The recent George Zimmerman trial and verdict has highlighted to me an unpleasant side-effect of living in the 24-hour news channel culture. We are in danger of becoming a nation of pundits – of self-appointed experts on everything!
I can’t watch Nancy Grace. She gets a few facts, prejudges a situation, then tenaciously trumpets her position as if it is black and white – clear beyond dispute. She may be the worst of the worst, but the cable news channels are filled with her ilk. Bill O’Reilly. Rachel Maddow. Sean Hannity. Lawrence O’Donnell. Chris Matthews. And the radio airwaves bristle with the opinions of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. ESPN gives us the hysterical rantings of Stephen A and Skip.
These people hold a wide range of opinions on a wide range of subjects. What links them is the belief that their views are absolutely right, that the other side is evil or stupid or deceived, their willingness to trumpet those views loudly and defiantly regardless of the factual support, and their unwillingness to even consider contrary opinions. These pundits tend to emphasize volume of argument over logic.
Are we in danger as a nation of being shaped by their punditry? In blogging, are we establishing our own little havens of punditry? Are we channeling our inner Nancy Grace, or Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews? Do we take a cursory look at the facts, make a snap judgment, then make bold pronouncements based loosely on the facts and largely on our prejudged ideas?
Look at the responses to the Zimmerman verdict. Just the facts, ma’am:
- None of us was there that night when Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had their encounter. Our opinions are not firsthand, but shaped by others.
- None of us (I hope) watched the trial coverage gavel to gavel, nor likely read a full court transcript. When we opine on this matter, we are doing so on the basis of partial, not complete knowledge.
- Regardless of whether we admit it or not, our views of the events are shaped as much by our own experiences and attitudes as they are by the facts of the event. If you are a black man who has experienced profiling or DWB or other such abuses, you are likely to view this situation differently from a suburban white businessman who was robbed by a group of young black men. Our views are shaped by our experiences. No matter how objective we claim to be, we are subjective – all of us. We are shaped by our upbringing, environment and experiences.
- Our views of the events are shaped largely by the coverage we watch. If you watch Fox, your fair and balanced view is likely to skew in one direction. If you watch MSNBC, it is likely to lean forward in another direction. We are shaped by the opinions of the pundits.
Each of us is entitled to our opinions and the whole point of this blog is to allow people to share their opinions. That is what we are about. But we need to be careful to not imitate Nancy Grace or Rush Limbaugh in our discussions. We need to be careful to be as well-informed as we can before we opine. We ought to demonstrate opinion humility – “this is what I believe based on the information I have.” We must listen to others, even those whose opinions diverge from our own. We must articulate our views clearly, but avoid the blustery ways of the pundits I’ve mentioned.
That’s my opinion.
For the record, I used the term prejudice several times, or the word prejudge. Not once did I intend that in a racial way. I’m talking about forming opinions and making judgments before you have enough evidence.I
Dave,
If we can share our opinions, why is it that you delete some opinions, that
doesn’t go along with your way of thinking. For example, one of mine got deleted about three days ago. If we are truthful why delete the comments.
Your comment met all the criteria for thoughtful and uplifting debate between fellow workers for the gospel and still got moderated? For no good reason? That would surprise me very much.
Jess, in the comment you reference, you called another person a racist – an accusation I deemed to be unfair and without merit.
It is not that disagreed with that comment, it is that I thought calling someone else a racist was not where the conversation ought to go.
Dave,
For the record, I did not call anyone racist. I said that their comments sounded racist. I also pointed out the comments to them.
Never the less, this is a good post, and I don’t think any of these folks that you mentioned should report the news. They make me sick, along with their higher up’s. News should be free of opinion by the one who reports it.
That, I think, is a distinction without a difference.
Well, you gave a good list of sorry Conservatives. How about a list of sorry Liberal commentators on MSNBC, CNN, and HLN? And you might throw in some folks from the Washington Post, New York Times, and the New Republic to get some balance. We are being subjected to ying and yang, the Hegelian dialectic is being used on us to yank us back and forth until we collapse in exhanustion and confusion. Then the trap is sprung.
