There’s an issue with today’s media, on sides both left and right, regarding their representation of opinion as fact. I do understand that the phenomenon of bias is not a new presence, for bias has always had a place in media, but it used to take a backseat to the facts. However, this no longer seems to be the case. In today’s world of media, opinions are expressed as fact, rarely having a disclaimer to let the reader know that the article is merely the opinion of the author. Most media sources in this day and age are now aligned with either the right or the left, and each attempts to release stories and articles that paint their side in a more flattering light. The issue that arises is that while each article released may be about the same subject, each will claim to be representing the side that is correct, presenting their view as the only one that is both logically sound and justified by fact. But the problem here is that in so many cases the “factual justifications” presented in defense of each viewpoint are merely comprised of cherry picked information from biased sources. Therefore, when the authors present their views as both logical and factually justifiable, they are in turn leading readers to infer that the views expressed are themselves factual, even though the “factual” information on which the viewpoint is based may be flawed. This presents a quandary for the American people, especially given our propensity for self adulation. We, as Americans, love to be told that our opinions are the correct ones. The media, as a whole, has caught on to this, which in turn has reinforced their desire to take sides and to now consistently present what used to be called opinion pieces as fact based reporting. But this misrepresentation, and ever increasing presence of bias, is negatively impacting those that are seeking out objective information strictly for the purpose of education and not belief reinforcement. The inaccessibility of unbiased news and information is making objective decision making increasingly difficult and, I believe, is continually widening the already existing political and social chasms, making it ever harder for the whole of American citizenry to come together to work for the true betterment of our society.

In recent days there has been nothing more common in America than the trumpeting of politicians from both sides of the aisle regarding their respective stances on the rights of women. What strikes me as odd is that so many of these voices speaking out both against and in defense of women’s rights are those of males. It seems that the women’s rights activists whose voices were so loud in the 1960’s and 70’s have given way to an equally boisterous group of males claiming to know what’s best for today’s women. This transference of voice has had the effect of making it seem as if the average male cares more about women’s rights than the average female, whether his goal is to limit or increase these rights.  And while I am not attempting to discredit or discount the efforts of modern day feminists, I am saying that these efforts do seem few and far between. The absence of women in the conversation about their rights is disconcerting, to say the least.

Now, while I do grasp that the issues that women are facing today are not necessarily as pressing as those that women faced in the 60’s and 70’s, I must also say that a continued and active interest in these issues is as fundamentally important for women today as it was back then. This can be said for all aspects of society, for a citizenry that is knowledgeable and informed of the issues affecting its country will undeniably make better decisions, especially in the political realm. However, in this case we are talking specifically of a very important subset of American citizenry: women. It is unquestionably important that women, especially young women, stay abreast of the issues that they, as both political catalyst and interest group, face in today’s society. This active participation and continuous consumption of information will, just as it does when a citizenry as a whole engages and educates itself, do nothing but benefit the whole of society, and women as a separate group. And while I understand that it is ironic for a male to be the one to issue this “call to arms”, I also believe that this is too important an issue for that to matter.

We’ve all witnessed it in today’s world. Many businesses, and people, engage in practices that we wouldn’t necessarily deem “ethical.” You need look no further than recent developments involving Foxconn, a key supplier of components for Apple electronics. You could hardly call the treatment by Foxconn of its employees at their manufacturing plants ethical, nobody in their right mind would dream of it. And in the realm of this same story you find Mike Daisey, the man who manufactured the original exposure of these ethical shortcomings. The key word there is manufactured,  for even this man, who for all intents and purposes was attempting to do something truly virtuous by shedding light on a major corporation’s endorsement of unethical behavior, engaged in unethical behavior himself. Regardless of any underlying truths that his expose may have contained, the fact remains that Mike Daisey lied about his own direct findings. And now the story of this lie has proceeded to overshadow what Daisey was trying to shine light on in the first place: Apple, the favorite gizmo company of so many, has been endorsing, albeit “indirectly”, unethical behavior.

But the ethical, or unethical, practices of these corporations and individuals isn’t the focus here. The focus is on the American people. We first witnessed the massive outcry, the huge backlash, as any called for boycotting Apple or blacklisting Mike Daisey. Then Daisey’s segment on “This American Life” was cancelled.  But the truth of the matter is that since this initial heated reaction, an overwhelming silence has taken over. Apple has released the new iPad to massive sales and mostly positive reviews. Mike Daisey has faded back into relative obscurity, at least when it comes to recognition among average Americans. It seems that, deep down, Americans have very short ethical attention spans. We’re all for the outrage so long as it tapers off before the new iPad release date. We all seem to suffer from EADD, Ethical Attention Deficit Disorder. But this isn’t some new development. One need only look at scandals involving KFC animal cruelty or Nike sweatshops. Each, upon its original arrival on the national radar, sparked massive outcry and calls for immediate action. But just as has happened with Apple and Mike Daisey, the cries and calls faded and ceased.

It’s clear that this isn’t an isolated incident but is instead a recurring theme among the American people.  We like to see ourselves as human beings continuously upholding our unflinching ethical standards but in truth our ethical standards are fickle at best. Many will say that they do not suffer from this ethical whimsy, that their standards are as steady as can be imagined, but these people, if they are being truly honest, are the exception and not the rule. Societal norms dictate that we, as human beings, be outraged upon hearing of egregious ethical violations. But, upon further examination, it seems that this outrage is merely a temporary response that arises only because it is dictated by societal norms and not because it is necessarily a part of our human nature.This lack of steadfast and fully enforced ethical standards is a detriment to America. For without a truly strong ethical population that is willing to make these companies and prominent individuals see the error of their ways, this type of behavior will continue unhindered, which will in turn reflect negatively upon our nation and its citizenry.

A stoplight. You’re in your car, face down, as the homeless man passes you by. So long as you can ignore him, you can keep your conscience clear. Well, ignore him, and then create the reasons inside your mind that you believe best justify your actions. “Why should I give him money? It will just go to drugs, alcohol, or any number of other addictions.” “It isn’t my fault that he is where he is, it is the result of his own decisions, circumstances, or any other number of other reasons.” But the truth is, this is you merely reasoning your way out of a situation in which you could have truly helped someone else. Maybe not in the sense that society promotes, where in order to significantly help anyone you must give more than you can afford. Instead, this is a scenario where you could have improved the quality of life of your fellow man, even if it were for only a brief amount of time. But you’ve reasoned your way out of it, convincing yourself that either he doesn’t deserve the money or you will do more with it than he  would. And this is the line of reasoning that has become ever more prevalent in today’s society. The type of reasoning that says giving is immoral. You worked hard for your money, why should you have to give it to someone else, no matter their circumstances. You have been programmed with these cynical ideas that create in you a selfish and constantly skeptical human being. A human being that can’t possibly understand that not every other human being in need is actually just a wolf in sheep’s clothing attempting to steal your every last dime.

Now, my goal isn’t to encourage you to part ways with every cent that you have. Instead, it is to urge you to look past your negative views and see that there are many in this society who could genuinely use your help. America, as a whole, is a giving nation. We provide much needed aid to multiple countries around the world. And yet we look upon providing aid to our fellow citizens with skepticism, ignoring their plights, all the while convincing ourselves that what we’re doing is both right and moral. It seems that negative rhetoric and clouded reasoning have effectively shattered our individual moral codes, and we, as individuals, have no desire to pick up the pieces.