Society of extremes result of negative thinking in response to our choices

Carol Forsloff — In asking the question, "Are we a society of extremes?" the heart of the question references not just Americans but an attitude that seems to believe in the worst not the best of us, copies and reports that, and finally becomes what social scientists, literary giants and motivation experts maintain, "As a man thinketh, so is he."

When what we talk about, listen to, read, and respond to are the negatives of life, what happens to our psyche? Do we become what we think? Evidence suggests we do. That evidence is anecdotal and scientific as well. And to the extent that is true, what does it mean for our global and individual well-being if we become the worst of our thoughts and fears?

Daily news is fraught with tragedies at the outset. NBC Nightly News highlights the most high-profile news of the day, whether it is a weather disaster or President Obama's trip to Israel, in 10 minutes or less. The rest is commentary, and the good news at the end of the program with the segment "Making a Difference." But suppose we had that good news at the outset, and at the end, with the negatives in the middle so it is somehow literally embraced by the good in ourselves as opposed to our worst.

Most people these days find their email crammed with "news" that isn't news but an opinion from someone with a blog or from a newspaper that has resources and contact information difficult to find and that could be done by a 16-year-old with a great knowledge of Wordpress. Yet these news bites are given as truth and passed from one person to another like Thanksgiving dinner. But most of it does not make us thankful, and often it is not truth but an opinion and often opinions not based upon evidence. It strikes, however, at the heart of our social order, making us look for the worst in ourselves and become gleeful when we find it.

In that way, we are becoming a society of extremes. It's not enough those extremes are reflected in our economic times globally. At the same time, we are pitted against each other because of the movement of people from the middle to the extremes at either end in the socio-political spectrum. We hear Sarah Palin and the Fox News commentators and the MSNBC group or Al Sharpton speaking for the right and left, when there are people in the middle who feel compelled to pick a side. That's in the US, but there are surely divisions in other parts of the world that reflect these tendencies.

Extremism, whether it is in the defense of liberty or for the 'fun' it generates, does not protect but instead creates more divisions, lack of trust, and less serious communication. We become purveyors of conspiracy theories, murder stories, constitution, or Bible thumpers that embrace the ridiculous, and often the contrary and false, in order to substantiate our "side". In doing so, we exacerbate those extremes, bringing the poles of opinion further and further apart and making it difficult for government leaders to make a decision about anything practical. So they reflect us, our differences as well, since we have these grassroots networks that spread the falsehoods in order to get attention that is not always relevant or warranted.

For that reason, there are no links to these sources, since that too increases the exposure of the worst in our midst.

Instead, despite the traditional media making its mistakes, there are some reference points for all of us, that is centrist and from which we can anchor our material. Is it verifiable is the major question for what we hear and read? Otherwise we become what we think, that thinking based not upon evidence or reality but the greed and fears of others instead.

Scientists point out our brains are complex and now part of the discussion in our personal references. But this is what science tells us about ourselves that needs to be examined so that extreme thinking does not occur and we achieve balance instead. Because much of what we believe is inaccurate and based not upon facts but folk psychology, as this selection discusses:

One of the difficulties scientific psychology has faced is that it gives reasons for behaviour that often conflict with folk psychology. Most people assume that their experience of their own mind and other people's actions makes them sufficiently expert to discount any other explanation even if it's scientifically validated.

For example, a great deal of psychology research has shown that we tend not to have a good insight into why we make certain choices. In one of the many studies in the area, Lars Hall and colleagues gave people a survey about their moral beliefs but used sleight of hand to change the choices they had originally made. When asked to justify the beliefs they hadn't endorsed, more than two-thirds of people didn't notice the switch and happily gave reasons for why they supported the opposite of their original position. Folk psychology tells us that we can accurately explain our actions and, consequently, many people think that these well-validated psychological effects never apply to them or simply don't exist. Suggesting that someone may not fully know their own actions and that their post-event justifications might be improvised simply won't wash in everyday conversation.

As a man thinketh, so is he. And only we can change what we think, and that takes going past extremes to looking at substantive evidence and not creating consternation where none exists.

Mob mentality, media sin and response to Casey Anthony verdict

[caption id="attachment_6526" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Judge's tools"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - The Orlando Sentinel in Florida covered the case against Casey Anthony for three years, and that coverage has been bastardized with opinion arguments by other newspapers, bent on making judgments far too soon in a fashion that demoralizes the fabric of our justice system.

