Uncommon Denominator
Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"Righteousness, n. A sturdy virtue that was once found among the Pantidoodles inhabiting the lower part of the peninsula of Oque."-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
CONTENTS
Talking Points: Journalism's throes
Wit and Wisdom: The Organic Rebellion
Check It Out: The Skeptic's Dictionary
Poll-Watch: On political cleavages
Quoted! Tom Coburn on breast implants
Featured Article: "Deliver Us From Wal-Mart?"
Happenings: Monthly round-up
Endorsements: Mike Honda
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor
TALKING POINTS
It's probably no exaggeration to say that the mainstream American media, as an institution, are in crisis. Between falling revenues (from both subscriptions and advertising) and falling public confidence (a recent Harris Poll found that only 12 percent of the public have a high degree of trust in the media) the newspapers and television news programs that once largely shaped the knowledge that Americans brought to their daily lives and political positions now have to scrape for every reader and every dollar, and many of them are not succeeding. On balance, this is not a good thing, but there are still positive aspects to it, and hopeful opportunities involved. To boil it down, the traditional American news business faces four serious and interconnected threats:
* The first is the rise of alternative sources of information, principally the Internet and its array of independent bloggers, e-zines, newsletters, and the like -- all of which are highly maneuverable, and therefore capable of targetting specific audiences and siphoning off readers from the mainstream outlets.
* The second threat is the relentless drumbeat of anti-journalistic criticism that the political Right has kept up ever since Vietnam, which has slowly but surely nurtured the myth of an unreliable "liberal media" at odds with American values.
* The third runs deeper: That is the increasingly skeptical, even jaundiced, attitude of modern Americans toward the usual figures and institutions of cultural authority, and toward the reliability of knowledge itself. For all the hostility aimed at the "postmodern" mindset, with its supposed "moral relativism" and lack of conviction, its basic vision of the contingency of truth and the inadequacy of representation is one that many people bring to their encounter with news, whether they realize it or not.
* Finally, journalism suffers from the control excersised over the mainstream media by major corporations that, when the chips are down, will tend to put profit before journalistic integrity. This has limited the coverage of topics that might be uncomfortable for corporate sponsors and compromised the financial commitments necessary for the pursuit and presentation of difficult or complicated stories.
These four factors reinforce each other: as the quality of news reporting deteriorates, the public trusts the mainstream media less, alternative sources become more attractive, establishment journalism become more vulnerable to conservative attacks, and media owners and publishers seek then to appease the accusers with less balanced programming. There's something salutary here, however, and that's the fact that readers have become more assertive and questioning about the information they receive (or gather), and that they are able to get that information from a greater diversity of sources (despite the agglomerating tendencies of corporate news organizations).
Yet with the sheer quantity of available information, and the deliberate undermining of professional journalism by conservatives, the question of how to evaluate sources of information has become ever more pressing and ever more vexed. Anybody with access to a computer now inhabits (if they want to) an absolute wilderness of facts, ideas, perspectives, stories, claims, and counter-claims. On what basis should we ground our evaluation of what we read or hear? Is the capacity for misinformation (or disinformation) heightened or diminished by a wider array of news sources? By what standards do we compare differing representations of the world in which we live?
From one perspective, it's a positive development that people have become more skeptical about journalistic objectivity. That skepticism recognizes a whole host of factors that mediate what we receive as news -- factors ranging from corporate influence to government spin to editorial mandates to the human limitations of individual reporters. The problem, or the risk, is that this skepticism can become debilitating or nihilistic -- that people will end up seeing everything as equally truthful or equally untruthful, or that in the Babel of contending voices the impulse will be to tune them all out, from despair or frustration.
The body blows to the mainstream news business have been coming hard and fast, and they have seriously undermined the public's trust in the very notion of journalistic integrity. The current brouhaha about Newsweek's retracted story of Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay is only the latest installment in a long run of bad press for the press. Partly, this is itself a classic instance of news distortion or magnification, in which one dramatic story (e.g., vicious dog attack) stimulates others of the same ilk (vicious dog attacks across the country), whether or not the reality bears out all the attention. Yet the crisis of American journalism is a real one, and the wounds are bleeding. As news organizations struggle to survive in an adrenalized and hyper-competitive business environment, and in a more cynical political culture, they risk both self-inflicted and deliberately inflicted wounds.
