RADULICH: Fact or Fiction

Every week 411Mania offers a debate column called Fact or Fiction which features a statement that the writers respond to. In said writer's opinion, the statemen is either a fact or it is fiction and then they explain why. Occasionally I contribute to the debate. Here is my latest contribution)

1) The media is biased. Outlets are more concerned with picking and presenting news Their Way as opposed to being objective and impersonal.

Fact - and I'm not going to bother with liberal or conservative slants because that's pointless. It's more about the news being owned by corporations. Corporations have one goal, make money for their investors. The news makes money by being content in which to install expensive commercials. Period. Whether it's CNN or FOX, O'Reilly or Olberman, it doesn't matter so long as people are turning in long enough to be convinced to buy the car, drugs or whatever is being advertised. It's the same thing with print media and radio. These outlets may have a political slant but that's secondary to the belief that whatever content they've chosen is a money maker so that's what gets produced. It's liberal or conservative slant is more a of a reflection of the content producer himself and less of media bias as a whole. As long as the show makes money, that's all the bosses care about. As far as being objective and impersonal, years ago somebody figured out that to get Americans to turn into the news en masse, you had to put on shows that were attractive to mass audiences and not confusing or complex, thus car chases overtook intellectual presentations and analysis. This actually started with the vision of bodies being brought back from Vietnam but that's a story for another day.

2) There is a culture war in this country (note: this term was used before Bill O'Reilly made it recently popular, so don't say Fiction just cause you hate him).

Fact - of course there's a culture war. It's a war between those who don't want to be judged for any behavior and for those that believe restrictions on behavior is a good thing. People like to lay this conflict at the feet of solely the secular progressives because typically they are the ones who are for lowering standards of behavior and making arguments for normalization of all behavior, deviant or otherwise but the far right is just as bad. The far right doesn't want to be judged for its radical behavior either. The culture war goes beyond progressive vs conservative and is really a battle between the selfless and mature vs the selfish and immature. Selfish people care only about themselves to the exclusion of all else and they can be either liberal or conservative. Selfish people are the ones lowering the debate to the benefit of themselves without thinking about the consequences for others. Selfish people do all of this without wanting to be confronted because rationally they have no leg to stand on. That's the culture war in a nut shell and it's been going on since the necessity of having to tolerate your neighbor or family member was replaced by the well-meaning but utterly disastrous notion that the government is responsible for caring for individuals.

3) It really doesn't matter who we vote for, or if we vote at all. Politicans are pretty much all the same.

Fiction - some are smarter and more thoughtful than others. Some are dutiful while others simply seek a kingdom to call their own. Some politicians are guided by their personal ethics while others only act in defense of their own elite position. The system balances things out making some politicians less or more effective than others but ultimately if you don't see the difference between Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi and how they affect Washington differently then you are not really paying attention. Now, do all of these have personal foibles? Of course they do as they are human afterall. But that doesn't mean that all politicians are the same just because they are all fallible. Those are two different issues.

4) Having more than just 2 dominant political parties to choose from is one primary solution to our nation's plights.

Fact - If the Europeans do anything right, it's their electoral process. I like having lots of candidates to choose from with more than one decisive election to determine who should be the main leader. I think the run-off elections are a capital idea. I think people like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul should be viable options for American voters rather than having to choose between two lite brands or safe choices (John Kerry I'm looking in your direction). If the CT election of 2006 is any indication, Joe Lieberman shows us that in today's political culture, there is room for independants in the electoral process. Nowing, establing a viable third party than adequately threaten the big two will be a feat considering both are loathe to give up their dominance.