Judgement Day

We're told that judging people is bad, and for the most part it is. But honestly, is there a more pleasurable guilty pleasure than constructing an entire personality portrait of a stranger based only on superficial details?

And wouldn't those portraits, if they were backed up by more diligent research, prove to be quite accurate a good deal of the time?

This thought comes to me every time I pass the office of a coworker, who has pinned to his wall a basic black-on-white printout that reads, "Tough times don't last. Tough people do."

What human being that you'd want to spend more than 10 seconds with could possibly take any inspiration or solace from this vapid, shopworn cliche? I imagine that this person is a believer in The Secret, watches Dr. Phil on television and is a disciple of Anthony Robbins. And has never had an original thought in his life.

Of course, I've never met the guy. And I don't want to, lest he burst my judgement-bubble.

Oh No, Obama

Three weeks into the Obama era and already the new president has shown signs that the Messiah-like qualities attributed to him during his brilliant campaign may have been naive and hyperbolic (do ya think?). Of course, any sensible person knew all along that Barack Obama was just a dude, a human being with human deficiencies who, no matter what how powerful his intellect and sense of purpose, could not possibly Change the Universe single-handedly.

Still, there was reason for hope (and really, there's reason for hope, still). But having three prospective political appointees test positive for tax dodges threw a little dust onto Obama's squeaky-clean visage.

And worse than that, it looks like Obama might be willing to hold onto one of the more odious legal parlour tricks of the Bush administration - the state secrets privilege that president #43 so often used to dismiss court cases brought terror-war detainees.

I imagine a lot of things change once one becomes president, including an increased temptation to keep things secret. Obama promised the very opposite of that, so let's hope absolute power doesn't corrupt him too absolutely. 

Ostrich Media

It's been a pretty good couple of weeks in terms of casual conversations blowing up into full-on philosophical debates. First, there was the gender-sex work-science-oppression-empowerment thing from last week. And now, I've been inspired to blather about the role of news media in society (actually, that came up in last week's posts, too).

Before we start, some full disclosure: I am a journalist. Set your bias metres thusly.

A friend suggested last week that the publication I work for should stop writing stories about the sad state of the economy, stories about companies laying off workers, reducing budgets and things like that. His rationale was that, by adding to the endless wave of negativity, media outlets were only adding to, and prolonging the misery. Better, he thought, to write stories of a more positive nature and demonstrate to readers that there is good reason to go on living well and working hard.

I see his point. The economic crisis is, after all, at least partly a crisis of confidence. But my friend is still absolutely, unequivocally wrong about the job of a journalist. Which is to say, a reporter has to report on what happens. If General Motors lays off thousands of workers, that's big news that affects stakeholders ranging from employees to investors to business partners. People may wince as they read about the cuts, but they need to know about them. 

I certainly can't imagine that many reporters out there aren't depressed and bored from constantly writing about this topic. But it is the single most important and widespread issue out there right now. It affects just about every type of publication and individual journalist. If you're a political reporter, you're writing about the terrible economy. Same goes for business and even sports reporters. I'd include entertainment reporters, but if you're an entertainment reporter, you've probably already lost your job.

In other words, a journalist couldn't ignore this issue if he or she tried.

But he or she shouldn't try too hard, because then he or she would be shirking his or her responsibility. Whether reporting on bad news (the economy) or controversial news (for example, the sex research referenced in last week's blog posts), a journalist has no duty protect jobs or stock markets or political ideals or feelings. The only duty is to the truth.

Post-script: Sontag Gets the Last Word

A final (for now) addendum to last week's posts about gender, sexuality, science and the various waves of feminism. The late Susan Sontag, whose journals I have not read, was tackling these questions in her private thoughts way back in 1962. 

Some of those thoughts are excerpted here.

The gist, as it pertains to last week's posts? Sontag felt that while women may indeed get off on being the object of male desire, this was the product of conditioning, not an innate difference between genders. 

So is nothing innate when it comes to gender-specific differences in behaviour? That seems unlikely. And that's what makes this stuff so maddeningly interesting - trying to determine what's nature and what's nurture when we know elements of both are in play.