Most notably, the excessive reliance on anonymous sources not only makes readers suspicious, but also increases the potential for manipulation of stories, or even the planting of false information, by sources with an agenda who prefer to remain in the shadows. Who, after all, outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? An anonymous source with an agenda. Who provided the forged document about President Bush's National Guard service to CBS? An anonymous source with an agenda -- but was the target really the President, or was it CBS? Ad nauseum. Anonymity allows the reporter to "get the story," but it now seems to entail unjustified risks. Then, of course, the pressures of the high-speed news market have provoked media organizations into rushing flawed stories into print or onto the air, and made plagiarism or corrupt reporting both more tempting for journalists and more difficult for editors to prevent. The reporter Jack Kelley's elaborate fabrications, for instance, found fertile soil not just in his imagination, but in the lax newsroom culture of USA Today, while Jayson Blair at the New York Times operated with little editorial oversight but with strong incentives to get the scoop.
In turn, the same competition for readers and advertising dollars translates into pressure to pander to the lowest common denominator by making the news "entertaining." This has had the paradoxical effect of turning off the very audience it was meant to woo -- for there is, believe it or not, a longing and a market for sober reportage. Less visibly, the quick-and-easy cost-cutting strategies of both print and television news, particularly the reduction of the number of professional correspondents and the growing reliance on non-staff reportage, have made the problem worse by increasing the potential for error and constricting the range of coverage. The amount of information goes down, while the amount of opinion goes up; hard facts become scarcer, while "perspectives" propagate; news from Pakistan takes a back seat to news from Hollywood. All that said, the most serious wounds to the reputation of the media are those inflicted from without. The conservative movement has had its sights set on the journalistic establishment for 35 years, and takes every error, every lapse, as an opportunity to pile on. The goal is very clear: to discredit or destroy non-conservative points of view by intimidating the media from reporting them, to hamper the media's traditional "watch-dog" function, and to shift public attitudes rightward by framing centrist or neutral reportage as "liberal" bias.
At the same time, the current administration has virtually gotten into the news business itself, using the fake White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (real name James D. Guckert) to lob softball questions at press conferences, and paying conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, through the Education Department, to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. The problem, beyond the obvious one of government propaganda, is that these shenanigans don't just redound to the credibility of the administration, but to the reliability of news generally. Who knows, on any given day, where our information is coming from? What's its provenance, its history, its purpose? Those are the kinds of questions that can lead people to dismiss everything, to throw out the baby with the bath-water -- and God knows there's a lot of bath-water out there. So what to do? How should we hew our way through the jungle of information that surrounds us?
For their part, consumers of the news need to be active gatherers and interpreters of knowledge. Obviously, that means evaluating any particular purveyor news according to the standards of good journalism: Do they have an established history of getting the facts straight? Professional reputation does matter. Do they seem to aim for objectivity (elusive though it may be) instead of copping out with mere "balance"? Simply quoting two sides of an issue is no substitute for independent analysis. Are they honest about their limitations and their perspective? Much better to have a forthright argument than covert spin. Is the reasoning strong when it comes to complex issues?
Few things offend the principle of informed democracy more than intellectual superficiality. Which sources have been consulted, and how knowledgeable and/or neutral do they seem? Being active, engaged consumers of news also entails the recognition that each of us will probably gravitate toward sources that reflect our own pre-existing biases and inclinations, and that we have to get outside our comfort zone to be fully informed. That might mean putting down the Utne Reader and picking up The Economist, or -- if the example is not too outlandish -- flipping the dial from Rush Limbaugh to NPR. Certainly it involves acquiring the critical mass of information needed to judge the validity of new information or unfamiliar claims.
Finally, however, readers have a responsibility to be skeptical of skepticism, which too easily grades into laziness or apathy. Question authority, but also respect institutional histories. Read the blogger, but also respect the credentials of the paid professional. In today's information whirlwind, the credibility of particular media outlets may be a hard thing to judge, but it's still possible to separate the wheat from the chaff. The wheat's there, and it nourishes us all.
