One of the beautiful aspects of youth, is the simplicity and innocence of young people. Despite the bravado of claiming to know everything, there still remains a great deal of gullibility and naïveté about the real world.
When a young person picks up a history book, he will assume that the facts presented are authentic. They represent a true accounting of the events presented. As he grows older and becomes more seasoned and knowledgeable, he will learn that the very same period that he studied, can be learned from a totally different bent.
The victims suddenly become the oppressors and the villains now become the heroes. What may have been thought to be crimes, become acts of altruism. Being older and wiser, our student learns that even history books are biased. The personal views of the historian are incorporated into the description of historic events.
The reason why the media has been under attack so strongly, is that within their description of current events, there is an undertone of presumed values that are not shared by all. Just like the history books, it is almost impossible to be objective in reporting. Ideally, these values should at least be shared by the majority, but they are not.
A case in point is the coverage of President Trump’s efforts to screen those entering America. His intentions are to protect the United States citizens from potential criminals and terrorists. This is why he wants to build a wall on the Mexican border. The drugs smuggled into the country and the crimes committed by many illegals, has led to the deaths of thousands of citizens.
It would seem to make sense that people need to feel safer. Not only does terrorism kill, but drug overdose and armed robberies, do, too. Nevertheless, as obvious and logical that this might be, there still remains a philosophical question regarding collective punishment.
One school of thought says that human life is sacred and the loss of one innocent human being cannot be taken lightly. If an entire ethnic group or people, suffer as a result of this, this must be done in order to prevent the death of even one person. Even though there are many of that group who could be honest, law abiding citizens, they will be included with the criminals.
The second school of thought sees this as unjust. They are against collective punishment, for they see it as morally wrong to punish the majority for the sins of the few. This view of justice takes precedence even above the potential loss of life. Collective punishment is viewed as racist. And to be a racist is far worse than having innocent people dying needlessly.
Mainstream media seems to adopt this latter view. The real issue of saving and protecting American citizens, is overshadowed by that dirty word called “racism.” Those proposing such laws can then be included with other notorious racists. This leads to the unthinkable where the “protectors” of the people suddenly become equated with Nazis, Heaven forbid. The masses are stirred up to violently protest this “threat to civilization.”
There should at least be an attempt at objectivity by the media. They should not be fanning the flames of dissension by forcing their views on the masses. They should try to present both sides. They do not have the right to preach their view of morality in how they report the news.
The tragedy of this reality are the innocent minds that are poisoned by these biases. The same is true on college campuses where so called scholars impose their views on their students. At the very least, there should be a clear delineation by those in positions of influence, that they are presenting “their” view of truth. They should make it clear that other views exist that may also be correct.
I once took a course on the Middle East conflict at a Chicago university. For 15 weeks, I was subjected to vicious anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rants by this professor. Eventually, other Jewish students protested against this so called scholar. There was a small victory as the name of the class was changed to “The Arab View of the Middle East Conflict.”
Nobody has the right to force their views on others. Maybe a solution to this dillema would be to define the specific leaning of the presenters of the news. CNN would be called, “A Leftist Liberal presentation of current events.” Fox News would be “A Conservative presentation.” This would certainly avoid a great deal of confusion.
Perhaps this would lead to the possibility of sharing views in a civil, respectable manner. I once debated a notorious leftist on the subject of our rights to Judea and Samaria. I made a point of expressing my views in a dignified and respectful manner. A mutual party asked each of us separately what we thought of our debating partner. Surprisingly, we each gave the same response. “He is a nice person but his views are dangerous!” This is the ideal in sharing opposing views.
It is my sincere hope that sanity will shine through and there will be an end to all of the dissension and ill will. Goodness must prevail and evil must be destroyed. The world will then be a better place to live in.