It is that tendency to create a mob mentality that is likely at the core of the media’s lingering demise and lack of public trust.  It is the tendency on all sides to make judgments before the facts are in.  This has been true in criminal cases and politics, where it’s the latest  sport to follow the popular view instead of the facts themselves.

Objectivity has been lost in many ways, from the Andy Weiner saga to the Casey Anthony case.  Weiner’s public career is ruined, his marriage likely frayed, and his personal life in disarray because the amount of media focus along with judgment made more melodrama than fact for entertainment.   The titillation about the sex itself was of far more consequence than understanding the nature of the behavior itself and how in many ways it has gripped so many folks.

In the Casey Anthony trial, and the background before it began, much of the media focused early on Casey’s alleged guilt.  The back story of how decisions are made for trial had little focus when the fun was in the description of an alleged baby killer, made worse by the fact that it was a mother accused of killing her child.

Public response reveals, however, that the truth is lost in the lie fostered early on, a lie that Casey Anthony was guilty of killing Caylee before the facts were known and sorted out by experts.  People took the sides that had been outlined by the media, reinforced by talking heads on television too.

Those who care for justice, and for the long-term welfare of the news and the true preservation of American values, hesitated to give their public views.  There were experts early on, like Kim Iannetta,  a behavioral profiler, who cautioned folks should wait and not crucify Casey Anthony, as was happening in the press.  Instead her analyses focused on the kind of behaviors that develop aberration in families and the learning we can derive from understanding those behaviors.   The courts, she pointed out, are the true places where decisions are made.

Decisions should also not be made by the press who have not been given the authority to establish one’s guilt or innocence, as occurs in a court of law.  It is not their Constitutional position.

When the decision was announced that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing two-year-old Caylee, the commentators issued their surprise and interviewed the people all around the courtroom who gave the same response.  Surprised they were, and we should not therefore be surprised when the truth about the law is lost in the maze of media  hype.  Those of us who focused on case elements to demonstrate how the system works were pummeled by page-view hounds who looked for ego strokes instead.

American justice outlines a process that may not always seem fair when folks don’t understand just what that process means.  In the case of Casey Anthony, the goal was to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  When doubt is reasonable, the legal innocence is fair.  The moral guilt or innocence has other judgment apart from human view, the pain and suffering that occurs in trials such as these.  It also comes in other ways we must now trust and remember as we do, that judgment always comes in its own way.

Media's ethical failures in Casey Anthony trial

[caption id="attachment_6077" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="The balance of justice"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - A composite profile of events and behaviors helps the public understand a criminal case, but the methodology must involve careful presentation of events in a fashion that fosters innocent until proven guilty, even when the facts of a case are filled with emotion.  In that the media has failed.

The Casey Anthony trial is filled with media bias.  Much of the media present issues in a somewhat one-sided fashion, leaving the public not served by the objective data that needs to be known to be fair and to reinforce the principles of justice.  Nancy Grace, an articulate, intelligent and talented attorney, gives a night-time update on the Casey Anthony trial on HNL and gives good information.  But that information is consistently tinged by the view of someone who has personal experience with the impact of a violent crime.   She has spoken about how she works towards justice in the criminal arena because of the killing of her former fiancé. Her sidebar comments, questions and body language however,  support a bias of Casey Anthony’s guilt from the very beginning.

It is that tendency to speak from a personal view, along with armchair journalism itself, that has set a pattern of “guilty before being proven innocent,” which is an upside down commentary on American justice, that behavioral profilers are to reduce.  Those profilers, like Kim Iannetta, believe they should abide by the same ethics as the media in recognizing limitations and the presumption of innocence as well.

Criminal profiling comes from an examination of specific criteria, of behaviors that are complex but observable.  Kim Iannetta, a profiler who uses a combination of statement analysis and handwriting examination, has an extensive history working with the police, attorneys and mental health professionals in Hawaii, and other parts of the world, to assess the underlying factors in the behaviors of those found guilty or accused of violent crimes.

Recently Iannetta examined language behaviors of Cindy Anthony, the grandmother of Caylee Anthony, the tot killed in Florida, whose death is said by the prosecution in the case to have been caused by Casey Anthony, now on trial in a high profile case that is being watched worldwide.  Iannetta has also looked at the Anthony family and its dysfunction, a dysfunction that has deceit and manipulation at its core.  Iannetta’s analysis has been detailed in a previous article on this site, but her comments recently get to the core of the ethics in the field of behavioral profiling and how crime news should be reported as well..

