Mass Media: Informational Pacifier Dangerous?

Johann Christian Fischer by Thomas Gainsborough

Mass Media: means of communication reaching large numbers of people, such as the telly, newspapers, e-news and radio. 

The media does reach a large number of people with its capacity to disseminate information throughout the world in a short period of time, thus bringing us closer. And that is a positive thing. 

The negative aspect of the means of communication is the pretentiousness of being the owner of truth, when they often omit facts, manipulate information and lack precision. 

We should make the distinction between the press and televised journalism. The first seems to offer more latitude to journalists because they can gather the facts, present them (or not) in the written form, build an opinion and share it; confront individuals or/and governments and comment it. The way I see it, televised journalism is divided into three main categories:

1.  The transmission of information as it is received, devoid of comment and immune to some amount of bias.
2. Political interviews. These are often used to misinform, counter-inform, manipulate opinions and confuse the public (specially when interviewers do not ask the proper questions and allow that moment to be the vehicle needed for some politicians to disseminate cheap demagoguery; radical and nonsensical messages). 
3. Opinion/Comment panels. These can be rather informative and useful to help forming an opinion (since the group usually is composed by several people with different experiences and viewpoints on any given subject). Nevertheless, these too can be intended to manipulate the public: it all depends on the networks’ agenda or political sympathies (proven by the sort of guests invited to form the fore mentioned panels). 

Sometimes, we are under the impression that the media wants to appease certain segments of society and certain Peoples. This role, as a pacifier, can be dangerous because it can influence the way governments make certain political and diplomatic decisions (that sometimes are vital to national security and welfare) lest the emotions are ignited and result in a warfare – all because the mass media often adds fuel to the wrong fire. 

With globalisation, many private news networks (and other mass media companies in general) became public companies; meaning that citizens from all over the world can buy a piece of them and, the higher the number of shares owned the higher is the amount of pressure upon networks to stream information toward a specific direction. Having said this, private means of communication can also represent a means of foreign interference in domestic affairs and foreign policies. 

It is said that the media is the fifth power, but it became so because we (the people) grew thirstier and thirstier of information in our own quest for power (or at least, a vision of it). 

When the media manipulates us, whom is to blame? 

False Issues

Head of a Man by Annibale Carraci

The political universe is pregnant of false issues. Below, we will address three points that are politically juggled with to justify cheap politics.

False Issue #1
Corruption impairs African development.
There’s corruption all over the world, however the people denounce and fight against it. In most parts of the globe democracy is implemented despite jobbery; that is, the people elect their government every 4-5 years, they get education, healthcare, freedom of speech (of assembly, of association, of religion etc) and equal opportunities to help developing their nation. The same happens not in most of sub-Saharan Africa, why? Because the present situation serves someone’s interests. The African elite studies abroad (where they decry the African situation) yet when they return home they yield to the status quo for fear of reprisals; and in the process they allow their  fellow-citizens to be dragged through the mud and misery by those who sell off their country to China: African leaders.

False Issue #2
Arab-Israelis.
In Portugal, we do not call our black people, Afro-Portuguese; we do not call our Jews, Judeo-Portuguese; we do not call our Hindus, Indo-Portuguese; we do not call our Muslims and Arab descendants, Arab-Portuguese...we call them Portuguese citizens. A national citizen is a national citizen, regardless of its cultural/religious background.
The label “Arab-Israelis” represents a subliminal message and is politically dangerous: these citizens call themselves Arab or Palestinian nationals with Israeli citizenship; to whom then do they pay allegiance: the Arab League, Gaza or Israel? Without prejudice intended, the “Arab-Israeli” stance sounds treacherous; thus, a danger to national security.

False Issue #3
Recognising a Jewish State isn’t, in any way, a threat to the rights of those Israelis who profess Islamism, Christianity, Baha’i or any other faith.
The United Kingdom is a Christian nation, de jure, and all citizens (regardless of their religion) enjoy the same rights and bear the same responsibilities. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the United States (for example) are Christian countries (de facto) and yet citizens of all faiths have the same rights and responsibilities as any Christian.
So, if Muslims who descend from Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Jordanians and etc, in Western countries, recognise those nations as officially Christian and serve in the military, sing their national anthem with fervour and respect their national flag (that often bears Christian symbols [e.g. the Portuguese flag even bears the 5 crucifixion wounds of Christ]), what is the problem of singing Hatikvah, respecting the Shield of David Flag and being loyal to the Jewish State?
I visualise the day when all Christians and Jews in Arab nations will enjoy the same rights and religious freedom as any Muslim citizen...