Next month: Specific ideas for how journalism can work to restore its cultural authority -- without which it cannot fulfill its indispensable democratic purpose.
WIT AND WISDOM
Obi Wan Cannoli? Princess Lettuce? Tofu-D2? Indeed. These are among the characters in the Organic Rebellion, fighting against the evil corporate empire and the Dark Side of the Farm. In the short online movie "Store Wars," the Organic Trade Association "hopes to attract a new generation of organic consumers, especially 'Gen Xers' who grew up loving Luke, Leia and Han, and are now increasingly concerned about making healthy food choices for their families." The spoof is hilarious. Mandatory viewing for all Uncommon Denominator readers.
CHECK IT OUT
At a time when "faith-based" solutions to social problems are growing in popularity; when international politics has become increasingly theologized; when critical thinking as a schools subject is at low ebb; when the forces of superstition, fundamentalism, and mythologization are waging a rear-guard campaign against reason and science -- at this time the voice of the skeptic is more important than ever. Far from being nihilistic, skepticism celebrates independence of thought, affirming the ability of people to think for themselves, and to avoid the snares of a labyrinthine world. There's help, fortunately, for those skeptics who want some more hard information to bring to the fray. In a work called The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert T. Carroll has compiled a long list (451 entries and counting) of "Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions," and provided information and guidance for "how to think critically about them." From the Cardiff Giant to the philosopher's stone, from Holocaust denial to past life regression, from Aleister Crowley to Deepak Chopra, Carroll sets his sights on anything that smacks of intellectual sloppiness or legerdemain. Be skeptical, of course, of what you find in The Skeptic's Dictionary, but do check it out.
POLL-WATCH
The most recent Pew Research Center Political Typology survey revealed significant cleavages within both the Right and the Left, as well as expected differences between those two major divisions of the American electorate. The 2005 Political Typology sorts voters into nine homogeneous groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation. The current study is based on two public opinion surveys -- a nationwide poll of 2,000 interviews conducted Dec. 1-16, 2004, and a subsequent re-interview of 1,090 respondents conducted March 17-27 of this year. Overall, the most dramatic contrast between Right and Left is on matters dealing with force, pre-emptive strikes, and the Patriot Act. Within the Right block, there are differences between the highest income subgroup and those who are less well off, in attitudes about economic and domestic issues, and the role of government in helping people. Within the Left block, the most notable differences have to do with social and personal values. While the majority of the public continues to get most of its news from television, there are interesting differences within the political divisions. The Right favors Fox News and among the Right-leaning groups, the subgroup with the highest income is the most dependent on Fox. Young, well-educated people, regardless of political orientation, favor the Internet over any individual TV news source. These differences and many others revealed by the survey may offer opportunities to break apart the existing political divisions. This is particularly important for progressives -- with fewer media resources and hardly any political infrastructure at this point, we need to be smarter and more focused in our efforts at change, and attentive to ways in which we can pull together the fledgling progressive movement. Consider this poll report a must-read if you're interested in changing America's political landscape. As part of the release of the 2005 Political Typology, the Pew Research Center has created an interactive website where users can find out where they fit in the Political Typology, and to see how the various typology groups feel about major issues of the day.
-- Katherine Forrest, M.D. QUOTED!"I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows. . . . In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."
-- Freshman U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), arguing against class-action lawsuits, as quoted in the Feb. 7, 2005, Washington Post.
FEATURED ARTICLE
The following is an excerpt from Jeff M. Sellers's "Deliver Us From Wal-Mart?" which appeared in the May 2005 edition of Christianity Today.
