* Posted previously and I thought maybe it needed saying again...
I bet you're thinking, 'What???' Let's take a look at this like it might actually exist.
Name a television entertainment program with a blue collar male that is something other than a dolt, an "Archie Bunker." Or try to find one where such a character isn't based around sloth and irresponsibility. I can think of 2 programs, "Made In America" and "Dirty Jobs" both of which are "reality TV." Regarding sloth and irresponsibility, productivity has increased virtually every year for 20 years. Workers today are getting more done in a work day than in the "good ole days."
Here's some reality to go with TV mindlessness, over a 20yr period most blue collar job wages have remained static or declined. Yes, working harder and better and making less. In that same period corporate profits have increased over 700%. Working for the same employer for an extended period is increasingly unlikely. Blue collar jobs are relentlessly dangerous and harmful to health, lower income health problems are frequently blamed on poor lifestyle choices, the reality is that the nature of the work is frequently the base problem.
A large percentage of skilled blue collar workers require a 2 income household to keep a family of 4 above the poverty line. This is not about extra income to buy expensive toys, this is about reliably keeping a roof, food, and transportation and these people are one health problem from disaster, if they have health insurance (unlikely) they face deductibles nearing 1/2 year wages which is very nearly pointless to have.
Blue collar workers face increasing employment competition with illegal hires. This competition takes two forms, one is direct hiring competition and the other is wage depression. This competition is largely ignored in any debate regarding illegal workers. The divorce between blue collar workers and their fellow citizens is increasingly evident. Debates arise concerning product pricing at market and the legality of the employees producing the product, statements are made to the effect that produce prices would skyrocket if legal hiring were in place, which ignores the fundamental fact that labor is one of the smallest portions of a product's price at market and that the associated costs of illegal employment far exceed the savings of illegal hiring. The educated "progressive" elements commiserate with the plight of illegal aliens and ignore the steady depredation on legal blue collar families. Apparently the ignorant buffoons of TV land are unworthy of concern.
No doubt voting patterns have influenced this trend. There is an apparent disregard of their own economic interest by blue collar voters as they have trended Republican. While this conflict in interest is obvious, many of its roots are not. There has been no evident economic policy benefiting blue collar over the last 20 years and that period is not all Republican. It is not difficult to see blue collar workers regarding their economic best interests as a hopeless case and voting some other interest that feels close to home. When a person has very little, perceived assaults on the few things they do hold are taken very seriously. One of the side effects of the gun control debate was to tell the blue collar worker that he is too ignorant and too irresponsible and too criminally inclined to own a firearm. His "betters" disapproved of the gun owning lifestyle. Accurate? Possibly not, politically potent? You bet.
These people trade their time and their bodies for income, they work long hard hours and get little for it. Little pay, little respect. Many jobs that 30 years ago were held in high esteem are now little regarded. It is not as though the work has changed, it is the point of view that has changed. Maybe it's time to give it a re-think. Maybe it's time to look around and see the things produced with the hands and backs of your fellows and give some regard to their value, all those paper assets and banknotes are derived from those things.
Showing posts with label Blue Collar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blue Collar. Show all posts
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Thursday, March 01, 2007
"Guest" Workers
More like indentured servants if the NYT has its facts in order. Here's the scam, recruiters charge people in foreign countries large sums to get temporary work in the US. After these workers get to the US they suddenly find that 3 years of work is really 3 months or none at all. And where there is work the conditions are abominable. These workers may not like the way they're being treated, but once their erstwhile employer has their passport and they have no money, they're kind of screwed. (not to mention being on the wrong side of a large ocean)
It doesn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see how this could happen, in fact it wouldn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see it coming before setting this system up. What you have to remember is this is work that Americans won't do (cough). While that is the rationale, the actual case is that it is work Americans won't do for that kind of money. Think about this for a second, if they are going to pay to import workers from Thailand, half way around the world, and send them back and still pay them here, there's a lot of money on the table. Unless, of course, there's some serious cheating going on.
Just exactly how brain dead do you have to be to not have a problem with THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON EARTH unable to pay its own people to PICK CUCUMBERS!!!??
In the morning I will go out in the snow and probably mud and start putting together the sticks on a new house. I'll spend a few days mucking around with my crew laid off because I can't afford to pay them for the messing about that it will take and it would mess up their UE checks late in a work week/benefit week. I'll do alright from the house, they'll do...ok if somebody else in their household makes up for what their wages are. Alright for me is skidding around the edge of disaster on a consistent basis, the guys are just teetering on that edge. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't have time to write it - or you to read it.
