i have been on the sidelines over the recent actions that have now plagued WikiLeaks founder Assange. This brings to mind all too evidently the need of better journalistic standards. Something that has been lacking since the establishment of Fox "News". The public has been under the impression that more news means better coverage and a more "balanced" opinion. Newsflash, it brings neither. What has occurred over the last 20 years is a blurring of the lines between journalism and commentary. And if one does not understand the difference, it's not surprising. What WikiLeaks has done, whether we like what has been disclosed or not, is bring the problem of journalism into a clearer focus.
For the last 20 years, cable news programs have consisted of shouting matches sprinkled with information that is suppose to pass for news. This kind of show is well liked by the followers of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and others because it does not require the rigorous cost of actually going out and getting that information. They merely take the information, break it apart, and spin it in their preferred direction. Some stations are better than most at trying to appear that they are not spinning this information. As a result, the production of "news" programs has become more cost efficient, in that they are now cheaper, and less able to go out and seek those stories that require months of research for a reporter. Hence, it was no surprise that when WikiLeaks disclosed and uncovered information, they were willing to do what the other news companies did not have the guts, or the intellect, to do for fear of losing their credibility. Sometimes one must put one's credibility on the line and risk looking like a fool. Something many news organizations are not willing to do.
Hence, the degeneration of the news into what we see now is a direct result of financial bean counters who all want to be 60 minutes. Never mind that it took 60 minutes 5-10 years to build up a good following. They all want results, and they want those results now. This is reflected in their less than professional journalistic ethics at times. That is why the public now needs to become more aware that organizations like WikiLeaks will become the norm more frequently, as they are filling the void left vacant due to the inability of news organizations to do more with less. I applaud Assange for having the guts to discolose information, even if I don't like what its about, because that is what a free press is suppose to do in a democracy. It's suppose to inform people about things that they would probably not want to hear about. It does not fit into the endless cycles of mudslides in Peru or Java. It challenges one to think outside of dismal commentary by O'Riley that is suppose to be "news". We need more people willing to take these strides. If only to wake up a press corp that is sadly lacking in its search for real news.
i have been on the sidelines over the recent actions that have now plagued WikiLeaks founder Assange. This brings to mind all too evidently the need of better journalistic standards. Something that has been lacking since the establishment of Fox "News". The public has been under the impression that more news means better coverage and a more "balanced" opinion. Newsflash, it brings neither. What has occurred over the last 20 years is a blurring of the lines between journalism and commentary. And if one does not understand the difference, it's not surprising. What WikiLeaks has done, whether we like what has been disclosed or not, is bring the problem of journalism into a clearer focus.
For the last 20 years, cable news programs have consisted of shouting matches sprinkled with information that is suppose to pass for news. This kind of show is well liked by the followers of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and others because it does not require the rigorous cost of actually going out and getting that information. They merely take the information, break it apart, and spin it in their preferred direction. Some stations are better than most at trying to appear that they are not spinning this information. As a result, the production of "news" programs has become more cost efficient, in that they are now cheaper, and less able to go out and seek those stories that require months of research for a reporter. Hence, it was no surprise that when WikiLeaks disclosed and uncovered information, they were willing to do what the other news companies did not have the guts, or the intellect, to do for fear of losing their credibility. Sometimes one must put one's credibility on the line and risk looking like a fool. Something many news organizations are not willing to do.
Hence, the degeneration of the news into what we see now is a direct result of financial bean counters who all want to be 60 minutes. Never mind that it took 60 minutes 5-10 years to build up a good following. They all want results, and they want those results now. This is reflected in their less than professional journalistic ethics at times. That is why the public now needs to become more aware that organizations like WikiLeaks will become the norm more frequently, as they are filling the void left vacant due to the inability of news organizations to do more with less. I applaud Assange for having the guts to discolose information, even if I don't like what its about, because that is what a free press is suppose to do in a democracy. It's suppose to inform people about things that they would probably not want to hear about. It does not fit into the endless cycles of mudslides in Peru or Java. It challenges one to think outside of dismal commentary by O'Riley that is suppose to be "news". We need more people willing to take these strides. If only to wake up a press corp that is sadly lacking in its search for real news.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
It's that time of year again. Time to grade the 100 essay exams from the 4 classes I have been teaching. I took a break a few times and came across this article about two cheating spouses who found each other at their child's preschool. What was the surprising to me was the actions of these people and the claims that they make. “I did a terrible thing as honorably as I could,” said Mr. Partilla, who moved out of his home, reluctantly leaving his three children. But he returned only days later. Then he boomeranged back and forth for six months. Ok, that can be an honest statement. But the problem is the word terrible and honorable do not belong in the same sentence. It was "dishonorable" to leave your children and wife after years of marriage and be selfish. That is what Mr. Partilla is being selfish. While I can agree that living in a happy home is better than a sad home, he states that this was not the case. So, he destroyed a happy home because he wanted a different life. Ok, let's be honest about it and not try to sugar coat this whole incident.