Uh…James…Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews are among more virulent and hateful liberals out there. I chose them specifically for the reasons you mentioned.
I need a Like button here. Oh well, an emoticon will have to do. 🙂
Don’t you know that emoticons are evil?
How can I know something that isn’t true?
Though I’ll have to admit, there’s a *whole* lot of people who sure make a swing at it.
Dave,
There is also Michael Berry (http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html) and Mark Lavin (http://www.marklevinshow.com/).
The believer is to exercise his/her discernment and wisdom in all situations. We seldom focus on local and personal situations with spiritual qualities God wants us to use. We exercise our fleshly opinions and not what God intended us to focus on. I am convicted of my desire to hear from all these “host” who are strongly opinionated. It affects me in what I am suppose to do and be as a Christian. I am encouraged by your comments here to avoid any future talk show host that continues to down grade these kind of things publically.
Serious? Moderation?
Any time you put two links in a comment, it goes into moderation.
But whining always helps!
Some say that is my best quality. (smiley face)
Dave,
I agree that these trends in our society are definitely disturbing. At the same time, I think it is important to recognize that some of the most egregious examples of uninformed punditry often resound from behind the pulpit. What sort of example are conservative evangelicals presenting to our culture? How well would the average Southern Baptist pastor fare if their sermons were subjected to rigorous standards of fact checking? Having served both as a Southern Baptist pastor and, for the last eight years, a professor of history at two Christian colleges representing different denominations, I have been amazed and embarrassed at how easily we jump on these same bandwagons. One feels helpless trying to do responsible historical research from a Christian perspective as a service to the church only to find that the itching ears of the majority prefer the sugary substitutes of punditry to the nutritional diet of accuracy and nuance. In our thinking about how to counter these problems, it seems to me of critical importance that the change begins in our churches.
Hey, we can’t let facts get in the way of a good story or an illustration, can we?
This statement grabbed me: “One feels helpless trying to do responsible historical research from a Christian perspective as a service to the church only to find that the itching ears of the majority prefer the sugary substitutes of punditry to the nutritional diet of accuracy and nuance.”
I think that one of the reasons for the popularity of the pundits is that they offer black and white viewpoints on issues that are actually shrouded in shades of gray.
I’m afraid that’s one of the reasons for the popularity of some preachers, too.
Liked your commentary. Grace and other pundits like her survive on ratings and unfortunately the method involves inflaming viewers. Even when their statements are factual, they are stated in a context that inflames and is untruthful. For example, saying that Zimmerman was told not to follow Tray on but got out of his truck and followed him anyway. Zimmerman did get out of his truck and follow Trayvon, but it was while he was on foot following him that the police asked if he was following him and told him not to. Zimmerman complied by heading back to the truck. I cannot watch these programs and it is disturbing that the masses never question whether they are getting the facts. Gavel to gavel does at least allow you to hear the actual witnesses so you can understand why the jury reached their conclusion. I believe the verdict was just based on that testimony, but I have to confess, I didn’t think that would be the verdict. I believe this whole event was a tragedy for both families, but was it fair to show pictures of Trayvon at age 12 and 14 as a sweet faced boy, instead of his 5′ 11″ and 185 lb frame young man?
This is such a good and timely post.
“Do we take a cursory look at the facts, make a snap judgment, then make bold pronouncements based loosely on the facts and largely on our prejudged ideas?” I know I’m guilty some times.
Take the Zimmerman case for instance. Has not the media told us repeatedly that GZ was ordered to get in/stay in his truck and ordered not to follow TM? Yes of course. But that’s simply factually wrong and the trial testimony proved that. Still, GZ is widely believed to have disobeyed a direct police command.
We should all take a deep breath before repeating what we hear from the pundits.
And once we have made such a pronouncement, do we “stick to our guns” and refuse to admit that we could have been wrong? That, I think, does more damage than the initial arrogant pronouncement.
