Getting a Handle on the Media

[HKHaugan]

Getting a Handle on the Media

I recently received an obscenity titled cartoon showing two congressmen, Mitch O’Connell and Paul Ryan, claiming they have taken millions of dollars from health insurers. The inference is that it went into their pockets when actually it was campaign contributions. Of course, only Republicans are guilty of contributions from rich companies while everyone else is squeaky clean. And too, obscenity immediately indicates the composer of the cartoon must be emotionally driven by a bias based on ‘all-politicians-are-crooked’, especially conservative ones.

It’s all in how you read an article that determines your conclusion about it. How you read it is through a lens of interpretation. Is it liberal or conservative? Is it a diatribe or a factual essay? Is it an emotional rant or is it a statement of factually supported material? So much of what is written about the political process is person-centered either to smear or to elevate. It is dismissive of the issues and policies that determine the future stability of a society. Issues are not as important as the person presenting them so there are personal biases that preclude what the article will say. One thing is for sure. No articles are without bias. The question is ‘How do we sift through it all to arrive at reality?’

Let me use Paul Ryan as an example.

Recently the Huffington Post published an on-line article written in 2012 by Paul Blumenthal entitled, “Paul Ryan Worth Millions Thanks To Wife’s Wealth.” OK. So it is seething with a biased title. True or untrue, good or bad, what is the writer attracting us to? What is his bias? If you read any number of on-line articles you look at the source backing them. Why is Huffington Post presenting this article and what are the subjects they give us day after day? What is its bias? It’s only fair to ask these questions.

Let me give you my thoughts, my opinion, my bias. First of all the above mentioned article is about Paul Ryan the Republican Speaker of the House. That should draw the attention of anyone suspicious of the character of anyone Republican. (We also have to watch our generalizations about Democrats or whatever group is the target. It could be ‘all whites’ ‘all blacks’ ‘all Latinos’ ‘all foreigners’ ‘all whatevers’) Let’s go on with the media assumption. After all, all Republicans are rich, conservative, racist, anti-woman (misogynistic), anti-foreigner (xenophobic), anti-gay (homophobic) and add whatever else the bias includes. Second, he is the Speaker. How did he get there? Hmmm. Couldn’t have been honestly. To build on that assumption, he is worth millions. Given his tax returns reported with the same attitude by an on-line group called “Open Secrets.org” (tell me that isn’t a slanted title indicating something meant to be hidden is now being revealed). When you use the word ‘million’ it implies maybe tens of millions. Actually in 2010 his returns showed he was worth probably almost five million. Today it might be more, say maybe six or seven million. Yes, technically even two million is plural but the implication in the title is a lot more because the title ends “Thanks To Wife’s Wealth.” So basically, Paul Ryan is a total wipe-out. His real wealth belongs to his wife. “He ‘married into wealth.’ Isn’t that what a lot of people do?’’

Now when you go on and read the article that’s exactly what the writer says. You’ve got to watch how the writer handles the facts of wealth. He actually says, “He married into wealth.” Reality is quite the opposite. His family had a construction business. When he entered Congress in 1999 he was worth $382,865. Apparently he actually worked for a living. In 2000 he married his wife who was the daughter of a ‘wealthy lawyer family.’ The married couple’s worth grew to 1.2 million. What is wrong with coming from a family of skilled lawyers who become wealthy? Is professional wealth evil? Isn’t that what a capitalistic society like ours has built its progress on? It has produced the greatest wealth producing anti-poverty machine in the world. It’s called the United States of America.

Now the reality of that ‘wealth.’ You look into the education of Paul Ryan (numerous biographical articles in Bing and Google) you find he was an economic whiz as a student. Do you think he just sat on some kind of academic knowledge and didn’t use it to invest at an early age? He is now 46 years old. You can learn and do a lot in 25 years of investing. All you have to do is look at the investments he has been involved in over those years. If anything can be said about them they are clearly made in the company of sound financial advisers like Edward Jones. His tax returns show them all. Check them out in Financial Disclosure Report ‘Filing ID #10010981’ Legislative Resource Center. Therefore, it is not secret.

The writer uses the minimum/maximum item to allow for market fluctuation with the emphasis on the larger amount to show something must be fishy. Writer bias. Wealth, being rich, is somehow a bad thing. Being a savvy investor is worse and having a business background is the worst. From my point of view everything the writer uses as a weapon to discredit Paul Ryan is a plus for him. It’s all in the biases we carry.

Now here’s the rub. I researched Opensecrets.org to find some information on its staff, their background and credentials. There are a number of people with political science backgrounds. However, its executive director, Sheila Krumholz has little biographical information with a note she was “born in the 20^th Century” with a college degree in political science. No positions of noter recorded. No place of birth, residence or usual bio material given. If there is a secret it is the person, her credentials and proof of authority for the way she presents her material, none of which is secret but taken from public records. Her methodology is to present non-secretive material from public sources and present them flavored with suspicion that an intentional secret is being revealed. Thus the title Opensecrets.org. Come on now. How can a secret be open? The very title of the organization seems to carry a bias. Then you have to question ‘.org’ since it means it flies under a non-profit title. Where does its financial support come from? Try and find that out. Their last statement of income shows they have assets in the two million dollar range, but no source info.

My suggestion is that we need to read between the lines and determine what is really going on. Are we so suspicion oriented we can’t see the larger issues? Are we so issue oriented we can’t see the persons and their abilities as assets? Do we accept material in the media to reinforce our already drafted assumptions? There is a balance. So, realistically, who ultimately is worthy of taking any political office...and...have I looked at my own life, seen my own imperfections, really faced myself in the mirror of my past? Who am I to ultimately judge the life of another based solely on what a biased media give me? I certainly don’t deserve to lead people in anything but I felt a sense of calling in my profession in spite of my imperfections. In fact they are the substance of every human being’s reality and the reason we believe in a forgiving God who changes us and trust Him for the outcome in spite of our faults and narrowed intellect. We do the best we can with what we have been given.

Our faith will see us through whatever lies before us. So it is important to step back and assess the total picture starting with ourselves and the reality that we know very little of what is taking place in the lives of others beyond our local geography. Really, just how much of what we think is valid when it comes to what distant media minds are telling us? How do you know you can trust any source whose biases drive their existence? All of us have biases. Until we face that fact we are dishonest with ourselves and others. Is it any wonder we back off and turn our lives over to a God who is not biased but loving, caring and challenging us to be honest where we are with the people among whom we actually have a relational effect?

So the cartoon and its ‘artist’ need to be questioned as do any like media gurus. Do the research. God gave us a mind and a heart. Use them.