Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeNews consumers saddled with burden of confirming facts
The Vanguard Vision
September 14, 2009 —
When a fifth grade-student shoots her hand up in the air during a history lesson and declares to her pupils that President Obama is a terrorist because she heard it from her parents, the plausible reaction from the sane among us is of a palm-meets-forehead nature. How unfortunate. And what an uncomfortable position for the student’s teacher.
When a third-year college student tosses the same notion or something similar into an otherwise intelligent classroom discussion, our reactions are warranted for being far less sympathetic.
Most of us weren’t paid subscribers to The Wall Street Journal at age 10. Our world views were largely shaped for better or for worse by the influences of the people around us, the people whom we trusted most.
It would be inaccurate to say that we aren’t still influenced by these people today, but the point is that the phrase “Because Mama said so,” doesn’t quite fly anymore. Nor does “Because Bill O’Reilly said so,” or “Because John Stewart said so.”
With no intention of passing judgment on the views of O’Reilly, Stewart or your dear mother, we at the Vanguard stick to the belief that a one-stop news shop isn’t the best way to stay in the loop. No one from any position on the political spectrum who is truly interested in having a productive, informative debate enjoys the input of the individual who can provide little else than a parroted act from a single cable news network.
Zooming in on current issues, two words that lately have been dividing the nation are “health care.” It’s unofficially this season’s No. 1 taboo topic, from the watercooler to wedding receptions.
The debate has a unique way of making tempers flare, because unlike hot topics of the past, this particular matter has caused a never-ending flow of chatter on the Internet—the land of unlimited soapboxes.
Imagine how much more we would know about the Clinton-Lewinski scandal if we’d been able to Twitter our way into that affair. Perhaps it’s best some things are left un-Twittered.
This being the scenario, there is no doubt it can be hard to discover truth when subjectivity creeps its way into our system of watchdogs.
To clarify, we don’t wish to condemn all online political discussion. Technology is a beautiful thing. However, separating fact from fiction before one steps up to bat – on or offline – is a responsibility at this age.
It can be difficult to fully comprehend subjects as complex as large-scale reform measures. This reality only means we have more homework to do.
The Vanguard advocates always doing one’s research when aiming to be an active contributor to public discourse. This almost always means consulting multiple news sources and verifying their credibility.
It’s the goal of any respectable news organization to report ethically and accurately. But every news agency - print, broadcast or otherwise - must make decisions about what it will include and what it won’t. These decisions often lie beyond the realm of accuracy and ethics.
In the news conversation that is constantly taking place, you the consumer have a wealth of information to sift through, be it fact or fabrication. We all share the responsibility of informing ourselves to the best of our ability.