“We need to remember this is a family in pain.  We also need to remember that we should not behave like gladiators watching people hurting in an arena, but use what we learn to help us in our own lives and families avoid the kind of lies and deceit that has brought the Anthony such agony, to have the daughter, Casey, standing trial  for first degree murder.  Facts are facts; emotions and judgment another.  The facts in language behavior support the parents, George and Cindy Anthony,  as having their own issues and patterns from which Casey may have learned similar ones.    For Cindy, the desire has been to look good; and much of her past and present behavior conforms to those notions.  She is a woman who focuses on the now, the present,  and who has a cold, distant relationship with her daughter that is observable in language behaviors."

That kind of assessment style is one many forensic experts use when addressing their findings.  They look at a constellation of factors and are more involved in how these show certain behaviors, and the predictability of them, with less focus on targeting an individual in some sidebar of self-righteousness that is tempting to experts and media folks alike.  “What we need to do is remember this is a family, that Casey may not be an evil person but one who may have a predisposition to pathology that a certain parenting style reinforced.”

To that end we can learn in the context of this case,  as Iannetta reminds us, not only the elements of the case itself but ethical standards.  Those are the ones that can make people less involved in the “sport” of crime watching, as played out in the halls outside the courtroom where Casey Anthony is being tried, and more empathetic viewers of human behaviors that often go terribly awry and to learn what creates these behaviors in our lives, communities and families."  It is the tendency to go beyond one's role as a profiler that Iannett says can negatively impact neutrality in a case, for either evidence experts or media personnel.

This speaks to the media’s presentation, and expert’s views as well.    Certainly crime stories do involve emotions that need to be described in detail, as they are played out before others.  On the other hand, selective reporting with opinion is a media style that opposes  presumption of innocence, as an Internet source points out.    According to ethics in reporting, as outlined in texts such as Writing and Reporting the News: a Coaching Method, there are principles of balance that are important when reporting sensational crime news.  To the extent the reporter can be objective, according to journalism instructors like the Coaching Method author, while writing with color and interest, the more the focus becomes on the elements of the case and the facets of the personalities involved.  When the verdict comes, the public can then respond in accordance with the facts, as closely as possible to what the jury finds.

That balance from experts and media sources is what the public looks to for a form of protection, as well as education, in the Casey Anthony trial, one where both media and experts have failed.

In defense of the American sex scandal and gossip press

[caption id="attachment_5711" align="alignleft" width="245" caption=" Anthonyweiner.jpg Anthony Weiner, member of the United States House of Representatives."][/caption]

Michael Cosgrove - Events on both sides of the Atlantic show that it’s time to acknowledge the essential part that tabloids play in ensuring that wrongdoing is brought to the attention of justice and the public.

The Weiner story has been keeping America and even Europe amused, bewildered or outraged for days now. That average Joe sinning Americans expect their politicians to behave better than they do and lead lives akin to those of monks or nuns is no secret in Europe, where people find it to be a bit holier-than-thou. We may not be quite as radical in our approach on this side of the Atlantic, but, as the French say, “vive la difference.”

On the other hand, we of course have had our own issues to deal with, and one of them - the rape allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn - is all over the papers right now. You may be thinking that this story is not comparable to Anthony Weiner’s – after all one is about allegations of rape and sexual assault and the other concerns a photo of a guy in his underpants – but you’d be wrong.

The French press has been in anguish since the DSK story broke because of allegations that it knew about his sexual misdeeds before but didn’t publish anything because of its collusion with politicians which meant that protecting their private lives from public scrutiny also meant covering up their sexual crimes (read more on this here on Green Heritage News.)

Philosopher Luc Ferry used the occasion presented to him by the DSK affair to go on a live TV show recently to claim that everyone on that TV set (they were all journalists) as well as the political classes and a prime minister were aware of serious allegations that a minister had indulged in a pedophile orgy in Morocco.

He has been vilified by press and public alike since because he is held to have broken a sacrosanct and universal belief here in France – a belief moreover which is backed up by laws and harsh penalties for offenders – that nobody should utter accusations of crime in the media unless they have proof that what they were alleging is true. France loves the motto ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

That explains why there are no gossip tabloids in France and no sex scandals. It is illegal to publish anything without having the proof that someone has done something. Sounds tempting, doesn’t it? Just think about it. No more ruined reputations and scurrilously false accusations, no more gutter press, no more shock-horror headlines. A perfect world.
Until you consider things in more detail and ask yourself what the word ‘proof’ means.