We keep sending our jobs overseas and giving tax breaks for doing it, our manufacturing, our tech work, and for pete's sake when was the last time you got a cold call from a Sam whose real name was Sam and not Jamilwabberjonkey. Do you have any idea how bad cold calling in this country paid? The jobs we don't send overseas (outsource) we insource. I'm not trying to kick anybody because of where they come from, but I'm real tired of watching the really fat cats of this country get fatter and sell out the workers of this country. There is actual unemployment in this country and then there is the segment that is no longer counted and then there's the segment that isn't about to go out into a job market that will just starve them. I'm not talking about lazy no good lay about drug dealing pimping wastes of skin, I'm talking about the folks that take one look at what they can realistically expect to earn and decide to stay home because it's ridiculous to go do it for that kind of money. Yes, we could do the good Republican thing and yank the safety net out from under them and say, "work or starve," so they'd go work and starve. What are you going to get from a Catch 22 scenario? A Yossarian solution, take your clothes off and quit.
Do I have a good answer? No. I have a partial answer, take away all the abilities to game the damn employment system, no guest workers, no illegal hires, a real wage bottom - tied to a lower "in school minimum." Oh yes, no games, full time students only. Get caught outside the rules, fines and jail time to make a hardened criminal sweat. The labor market will force wages up, it does not do so now because it is not a market, it is seriously gamed by the damn plutocrats. Just to make sure things are getting paid for fairly, a tax code that doesn't favor the plutocrats. Unless you're a tax accountant or use one, you have no idea how favored they are. By the way, if you happen to be illegally working, you can go home and we'll see if we can't work out a way to bring you in first, legally, and as needed. (as an alternative - see illegal employers)
Sound draconian? I'll tell you what's draconian, the life of trying to make it on the scraps off the table - in the wealthiest nation in the world.
It doesn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see how this could happen, in fact it wouldn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see it coming before setting this system up. What you have to remember is this is work that Americans won't do (cough). While that is the rationale, the actual case is that it is work Americans won't do for that kind of money. Think about this for a second, if they are going to pay to import workers from Thailand, half way around the world, and send them back and still pay them here, there's a lot of money on the table. Unless, of course, there's some serious cheating going on.
Just exactly how brain dead do you have to be to not have a problem with THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON EARTH unable to pay its own people to PICK CUCUMBERS!!!??
In the morning I will go out in the snow and probably mud and start putting together the sticks on a new house. I'll spend a few days mucking around with my crew laid off because I can't afford to pay them for the messing about that it will take and it would mess up their UE checks late in a work week/benefit week. I'll do alright from the house, they'll do...ok if somebody else in their household makes up for what their wages are. Alright for me is skidding around the edge of disaster on a consistent basis, the guys are just teetering on that edge. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't have time to write it - or you to read it.
We keep sending our jobs overseas and giving tax breaks for doing it, our manufacturing, our tech work, and for pete's sake when was the last time you got a cold call from a Sam whose real name was Sam and not Jamilwabberjonkey. Do you have any idea how bad cold calling in this country paid? The jobs we don't send overseas (outsource) we insource. I'm not trying to kick anybody because of where they come from, but I'm real tired of watching the really fat cats of this country get fatter and sell out the workers of this country. There is actual unemployment in this country and then there is the segment that is no longer counted and then there's the segment that isn't about to go out into a job market that will just starve them. I'm not talking about lazy no good lay about drug dealing pimping wastes of skin, I'm talking about the folks that take one look at what they can realistically expect to earn and decide to stay home because it's ridiculous to go do it for that kind of money. Yes, we could do the good Republican thing and yank the safety net out from under them and say, "work or starve," so they'd go work and starve. What are you going to get from a Catch 22 scenario? A Yossarian solution, take your clothes off and quit.
Do I have a good answer? No. I have a partial answer, take away all the abilities to game the damn employment system, no guest workers, no illegal hires, a real wage bottom - tied to a lower "in school minimum." Oh yes, no games, full time students only. Get caught outside the rules, fines and jail time to make a hardened criminal sweat. The labor market will force wages up, it does not do so now because it is not a market, it is seriously gamed by the damn plutocrats. Just to make sure things are getting paid for fairly, a tax code that doesn't favor the plutocrats. Unless you're a tax accountant or use one, you have no idea how favored they are. By the way, if you happen to be illegally working, you can go home and we'll see if we can't work out a way to bring you in first, legally, and as needed. (as an alternative - see illegal employers)
Sound draconian? I'll tell you what's draconian, the life of trying to make it on the scraps off the table - in the wealthiest nation in the world.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Ideological Purity
David Sirota writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that there is a real problem with people in power not owning what they said about the Iraq War, this is certainly true. He holds John Edwards up as an example of how it should be done - I made a mistake and I regret it. He goes on to note that there definitely is a massive case of CYA going on. This is where it gets sticky, why is this going on?
We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.
The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.
Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.
Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.
We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.
The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.
Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.
Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Governor K's Baker City Inaugural Visit
I hope you'll bear with me on my "quotes" since I have no recorder and I don't know an actual version of shorthand, ok, I'm apologizing in advance for my crappy notes, but the quotes if not exact are real close. We had a pretty nice day for the Governor's luncheon, just a little fresh snow to make things white and mixed sunny weather.
