Big problem with big media

Today I read about director Amir Bar-Lev's documentary looking at what he alleges is a coverup of the truth surrounding the death of Pat Tillman, an NFL star who quit his professional football career to serve his country as a soldier. In 2004, he died in a "friendly fire" incident - but that was not the initial report, thus the headline The Tillman Story is a scathing indictment of the US government.

The key quote from this story is:

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect ofThe Tillman Story is how much incriminating footage Bar-Lev was able to find. There are even scenes from a congressional hearing in which government officials ranking as high as then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld lied about knowing the cause of Tillmans death and were not only cleared of taking responsibility, but werent even properly questioned about the issue.

" 'None of that footage was difficult to obtain, which in itself is a tragedy, said Bar-Lev. When people see some of the clips that we have, theyll probably think that we got it from some Deep Throat garage in a paper bag or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. We got this footage from the mainstream press archives. Why that stuff ended up on the cutting room floor of the major networks, I think speaks to one of the larger concerns that the film hopes to address'," (my emphasis).

And so, we have yet another concrete example of a real problem with modern big media, which we've previously discussed - big media is conflicted.

The concept of a free press is critical to a free society. The media should be unencumbered with obligation to the government. It should remain a tool of a free society to, among other things, guard against an oppressive government by disseminating information to empower citizens to make informed decisions, especially about its representative, elected leaders.

Thomson Reuters, in its Trust Principles, sets forth in meaningful language its fundamental obligation and commitment to "safeguard our independence and integrity and avoid any bias which may stem from control by specific individuals or interests."

According to Bar-Lev, Tillman's family says that the American government put "public relations ahead of the truth". What should be alarming to a free society is the apparent complicity of the major networks to edit out so much available truth in order to fashion the fictitious "story" for public consumption, a story that does not transparently present the extent of the government's knowledge of the events leading to Tillman's death but instead obscures it from view and alleviates the government's accountability to its citizens, vis a vis "government of the people, for the people, by the people."

Pat Tillman was a person whose public record spoke of a "down home" integrity. In an age when money talks and loyalty is to the highest bidder, Tillman is reported to have turned down a five year, $9 million contract offer from the St. Louis Rams to stick with his Arizona Cardinals and his salary of $512,000. After the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, Tillman finished out the season, turned down a three year, $3.6 million dollar contract offer from the Cardinals to enlist and serve his country.

In other words, Tillman gave up a life of riches and  the adoration of football fans to put himself in harm's way for higher ideals. He ultimately sacrificed his life for what he believed a worthy cause - freedom. Government, media and society itself - we - should so value the freedom for which he died.

Governments can get off-track. It's the function of a free press to empower citizens to hold the government accountable. Freedom is supported by a free press.  Government, in getting off-track, would naturally seek control of the press. In totalitarian states, the press is one of the first institutions to be assumed. But of course - a free press should subject a government to its citizens. If a government is seeking to subject its citizens, the press must be pulled under auspice.

America was founded on principles specifically adopted and adapted to champion freedom, which is why freedom of the press was etched into its very constitution, its national DNA. It's a part of what makes America, America. Of course, America is not the only country with a free press component to its constitutional documents. Canada, for one example, also has a free press component to its constitution, and the aforementioned Thomson Reuters was once two separate companies that merged in 2008 - the Thomson half is Canadian, its global headquarters were in Toronto.

But, given that America blazed the trail in 1776, almost 100 years before Canada, and its Constitution and Amendments continue to inform thought on political philosophy, this sordid episode is a particularly acute failure of the "experiment".

If there is anything redeeming about this story, it's that it could have come out at all, by the efforts of an individual, without fear of reprisal. The concept of freedom of the press does indeed empower any individual to investigate and speak freely about the findings, which is all the more important and necessary if big media fails to live up to higher ideals.

No soup for you! Freedom vs. discrimination

The TV show Seinfeld had a funny shtick about a restaurant that served a really tasty mulligatawny. If, however, a customer didn't approach the server appropriately, the head chef might yell "No soup for you!" and refuse to sell. In fact, depending on the severity of the offense, the "soup Nazi" (as the chef came to be known) might issue bans up to a year in duration! How could this happen in America, the land of the free? Surely I'm free to approach the counter any way I want, right?

In another episode, the character Elaine went to a Yankees baseball home game up in the Bronx wearing a Baltimore Orioles cap. A fan took exception and demanded she remove the hat. She said "No, this is America, it's a free country!"

