Skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and argumentation.Maddow and Stewart use these exact principles in their critique and presentation of the news. They present the information in an intelligent yet critical way, and use sarcasm, wit, and absurdity to point out the grim side of the news and events of the world. I would go so far as to say that this method requires critical thinking to even exist. It’s easy to paint a pleasant and false picture created to fool an audience into believing whatever one would want them to believe. However, it requires skilled thought and a critical evaluation to present the cold, hard reality of the news. Furthermore, it often takes quite a bit of skill to get an audience to believe the hard truth. They must skillfully interpret, critique, and translate their views into something the audience can understand.
Finally, I do not believe that the discriminatory epithets shouted at Barney Frank and John Lewis can be considered products of critical thought. Simply put, these types of discrimination are nothing more than bigotry, which is built upon irrational intolerance. Those who have uttered such epithets base their beliefs on inane and irrelevant differences in simple traits that make all humans unique. There is no proper critical evaluation or interpretation involved; only false dogma.
I certainly agree with you in the last part. It is a rare thing for an insult to be well thought out. Generally speaking, I think that if we use our rational thinking most of us would not speak the raw epithets we may or may not impulsively think. Epithets, especially those directed towards Frank and Lewis seem to be deeper rooted in something else much bigger than health care reform. It is ignorance which cause blunt harsh speech, however if we all thought critically before we spoke many of the problems we have today would cease to exist.
ReplyDelete