"As it has grown into a powerhouse with sales of $256.3 billion-more than the sales of Microsoft and retail competitors Home Depot, Kroger, Target, and Costco combined-Wal-Mart has become a lightning rod nationwide in local tempests of moral outrage. Church leaders (primarily mainline, liberal, and Roman Catholic) have joined grassroots activists fearful that mindless global market factors will steamroll human dignity. "'Wal-Mart's practices are immoral and unfair,' says Reginald Williams Jr., associate pastor for justice ministries at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pastors at the 8,500-member Trinity United and eight other African American congregations in Chicago called for a boycott of Wal-Mart. "Such anger perplexes other Christians who think of Wal-Mart as a family-friendly place and a company founded on the biblical values of respect, service, and sacrifice. Founder Sam Walton's autobiography indicates he taught Sunday school in his church, prayed with his children, and had a strong sense of calling to better people's lives. With the Protestant values of respect for the individual, thrift, and hard work, Walton was eager to improve customers' living standards through low prices…. "Some Christians may be thankful for the values behind the Wal-Mart phenomenon, but others are voicing some of the unprecedented hostility toward the company. A biblical look at the retailer's labor issues may help Christians, among the one-third of Americans who visit Wal-Mart at least once a week, to discern whether they honor God in purchases and investments in the company." Click here to read the whole article.
HAPPENINGS
New Fellow -- The Commonweal Institute is pleased to welcome Chris Bowers as a new Fellow. Chris is the lead blogger for My Due Diligence, and is on the executive committee of BlogPac. He has a B.A. in English from Ursinus College, where he taught for two years, and an M.A. in English from Temple University, where he taught for five years and completed his coursework for a Ph.D. Mr. Bowers has also worked as a political consultant and as a union organizer for the American Federation of Teachers.
ENDORSEMENTS
"Moderate and progressive members of Congress need a substantial resource that can develop public support for our whole range of issues in a timely fashion, and defend our gains from right wing attacks. The Commonweal Institute is positioned to be that organization. I hope to see them grow quickly." -- Congressman Mike Honda, D-San Jose, CA
GET INVOLVED
f you agree with Mike Honda (see above), there are a number of ways you can help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many moderates and progressives. Click here to contribute online. Or call 650-854-9796. Your support is essential.
© 2005 The Commonweal Institute
To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send a blank message to: ci-newsletter-subscribe@svpal.org.
-- or --
To subscribe from an email address other than your regular one, go to mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-newsletter, and then enter your name and email address and click on "Subscribe."
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber information with any other organization or with individuals.
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"Righteousness, n. A sturdy virtue that was once found among the Pantidoodles inhabiting the lower part of the peninsula of Oque."-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
CONTENTS
Talking Points: Journalism's throes
Wit and Wisdom: The Organic Rebellion
Check It Out: The Skeptic's Dictionary
Poll-Watch: On political cleavages
Quoted! Tom Coburn on breast implants
Featured Article: "Deliver Us From Wal-Mart?"
Happenings: Monthly round-up
Endorsements: Mike Honda
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor
TALKING POINTS
It's probably no exaggeration to say that the mainstream American media, as an institution, are in crisis. Between falling revenues (from both subscriptions and advertising) and falling public confidence (a recent Harris Poll found that only 12 percent of the public have a high degree of trust in the media) the newspapers and television news programs that once largely shaped the knowledge that Americans brought to their daily lives and political positions now have to scrape for every reader and every dollar, and many of them are not succeeding. On balance, this is not a good thing, but there are still positive aspects to it, and hopeful opportunities involved. To boil it down, the traditional American news business faces four serious and interconnected threats:
* The first is the rise of alternative sources of information, principally the Internet and its array of independent bloggers, e-zines, newsletters, and the like -- all of which are highly maneuverable, and therefore capable of targetting specific audiences and siphoning off readers from the mainstream outlets.
* The second threat is the relentless drumbeat of anti-journalistic criticism that the political Right has kept up ever since Vietnam, which has slowly but surely nurtured the myth of an unreliable "liberal media" at odds with American values.
* The third runs deeper: That is the increasingly skeptical, even jaundiced, attitude of modern Americans toward the usual figures and institutions of cultural authority, and toward the reliability of knowledge itself. For all the hostility aimed at the "postmodern" mindset, with its supposed "moral relativism" and lack of conviction, its basic vision of the contingency of truth and the inadequacy of representation is one that many people bring to their encounter with news, whether they realize it or not.