Back in the real world, recently President Obama declared his opinion that an Islamic group had the right to build a mosque near the site of "Ground Zero" where the World Trade Center towers once stood, saying ""This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable." I, myself, would tend to theoretically agree with that statement...but then I'm conflicted since I have difficulty when, in the name of freedom, the Confederate Flag - with all it symbolizes for both its proponents and opponents - is flown from a state capitol building.

Last month, I read an interesting article in the New York Times by Stanley Fish, professor of humanities and law at Florida International University,  entitled Is Religion Special? in which Professor Fish discussed the conundrum of a free society's interest in protecting freedom of religion, the expression of which might include discrimination. His conclusion: "What it goes to show is that the conflict between the liberal state, with its devotion to procedural rather than substantive norms, and religion, which is all substance from its doctrines to its procedures, is intractable." They key word here is "intractable."

Today, I was included on a distribution list and received this article about an Adventist leader's reaction to the Toronto Vegetarian Association's rejection of an application from the Health department of the Ontario Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for participation in its 2010 Vegetarian Food Fair.

In summary, TVA's issue is precisely about the official Adventist denominational position statement on homosexuality (a well-rounded application of this statement is found here). The TVA is a non-religious organization who seeks not to make uncomfortable homosexuals who might be in attendance and may take offense to the presence of an Adventist booth as a representation of the church's stance against homosexuality.

The article delivered to my inbox, written by Adventist leader Martin Weber, labels this an act of the "radical left", and I (being a Seventh-day Adventist) disagree with his position.

Adventists have long been the topic of study for the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Any vegetarian organization benefits from including Adventist knowledge,  experience and credibility in its programs. TVA's decision to decline the application is to stand on a principal that comes at a cost, and we should rather commend the TVA for willing to take that stand before we stoop to name-calling.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has had a stake in active religious liberty efforts for well over 100 years. We should, therefore, be quite capable of recognizing what constitues an exercise of freedom, religious or otherwise, even if it inconveniences or opposes our views. Freedom is a doubled-edged sword.

As a Seventh-day Adventist, I enjoy the freedom to go to church on Saturday. The government's defence of my right to do so extends to everyone else to join me, or go to church on Sunday. Or on Friday. Or not at all.

My "right to be right" means not only that others have the right to be wrong, but also that others are in their right consider me wrong.

Having said that, it does demonstrate the endless loop of the conundrum. Isn't the TVA's decision, to oppose the discriminatory nature of the church's position, itself also discrimination against the church? How do you oppose discrimination... by discriminating? In effect, the TVA had to choose whom to embrace and whom to exclude, and did so apparently on the basis of the losing group's very willingness to do the same thing, for whatever reason.

People are free to be homosexual, or not. People are free to endorse homosexuality, or not. People are free to support either view and the respective proponents thereof. Essentially, discrimination is, to a degree, inherent in freedom.

Is there a right/wrong assessment to be made? They're both right in exercising their freedom...to discriminate.

What, then, is the  value of "freedom"? Basically,the value is that the state is not taking sides. People and organizations are, basically, free to take their positions. For what it's worth, this is the caveat by which I take umbrage with the Confederate flag. Religious or otherwise, the Confederate flag is symbolically not unlike a swastika; its use by private citizens or groups is one thing, but the state capitol or any other community government building should be off limits. As such, at the end of the day, the TVA is a private organization and within its right. So, very sorry, Health Department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Ontario, but "no soup for you!" Or, "if you're going to come to Yankee Stadium, freedom notwithstanding, don't be wearing an Orioles hat."

Professor Fish can only conclude that the conflict will remain "intractable" ("not easily governed or managed").  Not only do I agree with that particular choice of word, but I came to that conclusion all by myself, some time ago, as an extension of my personal religious beliefs. 

Hence the OughtThought: life is too complex for finite human minds to administrate with absolute ideological clarity and consistency. By extension, the extent to which Christians look for a new kingdom governed by an all-wise God, situations such as these support the contention that any such kingdom could only be managed by an all-knowing entity.

A contrast and comparison of justice systems

An article I read today reminded me of a situation in Toronto not too long ago. In that situation, headlines were screaming:

• Crown drops all charges in Lawrence Heights murder

• Video of killing reveals no secrets

Owen Smith, 25, and Wendell Damian Cuff, 25, were charged with the first-degree murder of Abdikarim Ahmed Abdikarim. The Crown, citing insufficient evidence to pass a preliminary hearing, dropped the charges. The victim's family are further pained by the continued suffering in such a sad, terrible loss. I have two kids, and I wouldn't dare presume to know what this must be like for them. Raising a child to end up the victim of a murder - and an as yet unsolved murder at that - is beyond grasp.

