News, Opinion, and the Faded Line

 

I subscribe to The Washington Post online edition.  They keep my inbox filled with the latest news and opinions; or as one might accurately say, opinions and opinions.  But I digress.

This direct from the evening edition, June 2, 2016:

The petty things that people shot each over last month

Average Americans routinely shoot each other over minor annoyances, data show.

	One has to wonder how many things an "elite" news source can get wrong in two lines.  The elision of the word "other" in the bold-type headline we can chalk up to typo, i.e., careless error.  But look at the sub-line as an illustration of my "opinion or opinion" shot above.  Ostensibly (just from this slug line) the news is that someone compiled data on shootings in America which found that some (many?) shootings are over "minor annoyances."	The clear thrust of the line is that it is the opinion of the writer and, by extension, the publisher that "Average Americans routinely shoot each other."  Parsing that a bit further, it is the opinion of the WaPo that Average Americans are the perpetrators of shootings in our country, but more they engage in such crimes on a routine basis.	Am I the only person who sees anything wrong with this?  Journalists are often the target of politicians.  As the supposed guardians of truth, the vaunted "Fourth Estate" that will serve to keep us informed and free, it is natural that politicians and journalists will come into conflict.  But I fear that in the moral climate of the day it is a toss-up as to which group deserves our respect.  Full disclosure:  Upon the completion of this diatribe I read the article itself.  It was headed by a full-color photograph of a handgun and several hollow-point bullets lying on a table.  The story itself was pretty much what I expected.  Clicking on the bold line above will take you there.

Misapplication of Technology

I was awake until the wee hours last night, literally, watching the Kentucky-Louisville basketball game along with a few hundred other people.  I do not often watch sports events on television, though at one time in my life I was a serious fan of college basketball.  Things change.  I have changed: I am much older now, and time is precious.  One can only do so much, and the older I get, the less I do.  That is not what this rant is about.

The game itself has changed.  From the early days of my interest in the sport, that would have been in the mid-20th century, Clyde, and Wes, and "Hooks" played a game we knew as basketball.  They loved the game, and so did we, the fans.  Today's game resembles that game in its rudiments:  the court, the ball, and that's about it.  But that is not what this rant is about, either.

I did have a favorite in this game, but that is irrelevant to the rant as well.

Last night's game, poorly executed or brilliantly played as it was, came down to a handful of seconds on the clock with either team in a position to win it.  That is what the game should be!  But wait.  And wait.  The referee made his call, awarding the out-of-bounds ball to Louisville.  But then.  And this is what the rant is about.

For the next seven minutes, the officials reviewed the play via television monitors to determine if the call were correct.  Meanwhile, the network showed the audience at home the disputed play over and over and over and so on and so forth.  (The call on the floor was upheld.)  Before this sort of nonsensical interference in the game, the official would have immediately handed the ball to the player for the inbounds play, and the game would have proceeded.

Look.  Basketball officials are people who are extremely knowledgeable about the game, highly motivated to make good calls, and above all desirous of seeing a good game well and properly played.  Do officials ever make mistakes?  Of course.  But darned few, as a matter of fact.  Is one official likely to call a "tighter" game than another?  Indeed.  But they are not bad officials (those are weeded out long before we get to the Sweet Sixteen, or to March Madness, for that matter.)

And there is another thing that has changed.  During the years of my fandom, the referee was both the instant and final arbiter on the court.  One may disagree with him, but the game is played by the call he made.  As it should be.  Stop the nonsense.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

There I Go Again

Sometimes for no good reason except to vent, I find a rant tumbling from the ends of my fingers onto the keyboard. These ravings are often unfiltered, and probably unthought.  But, oh! how good it feels to get it out of my system. So far, so good. But then I find myself sometimes without a blog post for the morrow, and I stick one of these rants in the blog. Forgive me, please. This is one of those. You may choose to save your time and move along to the next post in your reader. That’s okay. (Or “okeh,” as a pedant I once knew insisted.) 

The day of interactive everything. Except of course for face to face interaction with another human being. Even the comic strips have to be interactive. Read the funny, write a comment. Who cares? The cartoonist came up with something, drew a picture, added some dialog, expressed an opinion or an idea, perhaps. I am intelligent enough to get what he is saying, or not, but I don’t need help in interpretation; and besides if I don’t get it I can ask my wife! Further, while the first commenter may address the cartoonist’s notion, the whole thing quickly degenerates into a garbage-flinging, name-calling slime fest completely unrelated to the original idea. Who needs that? 

Interactive television? You must be 1) joking, or 2) totally out of your mind. What exactly do you suppose I care about Miranda Moron’s opinion. If the opinion of the “audience” determines anything to come, forget it.

 How about commenting on the articles on the op-ed pages? Now that is opinion, and your opinion is still your opinion, and though you may be angry with the writer, leave him alone. He’s an idiot, too. If you agree with him, well, you know. What to do? Ignore the stuff, move along. Nothing to be seen here, or if there is, it isn’t edifying.

Still Shearing

I opened a box of my father's papers.  This cartoon, yellow with age, was on top of the papers therein.  The only evidence  of time of publication apart from the subject matter of the cartoon was a bit of cut-up material on the back.  Much of it was covered with tape placed to hold the paper together.  I am guessing this was published after the election of 1948 in which Truman defeats Dewey, but before the January 5, 1949 announcement by President Truman of "The Fair Deal."  I have not been able to locate the cartoon in an archive.

A lot of things came to mind as I removed the tattered piece of paper from the box.  Among the thoughts was my recollection that Dad was not a fan of Roosevelt, and no more so a fan of Truman.  Also, Father was amused or appalled as the situation required at the antics of "The Wonderful Wizards of Washington."  Saving such a cartoon was just the thing Dad would do.  I have found others from the same era.

Then these thoughts quickly followed.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Isn't the subject matter exactly a picture of today's political scene?  We might have to change Delilah's moniker slightly, but...

In the January 5 speech to Congress Truman announced that the Fair Deal would include equality for all, universal health care, increased public housing, higher minimum wage with broader coverage,  and a score of other social and economic programs.  This declaration that every citizen should be entitled to a fair deal was the distinguishing mark of the Truman administration.  Prior to this time, as the cartoon suggests, Truman's administration was an extension of Roosevelt's New Deal.

 People were no less acerbic in their criticism many decades ago, but it seems to me there is a difference.  People seemed to be able to disagree politically and still have a cup of coffee or break bread with one another.  Today, our differences seem to have escalated into hatred and divisiveness.   My way or the highway.  Not good.  Not good at all.  imho