* Finally, journalism suffers from the control excersised over the mainstream media by major corporations that, when the chips are down, will tend to put profit before journalistic integrity. This has limited the coverage of topics that might be uncomfortable for corporate sponsors and compromised the financial commitments necessary for the pursuit and presentation of difficult or complicated stories.
These four factors reinforce each other: as the quality of news reporting deteriorates, the public trusts the mainstream media less, alternative sources become more attractive, establishment journalism become more vulnerable to conservative attacks, and media owners and publishers seek then to appease the accusers with less balanced programming. There's something salutary here, however, and that's the fact that readers have become more assertive and questioning about the information they receive (or gather), and that they are able to get that information from a greater diversity of sources (despite the agglomerating tendencies of corporate news organizations).
Yet with the sheer quantity of available information, and the deliberate undermining of professional journalism by conservatives, the question of how to evaluate sources of information has become ever more pressing and ever more vexed. Anybody with access to a computer now inhabits (if they want to) an absolute wilderness of facts, ideas, perspectives, stories, claims, and counter-claims. On what basis should we ground our evaluation of what we read or hear? Is the capacity for misinformation (or disinformation) heightened or diminished by a wider array of news sources? By what standards do we compare differing representations of the world in which we live?
From one perspective, it's a positive development that people have become more skeptical about journalistic objectivity. That skepticism recognizes a whole host of factors that mediate what we receive as news -- factors ranging from corporate influence to government spin to editorial mandates to the human limitations of individual reporters. The problem, or the risk, is that this skepticism can become debilitating or nihilistic -- that people will end up seeing everything as equally truthful or equally untruthful, or that in the Babel of contending voices the impulse will be to tune them all out, from despair or frustration.
The body blows to the mainstream news business have been coming hard and fast, and they have seriously undermined the public's trust in the very notion of journalistic integrity. The current brouhaha about Newsweek's retracted story of Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay is only the latest installment in a long run of bad press for the press. Partly, this is itself a classic instance of news distortion or magnification, in which one dramatic story (e.g., vicious dog attack) stimulates others of the same ilk (vicious dog attacks across the country), whether or not the reality bears out all the attention. Yet the crisis of American journalism is a real one, and the wounds are bleeding. As news organizations struggle to survive in an adrenalized and hyper-competitive business environment, and in a more cynical political culture, they risk both self-inflicted and deliberately inflicted wounds.
Most notably, the excessive reliance on anonymous sources not only makes readers suspicious, but also increases the potential for manipulation of stories, or even the planting of false information, by sources with an agenda who prefer to remain in the shadows. Who, after all, outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? An anonymous source with an agenda. Who provided the forged document about President Bush's National Guard service to CBS? An anonymous source with an agenda -- but was the target really the President, or was it CBS? Ad nauseum. Anonymity allows the reporter to "get the story," but it now seems to entail unjustified risks. Then, of course, the pressures of the high-speed news market have provoked media organizations into rushing flawed stories into print or onto the air, and made plagiarism or corrupt reporting both more tempting for journalists and more difficult for editors to prevent. The reporter Jack Kelley's elaborate fabrications, for instance, found fertile soil not just in his imagination, but in the lax newsroom culture of USA Today, while Jayson Blair at the New York Times operated with little editorial oversight but with strong incentives to get the scoop.
In turn, the same competition for readers and advertising dollars translates into pressure to pander to the lowest common denominator by making the news "entertaining." This has had the paradoxical effect of turning off the very audience it was meant to woo -- for there is, believe it or not, a longing and a market for sober reportage. Less visibly, the quick-and-easy cost-cutting strategies of both print and television news, particularly the reduction of the number of professional correspondents and the growing reliance on non-staff reportage, have made the problem worse by increasing the potential for error and constricting the range of coverage. The amount of information goes down, while the amount of opinion goes up; hard facts become scarcer, while "perspectives" propagate; news from Pakistan takes a back seat to news from Hollywood. All that said, the most serious wounds to the reputation of the media are those inflicted from without. The conservative movement has had its sights set on the journalistic establishment for 35 years, and takes every error, every lapse, as an opportunity to pile on. The goal is very clear: to discredit or destroy non-conservative points of view by intimidating the media from reporting them, to hamper the media's traditional "watch-dog" function, and to shift public attitudes rightward by framing centrist or neutral reportage as "liberal" bias.
