Worthwhile questions
I read today a news piece concerning a study of youth's understanding of the news. Apparently those that watch the "false-news" comedy program "The Daily Show", with Jon Stewart, get a better grasp of the news than those watching "legitimate" news programs. I think there are many reasons for this. Casting aside the fact that the Daily Show (DS) viewers might represent a more sophisticated set of viewers (which might not even be true), it is an entertaining show that appeals to our funny bone, not our fears. Perhaps we are more likely to retain information in order to share with friends, rather than repress in order not to panic.
DS however is not a "false-news" show as many other spoofs on news broadcasts. Its more like the comments you might make among friends when critically watching the news, ie, when you question the news being fed to you, question the people cast on the news, their motives, the politics. Jon Stewart simply asks outloud questions that we ask ourselves and points out the ridicule of certain contradictions in politics. In that sense, DS is content-rich: it gives the news bullets with a tone that prompts one to make connections and think. Furthermore, it cuts through the mundane items to focus on central themes, like war, corruption, and does so by diving through the surface and, again, asking critical questions.
Inspired by this notion of how simply stating certain questions that make connections, one can instill some degree of critical thought, and impressed with the output of a portuguese blog that has a daily post with a single question, I'm going to attempt to post more regularly on this blog, by using the question format. Often, I simply don't have time to write the more detailed posts I'd like and simply don't post at all.
Incidentaly, tied to this theme of critical questions: check out the letter the President of Iran Ahmedinejad sent to George W. Bush. Its somewhat long but worthwhile to dash through in to get a first-hand impression. In it, he assumes Bush's Christian commitment and addresses a extensive list of questions, largely asking whether his policies are consistent with those his religious values. Aside from the intruding God-speak, he asks questions asked of American Imperialism the world over. Its also worthwhile to read on the question of Israel. News on Iran is now always cast in the light of its development of nuclear reactors for energy (although its civilian purpose is not usually explicitly states in the news - allowing for confusion between energetic purposes and belligerent uses). So you might very well hear "Ahmedinejad visited the Phillipines ... bla-bla-bla ... nuclear ... bla-bla-bla ... Israel will disapear". It leaves the impression, the association that he is proclaiming the destruction of Israel, with nuclear bombs. The associations while not explicitly filling in the dots, can leave an enduring impression. Recall how the White House's statements associating Saddam and 9/11, while rarely saying Saddam was responsible, contributed largely to a majority opinion that he was indeed responsible and therefore that war was justified. What Ahmedinejad has in fact been forecasting is that the Jewish state of Israel is untenable, that Israel is an artificial creation that oppresses Palestinians and destabilizes the region, and that there should be a referendum where Christians, Jews and Muslims can participate to decide the future of those territories. Regardless of whether you subscribe to a two-state or one-state solution, or think he would support such a suggestion, given the larger growth rate of Palestinians, it becomes clear that he is not asking for the destruction of Israel. In the recent conference on Palestine, held in Teheran, he articulated very explicitly that Israel would disapear as an implosion.
DS however is not a "false-news" show as many other spoofs on news broadcasts. Its more like the comments you might make among friends when critically watching the news, ie, when you question the news being fed to you, question the people cast on the news, their motives, the politics. Jon Stewart simply asks outloud questions that we ask ourselves and points out the ridicule of certain contradictions in politics. In that sense, DS is content-rich: it gives the news bullets with a tone that prompts one to make connections and think. Furthermore, it cuts through the mundane items to focus on central themes, like war, corruption, and does so by diving through the surface and, again, asking critical questions.
Inspired by this notion of how simply stating certain questions that make connections, one can instill some degree of critical thought, and impressed with the output of a portuguese blog that has a daily post with a single question, I'm going to attempt to post more regularly on this blog, by using the question format. Often, I simply don't have time to write the more detailed posts I'd like and simply don't post at all.
Incidentaly, tied to this theme of critical questions: check out the letter the President of Iran Ahmedinejad sent to George W. Bush. Its somewhat long but worthwhile to dash through in to get a first-hand impression. In it, he assumes Bush's Christian commitment and addresses a extensive list of questions, largely asking whether his policies are consistent with those his religious values. Aside from the intruding God-speak, he asks questions asked of American Imperialism the world over. Its also worthwhile to read on the question of Israel. News on Iran is now always cast in the light of its development of nuclear reactors for energy (although its civilian purpose is not usually explicitly states in the news - allowing for confusion between energetic purposes and belligerent uses). So you might very well hear "Ahmedinejad visited the Phillipines ... bla-bla-bla ... nuclear ... bla-bla-bla ... Israel will disapear". It leaves the impression, the association that he is proclaiming the destruction of Israel, with nuclear bombs. The associations while not explicitly filling in the dots, can leave an enduring impression. Recall how the White House's statements associating Saddam and 9/11, while rarely saying Saddam was responsible, contributed largely to a majority opinion that he was indeed responsible and therefore that war was justified. What Ahmedinejad has in fact been forecasting is that the Jewish state of Israel is untenable, that Israel is an artificial creation that oppresses Palestinians and destabilizes the region, and that there should be a referendum where Christians, Jews and Muslims can participate to decide the future of those territories. Regardless of whether you subscribe to a two-state or one-state solution, or think he would support such a suggestion, given the larger growth rate of Palestinians, it becomes clear that he is not asking for the destruction of Israel. In the recent conference on Palestine, held in Teheran, he articulated very explicitly that Israel would disapear as an implosion.
posted by André Levy @ 7:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home