Sociology

The gist of FAIR’s approach to journalism is summed up within its mission statement. “…maintain a regular dialogue with reporters at news outlets across the country, providing constructive critiques when called for and applauding exceptional, hard-hitting journalism.”[1] FAIR goes on to describe the current environment of journalism, focusing on mass media such as broadcast, the internet, and print as “With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised.”[2] While this argument seems rational, the reader his own is left to research who owns what media, the mission of the owner towards its “captive” media, and he reality of that ownership.

At the core of FAIR’s work is media historical analysis. This immediately puts mass media at a disadvantage. Anyone who watches local news can tell you about the general state of journalism. The nightly report of car wrecks, murders, sports and weather, and consumer “problem solving” has become the formula for local broadcast news. Occasionally local news serves a purpose by explaining what that (hydrogen sulfide) cloud is doing drifting by a local town; and how toxic it is. The national news fares somewhat better, although one is hard pressed to find unique coverage of events deemed “national news.” FARE is serious with its work, doing solid analysis.

“Suddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in interviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations coming from Saddam Hussein's regime. “[3]

With media’s propensity for ignoring its own gross blunders and myopia towards its politicization, FAIR’s work will likely remain a lone cry in a sea of mediocre mass media. The potential for FARE to have serious impact on the major corporation’s dilution of the news remains to be seen. In the debate over news entertainment VS well researched (read: expensive, and boring (?)) reporting, FAIR attempts to enlist Email and Vmail campaigning by its readership. FAIR cites several examples of the impact it appears to be having.

FAIR accurately discusses the Israeli / Palestinian conflict in the terms which an outsider would describe it  - “What does seem clear is that settlements-- housing built on land illegally seized by Israel after the 1967 war-- are such a contentious issue within Israel that the Israeli government would like to stop reporters from even saying the word.”[4] Only after researching the beginnings Israel (1967) did I come to understand this truth. The crux of all debate surrounding the situation in the Gulf turns on what your personal beliefs are – Christian, International, or Muslim. Media bias shows up clearly upon analysis of language, deaths reporting, and events coverage.

Conflict theory can find answers in the term “mass media.” In search of the fat part of any population sector bell curve, news seeks to appeal to the mediocre, the average. When shows such as “Married, with Children” are wildly successful (much to the majority of critic’s displeasure), how much can we complain when the news quality suffers? Unfortunately, internal pressure from ownership can interfere with goals set by journalism managers. Part of what FAIR neglects to deal is the pressure for entertainment value in news. Ethnical debates aside, TV news is forces to develop 20 minutes of highly scripted, entertaining, enlightening, relevant, and timely programming. Compare this to the minimum half hour show, which has a weekly interval to provide the same. To compete for the higher dollars necessary to put together the same show, time slots, market share, and public opinion can function to short circuit the quality of broadcast reporting.

Functional theorists might look at pressure from politically active organizations – people with an agenda – putting pressure on news organizations to bias or ignore news events. For example, if the U.S. President is convincing in an argument, media organizations might ignore protests by people whose interests conflict with the USA’s. In this way, bias operates through omission.
[1] http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html
[2] http://www.fair.org/media-woes/media-woes.html
[3] http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
[4] http://www.fair.org/press-releases/settlement-euphemisms.html

The USA would do well to borrow some of the Amish culture, but not all of it. The Amish culture, can a fine example of the benefits of having a tightly knit community. If a member experiences some form of mishap, his neighbors rally show up to help. Barns are rebuilt in days, homes are repaired overnight, and the injured are tended round the clock. While money is necessary to doing business, it is kept at the community level, for the people by the people. What the Amish lack in technology is made up for in communal strength. They grow up with lifelong friends in a community of lifelong companions. Life is physically hard, yet satisfying to most Amish.

Most Americans are experiencing social disconnects which can be directly attributed to technology. The ability to travel is the most prominent feature of technology. Jobs often contribute, requiring either daily commuting or relocating entirely. Wealth is spent to hire services, which formerly were formerly performed by community rituals or as friendly favors. While this promotes personal flexibility and economic stimulus, it can cause social fragmentation. At the core of the American economic pressure is the ability to choose lifestyles versus minimum quality of life. People who fall below a minimum ability to earn suffer a level of poverty that does not in the Amish community. For example, a married couple where both partners have to work just to make bare minimum requirements are faced with difficult choices of childrearing. The economics of paying a third party a significant fraction of wages to rear children is a dubious proposition. Where close friends and relatives would formerly provided childrearing now hired strangers or facilities fill in. The psychological impact of this trend takes decades to study, with results difficult to correct in retrospect.

