I'm listening to more music on the radio these days.
That probably seems like a non sequitur.
I have recently tentatively accepted the thesis that politicians and media on all sides believe it is to their advantage to attempt to induce fear and outrage about various hot button issues. Even, in many cases, not discussing facts and logic that a reasonable person might consider relevant to the discussion at hand and which might, if thought about, result in the recipient either maintaining their calm or considering other viewpoints to be reasonable or more likely.
One can test this thesis:
1. Get into a nice calm mood. Take a bubble bath, read a nice book, have a cup of herbal tea and a nice snack, meditate, whatever.
2. Note your calm, relaxed, decent mood.
3. Listen to any media or politician - either one you like and agree with, or one with viewpoints with which you would typically disagree - for 10 minutes.
4. Note your mood. Is it no longer calm and relaxed, but anxious, irritable, angry, fearful? It typically has been for me when I have done these tests.
I have been trying for a while to research facts and original documents on my own about relevant topics. For example, I read the laws that Congress and my state legislature have passed or are under consideration. I read the Federal Reserve press releases. I think this has worked for me.
I used to also listen to major news outlets to supplant my research. Sometimes, I thought, their plain text translations of Congressional bills would be helpful to get an understanding.
I have found lately that many of these translations are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and even filled with typographical and grammatical errors. In addition to which, many (again on all sides of the aisle) attempt to induce that fear and outrage. And of course, almost all of them barely include any reasonable effort at including things which are contrary or conflicting.
The above is my independent conclusion based on my own experience, logic, common sense. It is not based on someone else telling me that "the other side is lying to you"; I view that as another attempt at fear/outrage inducement.
I am mildly amused to notice that in some cases the arguments are the same from opposing viewpoints - they just occur at different times or on different topics. These situations help me to think more deeply about the topics and my personal convictions.
While I understand their motivations - we have an election coming up and these tactics probably mostly work - I dislike and don't respect most politicians and most media these days.
I understand the risks of tuning out. I might miss some important news. But this is doubtful - any news that is important enough for me to hear probably will be mentioned by people at the grocery store, in my bridge group, or by family or friends.
The benefits - lower blood pressure, lower animosity to people around me with whom I might happen to disagree with on a particular issue in some way, the opportunity to learn about things on my own, the pleasure of doing one small thing which removes support from a poisoned approach - seem to me to outweigh the risks.
This isn't permanent. If I find that the various parties start to use logic, argumentation, verifiable and objective facts; avoid emotional appeals which vilify, criticize, or demean others; acknowledge and include arguments and people which differ - then I'll listen.
Until then, I'll listen to a lot more music on the radio.