Dave,
I’ve had an idea for a post in the back of my mind for sometime now called “The Limbaughization of Evangelicalism.” Thanks for writing this one: now I don’t have to write mine—which I probably never would have gotten around to anyway.
In any case, the idea that struck me when I first got back from 18 years in Spain about 6 years ago was that the conversational style of (many) evangelicals had changed and come to reflect that of those they were listening to on the radio, tv, etc.
Rom. 12:2 (NLT): “Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.”
Glad to be of service.
I’m afraid that Baptist blogging may, at times, be evidence of this cultural conformity.
David: I still want read it.
Nancy Grace annoys me and does not live up to her last name.
Anyway, I wanted to share an insightful comment on the case:
Personally, I think we’d be more productive if we tried to work on problems rather than become amateur prosecutors or defense lawyers.
Well, the site is run by a defense attorney and has other attorneys as regular commenters. And you expertise for commenting on Nancy Grace are? 😉
I’m glad I don’t have cable and have to endure the most extreme of that nonsense. I don’t even know who Nancy Grace is! Broadcast TV and radio is bad enough.
Now, back to sermon preparation.
You are blessed to not know who Nancy Grace is.
I need to get back to work myself.
If I were still in Spain, the term “Tot Mom” would not be a part of my vocabulary.
Making an unwarranted moral equivalence is a mistake, a fallacy.
The virtue of biblical discernment avoids the fallacy of making an unwarranted, unjust moral equivalence.
An example would be making the moral equivalence of an Islamic terrorist with an Israeli guard.
Another example of making a fallacious moral equivalence argument is saying that liberal pundit commentators are the same ilk as conservative pundit commentators.
I see Bulverism and self-righteousness coming from both of them. That’s enough for me.
Don’t forget amid your criticism that Nancy Grace graduated with honors from a good Baptist college in Georgia and was the commencement speaker at my son-in-law’s graduation from the same institution (fortunately he turned out OK despite his education). How’s them for credentials.
This is my own opinion based on my own experience, but evangelical Christians seem to be angry all the time. They seem to complain all the time. And their anger seems to be related to the amount of time they spend listening to the never ending rants of conservative talk show or TV icons. “because it is in their best interests to keep us angry all the time”
When we get together, we always hear about the latest pontifications of O’Reilly. O’Reilly seems to be king of the hill, at least with the folks I associate with. Conspiracy theories abound. Justified opposition to the current president (and there are many excellent reasons to oppose him) has become near-hatred.
I have, and do listen to some of these folks from time to time, but I think on the whole the Conservative media phenomenon has done more harm to evangelicals than good. At least from where I’m sitting.
Where I live (Houston area), it is easy to listen to “hard right” radio shows from 7:00 AM until 10:00 PM. They are constantly disapproving of our government, our country, our institutions and many individuals. If you do this, there is no way that you can be anything but angry and upset.
Then at 10:00 PM, you can switch to the “Nuts in the Night” shows and they run until 3:00 or 4:00 AM with conspiracy theories and UFO/Bigfoot type discussions and other wild opinions.
It can get you down if you spend much time at it.
Lately, I’ve taken to setting up a number of podcasts (Car Talk, Wait Wait don’t tell me, a couple of ham radio news podcasts, Full Circle (a 70’s/80’s jesus Music show) and my church’s sermon podcasts) on my cell phone, and i listen to those in the car. Probably better for me that the range of talk radio available here in the Atlanta area.
These are actors not news reporters. They are taught how to get the public riled up, the better they are at doing it, the bigger salary they
receive. Al Sharpton is 58 years old and has a wife in her 30’s. Works every time.
I hink Al’s secret is his hair. Never.one.out.of.place. And still rockin’ the same do from the 80’s. Lol. Lol.
I think Al’s secret is his hair. Never.one.out.of.place. And still rockin’ the same do from the 80’s. Lol. Lol.
I don’t care who you are, that right there is funny….LOL….
