Philosophy: of news?

Last updated on: October 5, 2005 at 1:43 am by Justin Whitaker

Philosophy: of news? 2005-10-05T01:43:00-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That’s right, ‘Philosophy of News’. Today I sat in on a discussion by Matt Gibson, publisher of The Independent and Calendar Editor and Writer Jason Wiener of the issues of philosophy in the news as both a basis of media principles and in commentary by philosophers as experts in stories.

The discussion was a bit wavering at first, with Matt Gibson trying to lay out the principles of his own publishing philosophy, which seem to revolve around the admittedly problematic theme of pluralism. He characterized himself (and the paper) as an ‘influence peddler’, attracting readers and selling influence to advertisers, and seemed to wonder out loud if we had any suggestions about how such ‘influence peddling’ might be best used. Concerning journalism, he said he avoids ‘seeking justice’ or ‘Truth’ in favor of ‘validating perspectives’ and ‘accuracy’. This, he argues, allows readers to expand their own notions of what constitutes the ‘Good Life’. Matt admitted that he wasn’t strong in philosophy and encouraged discussion from the audience to help him explicate and evaluate his otherwise clouded values.

Jason Weiner discussed reporting as essentially non-objective. In addition to most reporters seeing themselves as seeking Truth and Justice, every reporter has to get into a story with an angle, and it is that angle that makes us as readers care about it. Jason, a recent graduate of the University of Montana Philosophy MA program, stated that philosophy is useful in finding an angle, a ‘thread between otherwise disparate events.’ He also discussed the difficulty of a new journalist, finding an interesting angle in a story, but then discovering that what he saw as so interesting was not so important to the subjects of the story, his interviews going off in a wholly different direction. In addition to being forced to ‘follow’ stories wherever the subjects lead them, reporters don’t have unlimited space, and as such there isn’t a lot of room for philosophy in the news.

Ross Best, a ‘student’ in the audience berated (gently) Matt Gibson for his apparent failure to take a normative position, a failure which has led to (or come from) much of the commercialization and hence deterioration of media in recent years. But Ross did say Matt and the Independent do carry a normative message, even if it isn’t so explicitly stated, and should take the position of a ‘trustee of the people… a kind of public servant [as the owners] of the New York Times have been encouraged to think about their role…’ Matt did his best to address this, but didn’t seem to get it so much, referring to a ‘crass conversation’ he had just shared with Jason about the reasons for choosing stories, and stumbling back to the fact that sometimes they don’t get it right, and hence the importance of pluralism.

It went on from there in similar fashion, a few good questions, and decent answers (I’ve given presentations and know that giving clear answers, off the cuff, is very difficult). Dr. Borgmann came in with an interesting comment though, citing a story in the New York Times about a new measure for happiness coming from the tiny Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan. The story follows something Dr. Borgmann has had an eye on for some years now: the increasing investigation into ‘happiness’ by scientists who are showing that most of what Americans take to constitute the happy life are just dead wrong: more money, objective health, education, race, and sunshine all did little or nothing to affect happiness (from Martin Seligman’s book “Authentic Happiness“). Seligman also shows that while the US has the top consuming power in the world, we fall behind several countries when asked about happiness.

It’s tricky science (as is any ‘social’ science) but it does add fuel to the fire behind those of us who see contemporary society in a deeply damaging state. Dr. Borgmann likened it to the rise of Environmentalism in the ’50s and ’60s, which is ‘commonplace today’, and Feminism in the same decades. In that time, he says, male chauvinism was just getting jabs from what seemed like radicals. Today enlightened young men such as myself see Feminism and Environmentalism as great advances in our society (excessive at times, but overall beneficial), and maybe in thirty years ‘Happinessism‘ will be common stock in the vocabularies of all Americans (even if the right wing still dismisses it).

We can hope. And we can also hope that philosophy makes its way into news; or in fact go further than it already has.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 1, 2005

Life: funny stuff

Next Post

October 5, 2005 Philosophy: Catholic church admits mistakes in Bible

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz