Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism

Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism


The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and critical thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I thought I might compare and contrast the professional journalist with the professional military officer in an attempt to focus upon the difference and importance of these two intellectual traits of comprehension.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient, and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical thinking, and honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist. During the Vietnam War the journalist often played the role of critical analyst. While one can see some positive reasons for the cheerleader and propagandist I will assume that overall this is not a proper role for the journalist in a democracy. The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation.

Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the ideal journalist who presents the facts fairly, accurately, and in a balanced manner. The ability ‘to connect the dots’ in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist. Knowledge is important but understanding and critical thinking is more important.

We certainly want our military officers educated more in the didactic mode than in the Socratic mode whereas we would find that journalist educated in the Socratic mode would be the better journalist. The journalist must be able to recognize the prejudices of others as well as recognizing his/her own biases.

What might one say as regarding the contrasting importance of critical thinking and knowledge for a teacher, engineer, accountant, nurse, factory worker or secretary? With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than critical thinking when analyzing the individual as a worker. The credentials that appear on most resumes are those testifying to a degree of knowledge by the job applicant. We do not even have a metric for understanding or critical thinking.

I think it is correct to assume that knowledge can be imparted by a teacher to an individual more quickly and efficiently using the standard technique whereas the Socratic technique, while developing understanding and critical thinking, is much less efficient in imparting knowledge. Here, as in everything else there is a trade off. In a set period of time more knowledge can be imparted using the standard mode.

The question then becomes: is it more important to have citizens with greater knowledge and less understanding and critical thinking or citizens with greater understanding and critical thinking and less knowledge?

I claim that democracy is more dependent upon the citizen who exemplifies more the characteristic of the ideal journalist than the ideal military officer.

Democracy will eventually live or die based upon the degree of sophistication for critical thinking and understanding by our citizens. Our schools and colleges have made some small attempt to teach Critical Thinking but adults cannot wait for the distant future when many of our citizens have learned Critical Thinking. Today’s adult must proceed with the effort to become a self-learner of Critical Thinking.

I think there are several levels of critical thinking, do you agree?

Do you think that the journalist or the military officer offers the best example for educating the citizens of a democracy?

I think you are slightly off base there Coberst. First off, I get the impression that you think the United States of America is a Democracy, and if I am correct, you are wrong. The United States Constitution clearly states in paragraph four of section four that our government must be a republic. If you would like me to explain the differences between a republic and a democracy, I will do my best in a later post.

The part of your post which troubled me most was your understanding of what would make a good Officer. You described the journalist as honest, but failed to describe the Officer as honest, and you said that he had to be somewhat an automaton, which is exactly the opposite of what would make a good officer in the military. The officer has to be a very good critical thinker who can best interpret something known as Commander’s Intent. If you like to know more about Commander’s Intent, I will try to explain it in a later post.

You say that you think that Democracy will live or die due to the degree of critical thinking of its citizens, and I would point out that because we are a republic and we have a buffer called the Electoral College which can vote independent of the citizens to prevent the Government, or “Democracy” as you like to think it from failing. Personally, I think we should get rid of citizenship as we know it today and replace it with a form of citizenship similar to Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.

That is an interesting remark. I am completely ignorant here what does it mean?

All citizenship is taken away and the only way to get your citizenship is through service. Anyone who is not a citizen has all the same rights as a citizen except the right to vote. In this model everyone has the right to serve if they choose regardless of their condition. If a person is only capable of licking stamps for the government then the government will create a post to lick stamps, but it the person is capable of being a soldier then that is what they will become.

Prthaps I need more info on the Commander's Intent.

I was in the army but as an enlisted man. However, I do pay attetion to our Generals in Iraq and they make it clear that their duty is to ask how high when the command is given to jump. I am aware that paradigms and algorithms guide their every move and that they are allowed to deviate as long as they follow the paradigms and algorithms of deviation.

I am aware that the standard excuse given in the Nueremburg trials was "I followed orders". But the trials did not accept those claims.

Commander's Intent is the knowledge of the Commander's concepts of what he wants done and how importantly. Actually all soldiers in the Army are given this intent now in Ops Orders from the 1980s, and I believe the Marines have adopted it too sometime in the 1990s. The value of Commander's intent for example is a young lieutenant being assigned to protect a ridgeline, but he knows that there is nothing of importance behind him and that the other platoon to his right has a more important line of defense. If in this example both platoons were attacked and it looked like the other platoon might fall, the young lieutenant could with his understanding of Commander’s Intent send some, most, or all of his troops to help the other platoon, and use his understanding of Commander’s Intent as his reason for abandoning his post. All soldiers can actually use this defense if it is right. This is a very basic example, but I hope it helps you understand, and I hope you understand that this Intent can be a lot more sophisticated. An Army Commander cannot afford to be an automaton, and in the United States Military it is to the point where Non Commissioned Officers have college educations so that we are better rounded and fully capable of critical thinking.

Rallem

All the reports I hear about the Iraq war indicates that our soldiers are doing a great job. By great job we mean that they are going all out to perform their duty.

I get the feeling that our soldiers are trained in such a way that they are acting beyond what a normal person would act. They are facing overwhelming dangers day after day for months on end. It appears to me that they are facing dangers far beyond what should be expected of them, and they do not seem to complain. This seems extrordinary to me. This indicates to me that our military has gained too much control of these soldiers mind.

What is your opinion?

The reports you hear are reports made for sensationalism.

According to CNN.com

There have been 4,131 coalition deaths -- 3,830 Americans, two Australians, 171 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 21 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of October 18, 2007, according to a CNN count. This may not sound very humanitarian on my part, but this is not an expensive war as far as Coalition forces go. In Vietnam the United States of America had lost 58,226 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in a similar time period. In Korea the United States lost slightly over 33,000 men in the three years of that war, and in the Civil War we lost over 43,434 men in just the Battle of Gettysburg.

Coberst, you say that you were an enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army, so I ask you, do these numbers seem like the war is going that badly for America? The Answer is no, and the reason the media makes it look grim is to not tell us the truth, but to keep us watching their channel or to keep us reading their publication. I guess this sort of trashes your postulation that a journalist is trained to be honest. I hope, that I answered your question here. I am at work and have been pulled in so many directions while writing this, that I can’t remember why I wrote this.

Rallem

Quantity wise this war is a cake-walk. If our metric is soldiers killed we could handle ten of these wars simultaniously and still take off the week-end.

This war is not about the quantity of soldiers killed. It is, in my opinion and that of many others, the greatest mistake America has made for a very long time. It is America at its worst. It may be something that America will never recover from.

Coberst wrote:

"This war is ... the greatest mistake America has made for a very long time."

I cannot believe the US admin did not know what they were getting into. By limiting their own casualties now public opinion will enable the US to remain there for many years. I'm pretty sure that was the object of the excercise. So, as far as the admin is concerned: no mistake.

I think investigative journalism is at its lowest point for years, mainly because no real investigative reporting will get published in any media with widespread circulation. The mass media has become totally controlled by those with wealth. The last thing they want is any questioning of their friends' motives.

Terry

It is true that politicians and newspapers are careful about making their corporate fiends angry and also they are afraid that they might anger the uncritical thinking citizens. Basically we citizens get what we can handle, if we cannot handle the truth then the media generally know it and will not pursue it.

Quantity wise this war is a cake-walk. If our metric is soldiers killed we could handle ten of these wars simultaniously and still take off the week-end.


I have no idea what this statement means, the jargon is unfamiliar to me--but personally I feel even one person's death in this or any war, soldier or not, is way too many.

Rallem pointed out just how few soldiers were killed in this Iraq war as compared to other wars.

"The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation."

Yes, but journalists themselves declare themselves neutral or objective about the issue. What the public does not know is the journalist from which they get the stories from is someone just like themselves.
In my Journalism class at school, we are learning how to objectively write stories, void of preferences or opinions so as not to "editorialize" something (which is strangely used in a derogatory sense by my teacher).
And yet, the journalist is not some fact-maker encyclopedia who knows both sides of the issue and is capable of doublethink.

Dont get me wrong; I have been thinking about becoming a journalist myself, though I would prefer a writer where I can still write with my opinions, and do it openly.

But the news can be biased. In fact, it IS biased. That is the point. Well it should not be the point, according to journalists themselves. But they are, in fact, human. It is not necesarilly hypocrisy, but just human nature.

Journalists are good. But they are only as good as the people behind the journal.

Rallem pointed out just how few soldiers were killed in this Iraq war as compared to other wars.


So that makes it all right then???

Coberst, I actually don't think this war was a mistake. The only people I blame are those who conveniently forget that the President did warn us this would be a long and difficult course like any of the other significant struggles. Perhaps the Islamic Extremists were right about one thing, and that was that the American voters are just a bunch of punks.

Amen!

Tim

You are correct, all humans are biased and all journalists are human.

