More Perspectives from the Jewish Right

In a previous post I wrote about Albom's take that in criticizing or attempting to silence Chavez we are not only revoking freedom of speech (read: we have to be courteous hosts to a guest who takes pleasure in criticizing our home), but we're also refuting to ourselves the fact that we're in the right.

But I think we don't have to be fair and impartial in order to be right. Sometimes, trying to be balanced is not the right way to go and during these times, picking sides is only necessary. For his part, Paul Greenberg exemplifies this viewpoint in his article "Constructing reality: The news and you" when he says:

"We keep being told about news coverage that is Fair and Balanced, or Impartial and Objective. Unfortunately, we tend to use all those terms as synonyms. They aren't.
Just quoting both sides of a debate and leaving it at that may be balanced, but it's scarcely fair to the reader. And there's nothing commendable about being so impartial between truth and falsity that we split the difference between the two and call it objectivity. "

This is absolutely spot-on. He then goes on to say what I think is an awesome quote:

"If the press just recites what the politicians say, we run the risk of being reduced to a bullhorn for their version of reality. Call it the Joe McCarthy Problem. Merely to retail a demagogue's propaganda and stop there, without examining it, is to become an accomplice to it."

And when we're finally sniffing doublespeak? Well, Greenberg likens it to cognitive dissonance. How to define this? Greenberg doesn't know, so he uses examples, one from 1984 and one from his own life, and these are really important parts of his article, especially since his personal life experience relates to the Jim Crow South. It is truly a must-read anecdote.

He ends by telling us that things are clear to us only if we are honest with ourselves.

And that, to me, is the truth of the matter.