Ms Riddell is not guiltless in all of this either stating that "“The part that’s hard for people to believe is we didn’t have an affair,” Ms. Riddell said. “I didn’t want to sneak around and sleep with him on the side. I wanted to get up in the morning and read the paper with him.” Ok, we all get those feelings. And if one is not married with children, fine act on them. However, when we get to a situation where there are several other people involved, one must start thinking of the other people, particularly the children.
What surprises me about this article, is the ease with which these people talk about their private lives. If this were my life, I would not want to publicly illustrate that I was a lying, cheating, self-centered scoundrel. I would want to keep this private. This comes under the heading Too Much Information. What purpose does this article serve? That cheating is ok. That one can go after their passions and damn all the other people involved. What kind of example does this set for their children?
I am not one to go around moralizing other people's business, but when the NYT decides to publish a story like this, I will comment. I also agree that sometimes we cannot control who we fall in love with. But, the thing that was painfully obvious in this story with the "happy" family picture was the absence of what the other spouses and children went through. They were the ones that had to pay for this selfish act. And it is a selfish act. We all wonder at times whether we have married the right person. What is clear here is that despite the protestations of restraint and that their marriages were not in trouble, there was something wrong before the marriages fell apart. Frankly, I don't expect them in their PR effort to admit that, as this was clearly rehearsed.
So what does this have to do with history and teaching? Well, it is a lesson in the importance of one's actions. That there is a responsibility on the part of the individual that is bigger than the self when one is involved in a relationship. The historical illustration that comes to mind is Henry VIII. While he may have wanted to break with Rome, he did not consider the effect his actions would be on his daughters or his wives. While he was concerned about an heir, as history has shown, could he not have explored other options? I mean he could have passed on the Tudor dynasty to one of his sisters and still have kept a Tudor line. In fact, the issue of Lady Jane Grey comes to mind. But it is an example of not considering ones actions beforehand.
This is also the problem of the generation that is now in its 20s, they have no idea of what it is like to sacrifice. And that is what should have happened here. If they were unfulfilled in their lives, then they should have found other ways rather than destroy other lives. If their marriages were not in trouble, why destroy them? Again, I am not one to say stay together at all costs. That would be unproductive. But in a day and age when most marriages don’t last past 5 years. People need to understand that relationships are not about the individual and as they grow more people get involved in the mix. It is a sad statement and they probably are remorseful, but they should not have publicized it as a triumph. It was a sanctimonious article with a less than clear lesson on life.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
It's that time of year again. Time to grade the 100 essay exams from the 4 classes I have been teaching. I took a break a few times and came across this article about two cheating spouses who found each other at their child's preschool. What was the surprising to me was the actions of these people and the claims that they make. “I did a terrible thing as honorably as I could,” said Mr. Partilla, who moved out of his home, reluctantly leaving his three children. But he returned only days later. Then he boomeranged back and forth for six months. Ok, that can be an honest statement. But the problem is the word terrible and honorable do not belong in the same sentence. It was "dishonorable" to leave your children and wife after years of marriage and be selfish. That is what Mr. Partilla is being selfish. While I can agree that living in a happy home is better than a sad home, he states that this was not the case. So, he destroyed a happy home because he wanted a different life. Ok, let's be honest about it and not try to sugar coat this whole incident.
Ms Riddell is not guiltless in all of this either stating that "“The part that’s hard for people to believe is we didn’t have an affair,” Ms. Riddell said. “I didn’t want to sneak around and sleep with him on the side. I wanted to get up in the morning and read the paper with him.” Ok, we all get those feelings. And if one is not married with children, fine act on them. However, when we get to a situation where there are several other people involved, one must start thinking of the other people, particularly the children.
What surprises me about this article, is the ease with which these people talk about their private lives. If this were my life, I would not want to publicly illustrate that I was a lying, cheating, self-centered scoundrel. I would want to keep this private. This comes under the heading Too Much Information. What purpose does this article serve? That cheating is ok. That one can go after their passions and damn all the other people involved. What kind of example does this set for their children?
I am not one to go around moralizing other people's business, but when the NYT decides to publish a story like this, I will comment. I also agree that sometimes we cannot control who we fall in love with. But, the thing that was painfully obvious in this story with the "happy" family picture was the absence of what the other spouses and children went through. They were the ones that had to pay for this selfish act. And it is a selfish act. We all wonder at times whether we have married the right person. What is clear here is that despite the protestations of restraint and that their marriages were not in trouble, there was something wrong before the marriages fell apart. Frankly, I don't expect them in their PR effort to admit that, as this was clearly rehearsed.