At the same time, the current administration has virtually gotten into the news business itself, using the fake White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (real name James D. Guckert) to lob softball questions at press conferences, and paying conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, through the Education Department, to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. The problem, beyond the obvious one of government propaganda, is that these shenanigans don't just redound to the credibility of the administration, but to the reliability of news generally. Who knows, on any given day, where our information is coming from? What's its provenance, its history, its purpose? Those are the kinds of questions that can lead people to dismiss everything, to throw out the baby with the bath-water -- and God knows there's a lot of bath-water out there. So what to do? How should we hew our way through the jungle of information that surrounds us?
For their part, consumers of the news need to be active gatherers and interpreters of knowledge. Obviously, that means evaluating any particular purveyor news according to the standards of good journalism: Do they have an established history of getting the facts straight? Professional reputation does matter. Do they seem to aim for objectivity (elusive though it may be) instead of copping out with mere "balance"? Simply quoting two sides of an issue is no substitute for independent analysis. Are they honest about their limitations and their perspective? Much better to have a forthright argument than covert spin. Is the reasoning strong when it comes to complex issues?
Few things offend the principle of informed democracy more than intellectual superficiality. Which sources have been consulted, and how knowledgeable and/or neutral do they seem? Being active, engaged consumers of news also entails the recognition that each of us will probably gravitate toward sources that reflect our own pre-existing biases and inclinations, and that we have to get outside our comfort zone to be fully informed. That might mean putting down the Utne Reader and picking up The Economist, or -- if the example is not too outlandish -- flipping the dial from Rush Limbaugh to NPR. Certainly it involves acquiring the critical mass of information needed to judge the validity of new information or unfamiliar claims.
Finally, however, readers have a responsibility to be skeptical of skepticism, which too easily grades into laziness or apathy. Question authority, but also respect institutional histories. Read the blogger, but also respect the credentials of the paid professional. In today's information whirlwind, the credibility of particular media outlets may be a hard thing to judge, but it's still possible to separate the wheat from the chaff. The wheat's there, and it nourishes us all.
Next month: Specific ideas for how journalism can work to restore its cultural authority -- without which it cannot fulfill its indispensable democratic purpose.
WIT AND WISDOM
Obi Wan Cannoli? Princess Lettuce? Tofu-D2? Indeed. These are among the characters in the Organic Rebellion, fighting against the evil corporate empire and the Dark Side of the Farm. In the short online movie "Store Wars," the Organic Trade Association "hopes to attract a new generation of organic consumers, especially 'Gen Xers' who grew up loving Luke, Leia and Han, and are now increasingly concerned about making healthy food choices for their families." The spoof is hilarious. Mandatory viewing for all Uncommon Denominator readers.
CHECK IT OUT
At a time when "faith-based" solutions to social problems are growing in popularity; when international politics has become increasingly theologized; when critical thinking as a schools subject is at low ebb; when the forces of superstition, fundamentalism, and mythologization are waging a rear-guard campaign against reason and science -- at this time the voice of the skeptic is more important than ever. Far from being nihilistic, skepticism celebrates independence of thought, affirming the ability of people to think for themselves, and to avoid the snares of a labyrinthine world. There's help, fortunately, for those skeptics who want some more hard information to bring to the fray. In a work called The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert T. Carroll has compiled a long list (451 entries and counting) of "Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions," and provided information and guidance for "how to think critically about them." From the Cardiff Giant to the philosopher's stone, from Holocaust denial to past life regression, from Aleister Crowley to Deepak Chopra, Carroll sets his sights on anything that smacks of intellectual sloppiness or legerdemain. Be skeptical, of course, of what you find in The Skeptic's Dictionary, but do check it out.