Can’t say I am any great admirer of Nancy Grace. I blame her for the suicide of that girl in Florida. Such exposure to the awful, graphic, and public criticism might well drive a person who made some mistake to suicide…even if they were not guilty as charged.
As to our news media, it is now pretty well conceded that we no longer have a free media. What we have now is a corporate controlled news media, whether print, electronic (tv, radio, etc.). That is why we are not getting the truth about the loss of our freedoms which are surely being removed in the name of patriotism. The Patriot’s Act is a case in point. If you speak vociferously against a public person, you are liable to catch flack from it. Some years ago (in the early part of the first decade of this new century), a fellow in group (I think it was a card game) made a reference to the President or one of the public figures and said he ought to be shot or something to that effect. A few days later, the FBI showed up, quizzing the participants in that group and giving warning to the person who made that statement (one which I considered to be stupid) which, being an expression of opinion and not of intent, falls under freedom of speech. Now one can practically wind up in prison for such expressions. So much for freedom of speech, and we are rapidly becoming acquainted with the fact that we are not free to practice our faith like we use to do. In fact, we are being shut out of the public square by political correctness. If this continues, we will have a civil war here (God forbid) which is what some folks want as they desire to take us into a tyranny of one kind or another. One publically wealthy individual has bragged in his autobiography and I even picked up his statement on the internet that he was a part of a conspiracy of which he had been accused in years past and was proud of it. Talk about an admission. that was one of them. And then there are those who speak of folks as being nut cases for believing in conspiracies. Well that fellow is one of the wealthiest men in America, and he admits to being a part of it. Probably, the nearest thing to freedom of expression and news media is to be found on the internet where the free exchange of ideas is abundant and monitored closely by the folks at the NSA as well as the military intelligence and other agencies and, dare I say, by the beast of Brussels which many laughed out of court years ago (and it might no longer be there due to modern improvement and downsizing of computers). However, I read of a fellow who went into a bank in another state to get a loan, and he had childhood buddy working at the bank who was to approve his loan. His buddy told him and then showed him, that the computer overseas could pull up a school paper he wrote in high school. The paper was produced for the fellow from the computer setting on his friend’s desk.
While we are on the subject, let us talk about Quantaum (sp?) computers. I read work on the computers possessed by certain agencies in our government, pointing out that they had then, some 10-20 years ago, computers that could do 19-20,000,000 operations per second per every person on earth. Now imagine the speed with the computers that can work on the right and left spins of an electron in a atom! Despise not the day of small things. Consider that computers helped to win World War II..like the computers for aiming the sixteen inch guns on the USS North Carolina or the central computer which enabled one man to aim and fire six machine guns at enemy aircraft from one place on a B29 during the last part of World War II.
And have you fellows read, Mr. Black’s book, IBM and The Holocaust? IBM made good money from supply computers and punch cards to the Nazis who used them to locate Jews in the countries they conquered and round them up and exterminate them. The money was then deposited in Swiss Bank Accounts. I could say more, but read outside the boxes, folks in every things.
The folks you mention in this article our Commentators and are not News Reporters.
Now if you mix these together and believe you are getting news from these folks the issue resides in yourself and not them. You would not be alone in the confusion, although this does not excuse the blending of news and commentators in our minds.
Now when you watch a News program you are suppose to have a reporter reporting facts and not opining. The issue here is the talking heads are not reporters. A great example lately was the talking head out KTVU in Oakland reported name of the crew Flight 214 that crashed as “Sum Ting Wong,” “Wi Tu Lo,” “Ho Lee Fxx” and “Bang Ding Ow”despite the fact that the names of the pilot and co-pilot, Lee Gang-guk and Lee Jeong-min, had already been released to the news outlet.
Now if we look to these sources you have mentioned for our discernment of news “Sum Ting Wong,”. We want instant news instantly 24 four hours a day. We want reporting in the twitter verse to be accurate and instantaneously delivered.
We want voyeurism and not news. The news outlets are just delivering what we requested. Now back to reading the SBCvoices twitter feed. Smiley Face added to soften the harsh realities that we all participate in.