Nothing ever makes any war "all right," but I would like to dispell the notion that this war is too expensive as far as lives go, and that we are getting our arses handed to us. Actually from the discussions I have had with veterans we are the ones doing the arse kicking.

Rallem wrote:

"the President did warn us this would be a long and difficult course". I'm sure I saw him ages ago declaring the US had won it.

Coberst wrote:

"Rallem pointed out just how few soldiers were killed in this Iraq war as compared to other wars."

Yes, but plenty of civilians or do they not count? That was actually the point of my last post. The US admin can afford to keep this war going indefinitely.

You saw the president announce that we won that phase of the war, not the war, and no the civilians don't count. Those people over there have been murdering each other whole sale for so long that I don't they understand that there could be another life. Personally I feel the mistake we made was being kind to these people. Perhaps we should have flattened the country and told them that if we didn't see any improvement in their behavior then we would be back the following year.

Rallem wrote:

"the mistake we made was being kind to these people".

Ahem. I shudder to imagine what would happen if you were being unkind.

Rallem- Rallem---These are all people. With wives, with husbands, with children,--they are children, are civilians, are soldiers.

What on earth happened to you that you can write as you do? These dead people were important--- as important as you or me. Their deaths have diminished us all.

It isn't Americans who are killing these people. It wasn't before the war, it isn't during the war, and after we leave those people will still keep killing each other because that is how they live.

The people in the Middle East have a saying, my brothers and I against my cousins, and my cousins and I against the world. When we went into this war the russians gave us one piece of advice, which was that these people only understand one thing and that is brute force. [sic] I know it sounds cold but it is an undeniable truth.

There are more people being killed now each day than ever were under the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. But I suppose because it is a result of the US effort to collar resources that's alright.

Rallem--You are using the RUSSIAN code of behaviour as an excuse for Americans????

How sad.

Firstly, it cannot truely be said that there are more people being killed today in Iraq then before the beginning of the war Terry, because unmarked mass burial sites are regularly being discovered and the numbers of unreported deaths is staggering. Secondly,show me some evidence that the United States of America has received any oil disporportional to others since the start of the war. I see leftist articles of proposed laws in Iraq saying the United States is forcing the break up of national oil monopoly, but I don't see anything about America consuming their oil.



No I am not. Where did you get this idea from, the fact that I said russia gave us advice before the war?

Rallem wrote:

"I don't see anything about America consuming their oil'.

No, but the oil companies are doing very well thank you. The US taxpayer is funding their effort to control the flow. The US admin also seems keen to prevent western oil and nuclear technology companies being exposed to any potential competition from Iran. When will we see Colin Powell telling the world about Iran's weapons of mass destruction?

Terry, your views against the American foreign diplomatic platform are obviously vehement but also very out dated.

Quoting Rallem

The people in the Middle East have a saying, my brothers and I against my cousins, and my cousins and I against the world. When we went into this war the russians gave us one piece of advice, which was that these people only understand one thing and that is brute force. [sic] I know it sounds cold but it is an undeniable truth.

So I assumed that the influence of the Russian code of conduct, ie the adoption of brute force, was being referred to in an admiring manner.

But apparently not so, as Rallem replied:

No I am not. Where did you get this idea from, the fact that I said russia gave us advice before the war?

I suggest that I got the idea from your post-- which on a second reading refers to this point of view as "cold, but (it is) an undeniable truth." I repeat that following the Russian code of conduct is something I had not thought would ever be embraced by Americans as an "undeniable truth"! I still feel it's sad as it diminishes the perceived morality of the American cause.

Rallem wrote:

"your views against the American foreign diplomatic platform are ... very out dated".

Outdated? What has changed recently?

The "outdated" bit is probably that you, terry, like me, had not realised that American foreign diplomatic poicy was all a part of a cunning plan developed by the Russians!

This thread is actually about journalism so I'll mention here that I think the greatest dis-service journalists have committed against the citizens of the USA and Britain is the failure to force an answer as to why their leaders lied so vehemently to convince everyone they should support an invasion of Iraq.

I seem to remember one journalist did try to get George W to say exactly why but she is now banned from presidential press conferences. In the absence of a convincing reason we can only presume the reason George Bush invaded Iraq was the same as the reason Julius Caesar invaded Gaul: personal financial gain.

Or just because it was there!! (And so was all that lovely oil!!!)

Journalists have little to be proud of regarding the reporting of the Iraq war. Do you remember the glee with which the 'embedded' journalists reported their sanitised war stories during those first days of invasion? There was no independent or unbiased reporting there.