I shook hands with TK and told him how nice it was to have him back and he thanked me personally "for all the good work you guys have done" (Baker County Democrats). So, kudos folks. Gale Voser, BCD Treasurer, deserves special thanks for closing up her store to come and help with the door. Courtney Warner was charming and efficient as she helped with the meet and greets, this means something in a small town. Sad to report that she's winding up her commitment to the Gov.
Fred Warner (D) County Chair handled the introduction, noting particularly the difference in the economy and employment picture between the Inaugural Ball 4 years ago and today.
The Governor opened up by saying what a pleasure it was to "be back in beautiful downtown Baker City" (if you've never been, it is) and thanking Baker for all the volunteers for state boards noting that "people are starting to wonder if everybody is from Baker City." He said that he never gets to visit Eastern Oregon enough, but sometime too much with the funerals for soldiers and thanked us for how we support those in harm's way.
Most of the remarks were referenced to this "Moment of Opportunity" provided by our improved economy, and that he hoped to turn this into our longest and best opportunity for all of the state's people. He mentioned his plans for education from pre-school to work-force, children's health care, making Oregon a leader in renewable and alternative energy, and other facets of his Inaugural Speech that your correspondent was too slow to get noted.
I'm going to step out of chronological accuracy and group statements by topic and I'll note that these are statements I found interesting and strong.
On the topic of labor and global marketing Ted wanted the worker to know that when "he wonders who cares and will help, that we will." We will see to it that there is more education and skill training. "We will not abandon you." Regarding education and labor he stated that 70% of high school grads will not go on to college and that we need to carry the message to them that "labor is an honorable and worthwhile thing," something that is not being done now.
In regards to opportunities in Oregon, he pledged that "we will close the gap between those who have found the Dream and those who press their faces to the glass looking in." We care about each other in Oregon and take care of each other, "we do not move ahead by leaving others behind."
He believes that "if we remain defined by our differences we can never move ahead," that "before we are members of political organizations, we're Oregonians."
I've condensed an hour of speaking and Q&A considerably more than it deserves and Governor Kulongoski gave a good uplifting speech that I'm sure even the Republican Party of Oregon attendees could get along with. It is worth noting that the Republican Chair Mrs Jan Kerns is on one of the Governor's Boards.
The Geiser Grand Hotel, pre-turn of the century, is a beautiful building, and they served a nice luncheon and ran a good show. It is a premier hotel, worth a visit to "beautiful downtown Baker City."
Thanks for stopping by, Ted.
I shook hands with TK and told him how nice it was to have him back and he thanked me personally "for all the good work you guys have done" (Baker County Democrats). So, kudos folks. Gale Voser, BCD Treasurer, deserves special thanks for closing up her store to come and help with the door. Courtney Warner was charming and efficient as she helped with the meet and greets, this means something in a small town. Sad to report that she's winding up her commitment to the Gov.
Fred Warner (D) County Chair handled the introduction, noting particularly the difference in the economy and employment picture between the Inaugural Ball 4 years ago and today.
The Governor opened up by saying what a pleasure it was to "be back in beautiful downtown Baker City" (if you've never been, it is) and thanking Baker for all the volunteers for state boards noting that "people are starting to wonder if everybody is from Baker City." He said that he never gets to visit Eastern Oregon enough, but sometime too much with the funerals for soldiers and thanked us for how we support those in harm's way.
Most of the remarks were referenced to this "Moment of Opportunity" provided by our improved economy, and that he hoped to turn this into our longest and best opportunity for all of the state's people. He mentioned his plans for education from pre-school to work-force, children's health care, making Oregon a leader in renewable and alternative energy, and other facets of his Inaugural Speech that your correspondent was too slow to get noted.
I'm going to step out of chronological accuracy and group statements by topic and I'll note that these are statements I found interesting and strong.
On the topic of labor and global marketing Ted wanted the worker to know that when "he wonders who cares and will help, that we will." We will see to it that there is more education and skill training. "We will not abandon you." Regarding education and labor he stated that 70% of high school grads will not go on to college and that we need to carry the message to them that "labor is an honorable and worthwhile thing," something that is not being done now.
In regards to opportunities in Oregon, he pledged that "we will close the gap between those who have found the Dream and those who press their faces to the glass looking in." We care about each other in Oregon and take care of each other, "we do not move ahead by leaving others behind."
He believes that "if we remain defined by our differences we can never move ahead," that "before we are members of political organizations, we're Oregonians."
I've condensed an hour of speaking and Q&A considerably more than it deserves and Governor Kulongoski gave a good uplifting speech that I'm sure even the Republican Party of Oregon attendees could get along with. It is worth noting that the Republican Chair Mrs Jan Kerns is on one of the Governor's Boards.
The Geiser Grand Hotel, pre-turn of the century, is a beautiful building, and they served a nice luncheon and ran a good show. It is a premier hotel, worth a visit to "beautiful downtown Baker City."
Thanks for stopping by, Ted.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Biased Media
My last post provoked some thinking and much of what's been going on for the last few years just sort of piled on for the ride. I do think there is medial bias and I think it goes deeper than is commonly acknowleged. I'm also not sure the topic is broken up into realistic segments.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)