POLL-WATCH
The most recent Pew Research Center Political Typology survey revealed significant cleavages within both the Right and the Left, as well as expected differences between those two major divisions of the American electorate. The 2005 Political Typology sorts voters into nine homogeneous groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation. The current study is based on two public opinion surveys -- a nationwide poll of 2,000 interviews conducted Dec. 1-16, 2004, and a subsequent re-interview of 1,090 respondents conducted March 17-27 of this year. Overall, the most dramatic contrast between Right and Left is on matters dealing with force, pre-emptive strikes, and the Patriot Act. Within the Right block, there are differences between the highest income subgroup and those who are less well off, in attitudes about economic and domestic issues, and the role of government in helping people. Within the Left block, the most notable differences have to do with social and personal values. While the majority of the public continues to get most of its news from television, there are interesting differences within the political divisions. The Right favors Fox News and among the Right-leaning groups, the subgroup with the highest income is the most dependent on Fox. Young, well-educated people, regardless of political orientation, favor the Internet over any individual TV news source. These differences and many others revealed by the survey may offer opportunities to break apart the existing political divisions. This is particularly important for progressives -- with fewer media resources and hardly any political infrastructure at this point, we need to be smarter and more focused in our efforts at change, and attentive to ways in which we can pull together the fledgling progressive movement. Consider this poll report a must-read if you're interested in changing America's political landscape. As part of the release of the 2005 Political Typology, the Pew Research Center has created an interactive website where users can find out where they fit in the Political Typology, and to see how the various typology groups feel about major issues of the day.
-- Katherine Forrest, M.D. QUOTED!"I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows. . . . In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."
-- Freshman U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), arguing against class-action lawsuits, as quoted in the Feb. 7, 2005, Washington Post.
FEATURED ARTICLE
The following is an excerpt from Jeff M. Sellers's "Deliver Us From Wal-Mart?" which appeared in the May 2005 edition of Christianity Today.
"As it has grown into a powerhouse with sales of $256.3 billion-more than the sales of Microsoft and retail competitors Home Depot, Kroger, Target, and Costco combined-Wal-Mart has become a lightning rod nationwide in local tempests of moral outrage. Church leaders (primarily mainline, liberal, and Roman Catholic) have joined grassroots activists fearful that mindless global market factors will steamroll human dignity. "'Wal-Mart's practices are immoral and unfair,' says Reginald Williams Jr., associate pastor for justice ministries at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pastors at the 8,500-member Trinity United and eight other African American congregations in Chicago called for a boycott of Wal-Mart. "Such anger perplexes other Christians who think of Wal-Mart as a family-friendly place and a company founded on the biblical values of respect, service, and sacrifice. Founder Sam Walton's autobiography indicates he taught Sunday school in his church, prayed with his children, and had a strong sense of calling to better people's lives. With the Protestant values of respect for the individual, thrift, and hard work, Walton was eager to improve customers' living standards through low prices…. "Some Christians may be thankful for the values behind the Wal-Mart phenomenon, but others are voicing some of the unprecedented hostility toward the company. A biblical look at the retailer's labor issues may help Christians, among the one-third of Americans who visit Wal-Mart at least once a week, to discern whether they honor God in purchases and investments in the company." Click here to read the whole article.
HAPPENINGS
New Fellow -- The Commonweal Institute is pleased to welcome Chris Bowers as a new Fellow. Chris is the lead blogger for My Due Diligence, and is on the executive committee of BlogPac. He has a B.A. in English from Ursinus College, where he taught for two years, and an M.A. in English from Temple University, where he taught for five years and completed his coursework for a Ph.D. Mr. Bowers has also worked as a political consultant and as a union organizer for the American Federation of Teachers.
ENDORSEMENTS
"Moderate and progressive members of Congress need a substantial resource that can develop public support for our whole range of issues in a timely fashion, and defend our gains from right wing attacks. The Commonweal Institute is positioned to be that organization. I hope to see them grow quickly." -- Congressman Mike Honda, D-San Jose, CA
GET INVOLVED
f you agree with Mike Honda (see above), there are a number of ways you can help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many moderates and progressives. Click here to contribute online. Or call 650-854-9796. Your support is essential.
© 2005 The Commonweal Institute
To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send a blank message to: ci-newsletter-subscribe@svpal.org.
-- or --
To subscribe from an email address other than your regular one, go to mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-newsletter, and then enter your name and email address and click on "Subscribe."
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber information with any other organization or with individuals.
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 7:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home