Started "Decision Points" by George W. Bush and was surprised to hear that he was the performer reading the book.
Just about 1/2 hour in...Nice to hear how concerned he was of his "national guard" position during the Vietnam War was being misrepresented in the press. Does he remember the atrocity that was the Swiftboating of a real war hero in Kerry?
It's hard to listen to without editing his words and wanting to get to a point of truth, not spin. I'm not sure if he really makes any distinction.
This did bring up the opportunity in the e-book age to force books to be accurate to a degree never before possible - why can't publishers require that "spin" be retroactively changed in volume updates as they become apparent, or use live footnotes to allow for the full controversies to be discussed with alternative viewpoints, assuming they are reliable and valid?
I'd like somebody, perhaps publishers, perhaps 3rd party, who's endorsement would be required, or significantly recommended, before books that purport to be "non-fiction" are actually considered so.
It would be nice to differentiate opinion from factual recollection from spin in some objective manner. Logistically this will be difficult to accomplish, particularly when exploring "charged" personalities or events (like the entire Bush presidency), but the effort, if successful, would be worthy.
In prior generations, newspapers and news sources provided this role - policing themselves, and each other, on accuracy in reporting. Lawsuits and courts provided societal sanction, if required, for personal attacks and untruths. With the advent of non-impartial news organizations like Fox News and perhaps to a lesser extent MSNBC, which have a defined viewpoint to support a particular political party, and not to objectively report the news, and the loss of newspaper's role in the internet age, there is less and less ability to sort through the spin and approach the truth - this has serious effects when extended forward. How will the non-elite (all of us) understand what is happening when the monied powers (corporations) control the information channels? Can we rely upon each person to sift the internet and provide a properly contexted understanding of events? How does democracy survive if the electorate can't uncover what is actually happening?
No comments:
Post a Comment