Luc Ferry came bounding back to defend himself today with a defiant and spirited exposé of his thoughts in an article for Le Figaro. And here are a few of the words he said about why the press in France refuses to reveal details of sex crimes (my translation.)

“The classic response, which the piously righteous repeat over and over again, is no more than a lazy excuse. They say ‘Either we have proof and we publish or we don’t so we keep our mouths shut.’ That is laughable.”

He is right. Because what exactly is ‘proof’ in France that someone has done something when it comes to the press being able to report it? The answer is that proof exists when someone is found guilty in a court of law. In other words, unless someone denounces a crime directly to the police, who then take it up and decide that it’s worth investigating and refer it to a judge who may or may not hold a trial, it can’t be reported. You can’t report the proof you have, you have to prove you have proof. In other words, it’s impossible, because if it involved a politician, they’d squeeze the case before it reached court. Net result – it is impossible for the press to print any allegations of sexual assault.

Kafka would have loved the awful irony and so would Joseph Heller.

So if you are American, the next time you are raging about your favorite politician or entertainer being caught up in a sex scandal that you think was concocted by his political or business enemies, and even if it turns out that you were right, stop and think about France for a minute.

Okay, it might not be possible for the French press to publish details of private lives, but that same mentality means that it isn't possible to expose a pedophile either….

Long live the gossip and scandal press, for it is a necessary evil.

Demand to ban Bible conveniently ignored by Pakistani media

[caption id="attachment_5488" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="News media sources fail to expose abuses against Christians"][/caption]

Ernest Dempsey - Pakistan - When it comes to religion, the hollow claims of straightforward journalism put forth by Pakistani media are seen nowhere, except perhaps 7 feet beneath the ground, buried under fear and/or beneficial compromises. This has again been witnessed, painfully, no doubt, in the latest demand of a fundamentalist religious party that wants the Christians’ holy book Bible to be banned in Pakistan. No major Pakistani media bothered, or should I say dared, to cover the news even briefly, let alone host any discussion on the topic. Freedom of press? If not, who’s responsible?

Before commenting on our media’s audacity, first I must share that I came to learn of the JUI’s demand to ban bible through a blog post on Digital Journal. My search for the news led me to all foreign media reports, in fact a single report shared on my different news gathering sites. The religious party seems to be claiming that some parts of the Bible are blasphemous and hence the book needs to be banned in Pakistan. In other words, since a fundamentalist Islamic party doesn’t like a book that is sacred to Christians – a minority in Pakistan – they consider it their right to demand the book should be made unavailable in the whole country. Pathetically nonsensical is all what I can call this bigotry. But the point I want to make is here that Pakistani media is responsible for irresponsibly/cowardly ignoring this demand, silently passing over an issue that should have made front-page news. It didn’t make any news at all!

For one thing, Pakistani media, both major newspapers and TV channels, have recently been regarded shockingly audacious in covering issues of contentious nature (not much outside the political conflict I must say). But it’s more the individual journalists and political/social figures who paid the price of being daring, and not the media itself. These were people like Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti and their brave female equivalent figures, like Sherry Rehman, who stood for human rights, specifically for the right of the minorities to EXIST free in a country seemingly dominated by Muslim fundamentalists, despite a secular government at rule. Pakistani media, with very minor/few exceptions, never spoke for minorities’ rights against the intimidating fundamentalist aggressors.

The case of Asia Bibi’s death sentence was precariously discussed in media (again with few exceptions) because defying the infamous blasphemy law was akin to challenging two most powerful institutions of the country: religion and judiciary. Could media dare take this challenge? The answer soon came out when, after the cold-blooded murder of Salman Taseer in Islamabad, a TV anchor excused out of the discussion by concluding that one should discuss this sensitive matter with extreme caution.

Subsequently, no one from the electronic media and very few in print media defied the blasphemy law while its abuse continued in Pakistan, mostly in the crime-ridden Punjab province where churches were attacked, Christians were beaten nearly to death, and even Muslims were targeted for personal reasons while masking the aggression as the efforts of zealots acting to protect the sanctity of Islam’s holy concepts. On the other hand, when these Islamic sacred treasures were attacked in other countries inndividual capacities, e.g. Pastor Terry Jones’ desecration of the Holy Koran in the US, Pakistani media jumped to condemn the incident with anchors and writers finding no time to tire from blasting the act.  These writers could justify an act of narrow-mindedness and bigotry against Islam but could not condemn similar bigotry against Christianity.  One must wonder how this demonstrates the openness and clarity Pakistani media claims it defines.