What other false issues do you know of?

Cuts in Defence & Security: a mistake?

The Battle (detail) by Albrecht Altdorfer

In several nations, left wing disciples tend to request severe cuts in defence budgets, as a solution to budgetary disequilibrium.
For some reason, investing in defence and security is looked at with suspicion (as if freedom and liberties were at risk) so that funds can be channelled to what is viewed as more pressing issues - i.e. social benefits.

The military, military intelligence, the secret services, federal agencies and security forces (in general) employ, directly, a lot of people. These forces also indirectly employ another whole lot of individuals through defence-related businesses, through companies supplying those businesses and so forth.
People employed, nation secured. Taxes paid, nation wealthier. Military R&D, nation secured, trading and wealthier...
This being said, investing in defence can help solve some social and economic issues; therefore, politicians that use defence as a tool of demagoguery (and actually succeed in leading governments to cut in defence) are simply not thinking it through.

Is it wise to cut in defence & security (D&S)?
Decreasing expenditure in D&S may present two disadvantages:

1. Offer the impression of national vulnerability (ex: terrorism, both internal and external). 
2. Give the impression of social permissiveness (ex: delinquency, anarchy, riots). 

In economic crisis, it is easy to yield to the temptation of wanting to make defence cuts; however it is not logical (nor safe) to do so, since economic distress leads to social discontentment, which in turn augments the probabilities of uprisings, criminal activities and terror attacks (not to mention that cuts may equal to layoffs [in all departments and in industries related to defence], which would worsen the social crisis). A proper D&S will help to tackle any activity that may throw us into economic, social and political upheaval.
In days of prosperity, D&S should have a comfortable budget so that it can set up R&D labs, in order to produce goods to either improve itself or to sell (as a means of self-finance; contributing, thus, to a decrease in government deficit) and, to prepare itself (i.e. logistics and strategy) for an eventual warfare .

A nation like Israel cannot afford to decrease its defence forces budget. A nation like the US cannot afford to have its military budget cut. A nation like Portugal (a NATO member, devoid of proper military technology and destitute of R&D) should feel embarrassed for not investing more on defence. Should India make defence cuts (now that it seeks modernization of its armed forces to tackle its security issues and cement its strategic position)?

Not having a solid national Defence is detrimental to Homeland Security and to Political Strategy.

What do you think; cuts in defence and security: a mistake or not?

The Elders

The Artist's Parents by Philipp Otto Runge

It’s an honour to age. 

When human beings age, in general, they reach a stage of refined maturity (just like a good bottle of Porto wine). 

I ask, what possesses a young and middle-aged person to disregard or even mistreat an elderly? 

Parents & Children

Last weekend, I heard two disturbing examples of a relationship between aging parents and their offspring. 

I: A parent gets sick. A couple of adults are advised that their parent needs to be looked after. What do they do? They dump him/her in a hospital (under a false address) and keep receiving their parent’s retirement benefits. 

II: A parent gets old and it is not advisable for him/her to live alone. The offspring takes him/her in; it manages to benefit from their pension by co-signing the parent’s banking account. 

Do people (like the ones in these examples) forget who those aging, fragile, human beings are? Once upon a time they were young and healthy, they fell in love, they married, they had children, they worked to make sure their kids would not want, they loved and played with them and, towards the end of their life how do their kids repay them...? 

Senior Citizens & Society

I: A bus is full, an old lady with a cane enters the vehicle: no one gets up to offer her a sit.

II: A couple of old people walks, enjoy their afternoon and then decide to visit a museum. When reaching the main entrance: a young man brushes through them abruptly to enter first, opens the door and then let’s the door slam on the seniors’ nose.

III: A young couple gives birth to their first child. They struggle with the idea of putting the child in a day-care facility. Both of the child’s grandparents are retired and healthy: instead of leaving the child with one of their parents; they spend money they can’t afford, hiring a nanny (a total stranger). 

These few examples already give us an idea of how perturbed society is. 

The Elderly and Confucius

Confucius taught that we should seek to be a Man of Rén. Being so means realising that we are not alone and that everyone is responsible for either someone or something (be it a relative, the state or the world). He taught the Five Relationships but the one pertaining this article is:

 "Elder to Junior - there should be consideration among the elders and deference among the juniors"

Indeed, the elders should not misuse and abuse their status yet they deserve our utmost respect, and care, for being the symbol of nurture, experience and wisdom. 

Before mistreating a senior citizen, we should always remember that eventually we’’ll be in their shoes. 

“Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you”…I say…