The cops are disappointed, thinking they had gathered sufficient evidence that a case was worth putting before a jury. The public is outraged. Another bad guy gets away, it appears.

Yet, as painful as it is for all, dropping the charges was still right.

Our society has already decided we do not want to live in a world where someone can lose their freedom and go to jail without evidence that passes a rigorous series of tests through due process. It's a decision we, as citizens of a free society, ought to continue to make, uphold and defend.

Let's flip it around. The video is absolutely inconclusive in terms of the identity of the shooter. For all intents and purposes, the video was just as likely to point to your neighbour, your friend, or even you, than to the accused.

In this situation, it's not even a matter that the accused was tried and the verdict was returned not guilty. That would have been due process as well. But, well short of that, the evidence didn't even stand up to warrant trial. It's simply insufficient. What else should we do? Had he gone to trial and been convicted with evidence that wasn't even deemed strong enough to be worth the time and money to go to trial, would our society be better off? I say no with no hesitation. It would mean we'd arrived at the place where anyone, anytime, could end up going to jail without the benefit of a trial through which evidence had to pass.

Society should be clear on this. There are societies on our planet where governments exercise absolute power and impunity in terms of who walks freely and who disappears in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again; or who can have an opinion and who ends up being stoned to death without a fair trial. We have decided we do not want that world. These checks and balances are there to help protect our rights and freedoms.

This freedom comes at a price - we'd rather a guilty go free than an innocent get locked up. It happens. Bad people get away with it (IF such is what has occurred here) sometimes. Tipping that balance to the opposite slant would be the end of free society as we know it.

Having said all that, here's the headline today:  Review sees flaws in dozens of N.C. prosecutions

So, the question warrants revisiting: do we want a society in which the guilty may get off scott-free, or a society in which the innocent could lose their free lives?

While pondering the implications of either choice, I'll toss another idea out there: if the prison population's ethnic profile is markedly disproportionate to the general population's ethnic profile, is it reasonable to extrapolate that some percentage of the incarcerated are there as a result of being in a system that favours  cutting corners in due process to put people behind bars?

And, if so, with respect to the topic of social factors such as fatherless families affecting the academic performance of black males (recently discussed), the OughtThought here is a question  - is a questionably-managed criminal justice system one of the social systems challenging the opportunities for black families to keep their males at home?

The case that was thrown out before getting to trial in Toronto is an example of what should happen. If a review in Toronto was performed as the one in North Carolina, would this instance be the norm, or the exception? For the record, I think it ought to be the norm.

Resource allocation in education

Two articles I read today speak to the single issue of resource allocation in education.

• Grim Graduation rates for black males highlight racial gap

• Why standardized tests matter

The first article ("grim graduation rates") mentions, among other things, that New Jersey's higher results are due in part to a deliberate effort to reallocate resources to level the playing field. The suggestion here is that, given a fair shake, black males are not only equally capable, but equally willing to do their part to learn, with higher results to prove it.

The second article ("standardized tests") discusses standardized testing in Ontario. While my issue with a particular shortcoming of standardization in education is mentioned in StudyRite, and echoed in another article that ran today, there is some merit to standardization, although I'm not sure it came through clearly.

In my opinion, standardized testing should not be about how well the students are learning. Nor should it be about how well the teachers are teaching: standardized testing should be about assessing how equipped a school is to meet the needs of its students. All things being equal (and human nature being what it is) most teachers will teach and most students will learn; government is thus left to determine how it will allocate resources to support teachers' teaching and students' learning.

I remember reading a Maclean's Magazine article back in 2001 about John Chambers, head of Cisco Systems, and his  project, called Networking Academies, which champions the value of computers and new, customized teaching methods. "We run more than 6,000 Networking Academies with 180,000 students in 110 countries and, given technology and the correct environment, these kids all score high, no matter the disparity in incomes or situations," Chambers said at an international economic conference. "Education is No. 1, but even the rich countries are leaving behind 25 per cent of their kids," (my emphasis).  (Francis, Diane. "A Learning Revolution". Maclean’s Magazine. March 5. 2001.)

The results in New Jersey appear to support Mr. Chambers' assertion. As such, the OughtThoughts here are that under-performing students are not always inherently to blame for their poor performance, and that we can make different decisions to improve the learning environment and expect progressive results to follow.

If lower scores on standardized tests in Ontario are indications of where more attention is required, and there is a weak correlation between scores and school location in higher or lower income areas, we may reasonably go ahead and look at teaching methods and student issues. If, however, there is an observable correlation between lower results and lower income area school locations, reallocation considerations must be in play, because these kids may be, in Mr. Chambers' words, "being left behind" in spite of their true capabilities.