Study indicates our tendency to ignore news that conflicts with our worldview.

Studies like this one underscore the necessity for reading or viewing a number of media sources instead of relying on one or two.

As we age, the danger of viewpoint ossification increases. We seek certainty. When a news story contradicts our particular worldview, then chances are good we'll minimize its value, criticize its source, or seek out other stories to offset the perceived threat to our cozy little worlds.

The Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, were acutely aware of this natural tendency, despite having no name for it. Jefferson felt so strongly about the dangers of narrow-mindedness and simple-mindedness in the electorate that he donated all his books to start a library (University of Virginia). Along with the other founders, Jefferson noted that the dangers of a free press were far outweighed by having no press at all.

We find ourselves in an awkward situation today. Our media strives for profit. Profit motive fuels the tendency of the media to feed consumers what they want instead of what they need, viz., real news and conflicting stories.

My prescription: Read many sources, take them all with a grain of salt. Don't parrot some bozo who makes his or her money from maintaining an audience instead of actually adhering to a code of journalistic ethics.

Caroline Kennedy for Senator.

I'm in no position to have anything to say that could either hurt or help Caroline Kennedy in her bid to assume the interim appointment to New York's senate seat.

What I will say has more to do with personal attributes Ms. Kennedy possesses. I would also like to shine a light on the attitude of some in the press and in politics that is highlighted by this article questioning Ms. Kennedy's qualifications.

I'll do the latter first: Where do all these idiots get off thinking that they are somehow entitled to the Senate seat? Can someone please point out to me where it says in the Constitution that one must have paid dues in politics in order to receive the award of an interim appointment? I have serious concerns about such an attitude in a Democracy where an expectation is encouraged that one gets a political position based solely on time put in. It's contrary to American politics and this notion should be shed or at least pointed out as anathema to the American polity.

That being said: Ms. Kennedy has every qualification necessary for the office she seeks. With many of the idiots who get elected I think she'd bring a dose of idealism and integrity to the office. She would not owe anyone for her position, save the governor.

On to the former issue of her qualifications: Ms. Kennedy is smart, down to earth, and capable. After meeting her once, I can say from personal experience that she's without artifice and exactly the type of personality we need in elected office. She's honest and without hidden agenda. I don't think anyone can top her when it comes to being the ideal personality for the job. Unlike other senators, she carries herself with a modest self-assurance instead of an in-your-face narcissism.

I think Caroline Kennedy is the best choice because she is seeking the office for the good of our country.

Media fallacy in pursuing "balance" spelled out.

Here's a link to the description of the fallacy I referred to in a previous post about the media's attempts at "balance."

This explains the fallacy in plain and simple terms.

The middle is not always correct.

False balance is giving in to the wrong side

This story gets at a complaint I've had for years against the press.

My problem has been the attempt to present a "balanced" view or an even-handed story when the facts are not so balanced and even-handed.

Attempting to provide balance when the facts scream otherwise is nothing but press bias in its own right.

For example: To be balanced when you report on the world being round, you should probably give equal time and the appearance of equal weight to those who say the Earth is flat.

Now, most of us would think the flat earthers don't deserve the same billing as the rest of us and we'd be right. But, by giving equal weight to the flat earth advocate, we'd be giving them MORE weight than they deserve.

Can you see my point?

When someone demands balance from the press they are in essence admitting they are in a weak position and are demanding that the world give them an advantage not warranted by their position.

False balance is just as wrong as being an ideologue.