So what does this have to do with history and teaching? Well, it is a lesson in the importance of one's actions. That there is a responsibility on the part of the individual that is bigger than the self when one is involved in a relationship. The historical illustration that comes to mind is Henry VIII. While he may have wanted to break with Rome, he did not consider the effect his actions would be on his daughters or his wives. While he was concerned about an heir, as history has shown, could he not have explored other options? I mean he could have passed on the Tudor dynasty to one of his sisters and still have kept a Tudor line. In fact, the issue of Lady Jane Grey comes to mind. But it is an example of not considering ones actions beforehand.
This is also the problem of the generation that is now in its 20s, they have no idea of what it is like to sacrifice. And that is what should have happened here. If they were unfulfilled in their lives, then they should have found other ways rather than destroy other lives. If their marriages were not in trouble, why destroy them? Again, I am not one to say stay together at all costs. That would be unproductive. But in a day and age when most marriages don’t last past 5 years. People need to understand that relationships are not about the individual and as they grow more people get involved in the mix. It is a sad statement and they probably are remorseful, but they should not have publicized it as a triumph. It was a sanctimonious article with a less than clear lesson on life.
Well if you are confused about how to celebrate the illegal, yes it is illegal that was what part of the civil war was all about, secession of South Carolina from the union have a ball. That is exactly what the one does if they are a white descendant of the South as found in The Guardian article described here.
Once again many Southern Americans refused to confront the complexities of their ancestry. As one noted and misguided descendant stated "For us the secession is not about a racial issue," said Michael Givens, the commander-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sponsored the event. "We are not celebrating slavery, we are celebrating the courage and the tenacity of the people who were prepared to go out and defend their homes." Defend their homes! Ok homes is synonomous with property. That is what the South was fighting for, to preserve their property. When you consider that slaves were considered "property", much like our modern day farm animals and pets, then the whole concept gets much clearer. The eminent Southern historian, Charles Drew also illustrated in a recent work that slavery was the main issue for the South as noted in the speeches of its Vice President Alexander Stephens. It was a war to preserve the Southern way of life, that of racial bondage and superiority much like World War II Germany. Those who cannot see the parallels really miss the point. And I am preparing for an onslaught of emails from those who have not studied the issue. To deny racial superiority as a main component to the Southern way of life would be like saying the Nazi's were just another political party bent on world domination.
In light of the decision of the Texas State Board of Education's decision to rewrite history, it has become even more imperative that we confront history as honestly as we can. This means honestly looking at the goals of the States that decided to rebel from the Union. The Civil War did not occur over night. Only after a series of start political issues stemming from the Mexican War and the territories acquired therefrom, does the real issue emerge. Slavery, that was the issue. Those who state it was for reasons of States' Rights, forget that that argument did not emerged until the 1880s after the end of Reconstruction when Americans were attempting to obtain a consensus. Now, after 150 years, Americans need to drop the consensus. If the Civil War was about States' Rights, it was about the Right of the States' to keep their property, i.e. slaves.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Well if you are confused about how to celebrate the illegal, yes it is illegal that was what part of the civil war was all about, secession of South Carolina from the union have a ball. That is exactly what the one does if they are a white descendant of the South as found in The Guardian article described here.
Once again many Southern Americans refused to confront the complexities of their ancestry. As one noted and misguided descendant stated "For us the secession is not about a racial issue," said Michael Givens, the commander-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sponsored the event. "We are not celebrating slavery, we are celebrating the courage and the tenacity of the people who were prepared to go out and defend their homes." Defend their homes! Ok homes is synonomous with property. That is what the South was fighting for, to preserve their property. When you consider that slaves were considered "property", much like our modern day farm animals and pets, then the whole concept gets much clearer. The eminent Southern historian, Charles Drew also illustrated in a recent work that slavery was the main issue for the South as noted in the speeches of its Vice President Alexander Stephens. It was a war to preserve the Southern way of life, that of racial bondage and superiority much like World War II Germany. Those who cannot see the parallels really miss the point. And I am preparing for an onslaught of emails from those who have not studied the issue. To deny racial superiority as a main component to the Southern way of life would be like saying the Nazi's were just another political party bent on world domination.
In light of the decision of the Texas State Board of Education's decision to rewrite history, it has become even more imperative that we confront history as honestly as we can. This means honestly looking at the goals of the States that decided to rebel from the Union. The Civil War did not occur over night. Only after a series of start political issues stemming from the Mexican War and the territories acquired therefrom, does the real issue emerge. Slavery, that was the issue. Those who state it was for reasons of States' Rights, forget that that argument did not emerged until the 1880s after the end of Reconstruction when Americans were attempting to obtain a consensus. Now, after 150 years, Americans need to drop the consensus. If the Civil War was about States' Rights, it was about the Right of the States' to keep their property, i.e. slaves.
