“the most successful independent journalist in America” – NYT
The curse of learning history is that we can’t go back and correct the past, no matter how obvious that a corrective course is needed. But we can change the future. America owes much to Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson for her valuable contributions documenting the facts over this recent past when our society overall has lost the skill of separating fact from propaganda. Kudos to New York Times for their article today. She’s the most clear-headed and prolific voice in contemporary history and has been a huge personal blessing to me.
Thank you and congratulations Heather Cox Richardson!
Each passing day and each occurring event brings out more revelations of ignorance and wildly successful intentional propaganda. It seems ridiculously easier to get the majority of people to believe a falsehood than it is to encourage them to learn facts. The desire to distinguish facts from opinion seems to be critically low, an understanding of the value of doing so minimized, while the desire to promote one’s opinion seems to be at an incredibly high level.
We are seeing this effect again right now today and this week over the National Defense Authorization Act, the COVID relief act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act where you’ll find a wide range of misinformation today. It is especially frustrating to me when a media calls themselves “news” but actually allows unedited and incorrect commentary by anchors. Likewise, people who call themselves “professionals” who have apparently not evolved past the point of having a process to differentiate reliable from unreliable information. It seems clear that commercial media understands the economic value of disinformation. Of course, those aspiring to political power understand the power of propaganda.
That’s not to say that we don’t all occasionally make a mistake. Nor does it mean that we don’t all sometimes engage in deliberate propaganda. But that’s entirely different from not having developed an internal cognitive process that will lead to differentiating facts from propaganda or opinion and recognize the importance and value of doing so.
It is normal to wonder if this problem always existed and how we handled it before. Virtually all of recorded history indicates that ignorance of the masses was a constant force in society. But nowhere in mankind’s history has the democratization of free information flow through the internet raised the power of ignorance and propaganda to the level it is today. in the past we could easily ignore and step over the smelly problem. That’s not so easy today.
I conclude that thee future of mankind looks dimmer because of the empowerment f this form of widespread mental laziness.
Early this morning I was driven to understand the meaning of the common phrase “Dickensian lens”. I get the feeling when I read this term in print that some who use it don’t have much depth of understanding as to what it means. I have no idea what it means. After doing a little research it is still unclear.
I found this definition of “Dickensian” in “Masterpiece Classic”. The source and purpose of this publication is not clear.
“Charles Dickens’ work continues to be so influential that the adjective
“Dickensian” is used today to describe something “of or like the novels
of Charles Dickens (especially with regard to poor social and economic
conditions),” according to WordNet at http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/
Search for current usages of the word in The New York Times archive at nytimes.com (put the term “Dickensian” in the search bar) or other newspapers in order to understand how “Dickensian” is used in different contexts. For example, a 2008 article in The New York Times describes Mumbai, India this way: “For the writer, the Dickensian lens offers an easy view of Mumbai: wealthy and poor, apartment-dwelling and slumdwelling, bulbous and malnourished.” (www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/”.
It is clear that the term refers to social commentary. But that’s all I see so far. Is Dickens still relevant today? I don’t see it. English literature professors do. In either case, does looking at a current situation in comparison to the way Dickens would describe it add any insight now? Again, I don’t see it, except perhaps in reinforcing that the human condition has always involved suffering.
I still don’t see why the trendiness of the term “Dickensian lens”.