important than facts.

Hasn’t it always been so? Yes, but what is different? I postulate and this is my why ;that the reading public believes journalists only report facts, so they squelch their natural urges to question, to think critically.

what should a reader take from this article? Don’t depend on headlines, read any article critically. Ask who, what, where and when? Is it in the article? How many sources were consulted or witnesses interviewed? Are the conclusions supported at all? Is there more than one explanation? If you just assess the who, what where and when, is there even a need for the why?  Can the why be supported? If yes, do you understand the subjective nature of why is separate from news.

Today, the why is a reason to call out any disagreeable conclusion as misinformation. Is it? Can people with a different perspective, see the why differently?  Is the author intellectually honest? Are sources cited? If sources uncited, how many sources or witnesses are there?  Read critically! If there are too many unanswered questions, why do You believe it? AmI biased or not open to new facts or other views

Do self examination. Think critically. Insist news is only, who, what, where and when. Why is subjective.  Don’t just know have evidence. Knowing without facts is faith. Some values are only supported by faith, but understand that!