One of the more distinctive qualities of the Amish culture is the mechanism that causes outsiders not to join their community. The basis for this is religious, taken directly from Biblical passages. The byproducts have positive and negative benefits, accentuated by the extreme levels practice. The majority of traffic is outward the Amish community, as teenagers are given the opportunity to experience the outside world before making a lifetime commitment. Very few outsiders join the Amish community. As in most closed systems, this is causing long term problems. There is a minimum critical number needed to ensure long-term viability of gene pools. The Amish communities are beginning to experience recessive genetic becoming common in individuals due to inbreeding. These defects, all of which are present in all human gene pools, may threaten the Amish society’s ability function.

I have been up close and personal with the Amish community while contracting programming jobs in the Akron/Canton area. The products they chose to share with the public show great a high standard of quality. Outsiders who live nearby the Amish tend have the usual attitudes of “us VS them” as though they were from the wrong side of the railroad tracks in communities of old. Mostly civilians grumble about the traffic hazards the Amish present with horse and buggy. Jobs are readily available to the Amish when they choose to interact with the American economic system. Their culture makes them hardworking, punctual, and honest. Their carpentry, cooking, and craft skills are first rate.

The list arguments that are not in this wrangling would be shorter. The U.S. Supreme Court rules repeatedly to not change the relationship of schools and prayer. Groups on both sides are wrangling over micromanaging the smallest segments of the system. Most decidedly all involved would accomplish more by leading the system they are selling rather than trying to change commas and quotation marks in the system that is not theirs to change. The arguments appear to be translating from theology leadership into legal wrangling.

It is obvious that prayer outside of school is possible e.g., the kids pray before leaving the breakfast table. So why does the debate even exist? Because structured religion is more about power and leadership than faith and piety.

My own view of the effort of religion to move into schools: It is tantamount to theft of services. Winning the right to invade schools with theology is cheaper than building and running schools of their own. Public sentiment does not appear to be flocking to these special interest groups, so the special interest groups are trying to use force to garner influence over young minds.

There is an abundance of schools that do pray while offering an excellent education system. An interesting experiment with school vouchers is taking place. It is an exercise in academic and religious freedom, coupled with a latent admission that government is have a difficult time providing a standard education.

One pro prayer argument uses the opening prayer in Congress as an example (me-to ism). Essentially, the argument is over for now when congress voted on it. The margin was far narrower than it should have been, roughly 250 to 200. I say that because this is a clear-cut issue, even when studied from several levels.

United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

As the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Court decisions:

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 212 (1948).
Struck down religious instruction in public schools. The case involved school-sponsored religious instruction in which the sole nonreligious student, Jim McCollum, was placed in detention and persecuted by schoolmates in Champaign, Illinois.

Tudor v. Board of Education of Rutherford, 14 J.N. 31 (1953), cert. denied 348 U.S. 816 (1954).
Let stand a lower court ruling that the practice of allowing volunteers to distribute Gideon Bibles at public school was unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Declared prayers in public school unconstitutional.
Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374. U.S. 203 (1963).
Declared unconstitutional devotional Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S., 97, 104 (1968).
Struck down state law forbidding schools to teach the science of evolution.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
Declared unconstitutional the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 72 (1985).
Overturned law requiring daily "period of silence not to exceed one minute... for meditation or daily prayer."

Jager v. Douglas County School District, 862 F.2d 824 (11th Cir.), Cert. den. 490 U.S. 1090 (1989).
Let stand a lower court ruling in Georgia that pre-game invocations at high school football games are unconstitutional.

Lee v. Weisman, 120 L.E. 2d 467/ 112 S.C.T. 2649 (1992).
Ruled prayers at public school graduations an impermissible establishment of religion.

Berger v. Rensselaer, 982 F.2d, 1160 (7th Cir.) Cert. denied. 124 L.E. 2d 254 (1993).
Let stand ruling barring access to Gideons to pass out bibles in Indiana schools.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
Barred student-led prayers at public school functions.

Here not only are the State's tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State's compulsory public school machinery.

Moral turpitude or, “The sky is falling”
“Proponents of a school prayer amendment claim reintroducing prayer will check the countries" declining moral values." Some, like former Secretary of Education William Bennett blame the 1962 decision, Engel v. Vitale, banning official prayer from public schools, for everything from low SAT scores to high teenage pregnancy rates. However, many educators and other experts tell us that these problems flow from the enormous and increasing gulf in wealth and opportunity and education, between the richest and poorest people in our society. A one-minute prayer or moment of silence in school everyday will do nothing to change that.”[1]
 

[1] http://www.aclu.org/library/aaprayer.html

FastCounter by bCentral