Not only did Pakistani media fail to cover the abuse of the blasphemy law in detail,  and neglect critical analysis (that it claims it can and usually does exhibit) the offensives against Christians, but that same media either gave no coverage at all or so limited as not to be visible to readers and viewer to the important proofs that exposed the abuse of the blasphemy law.   We can thank Christian blogs and the few Christian publications in Pakistan that did let us know about the confession of a Muslim man who is reported to have burnt copies of the Holy Koran and then accused the Christian community of doing so, leading to a blast of anger and violence against Christians in Gujranwala. This manifest abuse of blasphemy law, which should have made headlines, was again ignored by Pakistani media. One wonders whether this extreme of selectivity in covering issue of religious conflict not speak for media’s siding with the aggressor.

Media is hailed as the voice of the nation, not just in the Western world but in countries like Pakistan. But when it becomes the mouthpiece of a certain group or mindset, it loses this title as a voice automatically. In case of blasphemy law and violence against Christian minorities, Pakistani media doesn’t deserve to be proud of itself, but to be repudiated for its lack of transparency and frank news reporting.   This lack of audacity to speak for the oppressed, the apartheid, can’t be attributed solely to the intimidating power of the fundamentalist agenda that I suspect is the direct result of the long-lasting influence of that oil-rich country whose terrorists are  down in protected areas in Pakistan, but also to the media’s policy of obeying “might is right”. Since it’s never too late, I can only hope that Pakistani media stops ducking before the aggressors and stands for truth. After all, it’s people like Saleem Shehzad who make history, not the Tom, Dick, and Harry, or whatever name the reader’s knowledge best suggests!

The use of social media and corporate image shows benefits and pitfalls

SAN
DIEGO, CA - PRN - GHN News Editor - Social media in
business development is used throughout the world, bringing
people to interact about various issues and to share information about
products and services, but it has both benefits and pitfalls.

Cesar Zamorano and Jesus Holes explain in the Latino Business Review how companies are evaluating the use of electronic media more and more and how what the benefits and pitfalls are in using it.

But
the review shows that there are risks as well as advantages in social
media.  People need to be careful of how image and issues are presented,
because of the impact of social media and the widespread nature of its
messages, the article maintains.

On
the other hand, the positive end product for business from social media
is this, according to the Huffington Post article of Manish Mehta.  He
writes, "Social media has transformed the large corporation of the
millennium into the Mom and Pop shop of the old days. The emergence of
social media simply makes it more possible to connect directly with

customers every day."

New opinion poll of teens shows media is not glamorizing adolescentpregnancy

WASHINGTON
- PRN - GHN News --Some people have said that the media glamorizes teenage sexual
behavior and teen pregnancy, but a recent study observes it does not,
despite some of the entertainment shows.

Teen

pregnancy has had considerable attention during the past two years.
There have been popular shows like MTV's popular shows 16 and Pregnant
and Teen Mom as well as cover stories in major magazines.  For that
reason, the media has been accused of glamorizing teen pregnancy.

According
to a new public opinion poll of young people (ages 12-19) commissioned
by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy most
teens (79% of girls and 67% of boys) agree that when a TV show or
character they like deals with teen pregnancy, it makes them think more
about their own risk of getting pregnant or causing a pregnancy and how
to avoid it.

Other
findings from the nationally-representative telephone poll of 1,008
young people conducted by Social Science Research Solutions include:

• Among those young people who have watched MTV's 16 and Pregnant, 82% think the show helps teens better understand the challenges of teen pregnancy and parenthood and how to avoid it.


• 76% of young people say that what they see in the
  media about sex, love, and relationships can be a good way to start
  conversations with adults.


• About half (48%) say they have discussed these topics with their parents because of something they have seen in the media.

A total of 162 young people ages 10-19 participated and completed both
the pre- and post-test questionnaires. Study findings include:

• 16 and Pregnant got young people talking and
  thinking about teen pregnancy -- 40% of those in the treatment group
  said they talked about the show with a parent, 63% discussed with a
  friend, and 37% discussed with a sibling.


• 93% of those who watched the episode agreed (53%
  strongly agreed) with the statement: "I learned that teen parenthood is
  harder than I imagined from these episodes."


• 83% said they learned new things from the discussion of the episodes.

 The
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy says it
"seeks to improve the lives and future prospects of children and
families. Our specific strategy is to prevent teen pregnancy and
unplanned pregnancy among single, young adults. We support a combination
of responsible values and behavior by both men and women and
responsible policies in both the public and private sectors. If we are

successful, child and family well-being will improve."