Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MFH's avatar

I think the “center” is sometimes about not believing in anything very strongly. Increasingly, though, it seems to be a shorthand for an acceptance of the facts on the ground even when - perhaps especially when - they conflict with some image of the “perfect.” It’s an acceptance of the need for compromise, both when those in power have equal force, and when our view of what’s most correct conflicts with individual rights and the rights of those with minority views. The task, I think, is to seek enough thoughtful, reality-based thinking that we come to a better understanding of our own and others’ biases. And then evaluate them through our conscience, shaped by a life conformed to Christ.

Expand full comment
Gawain de Leeuw's avatar

What's likely is that much that will be "revealed" will be fodder for all sorts of ideological presuppositions.

While I still read the Times and the Post as legacy, establishment, elite media, what's worked for me is a mix of local and foreign reporting. In NY, City and State and Gothamist are reliable papers for me. For me, the questions I have are who the intended audience is? Where do they make their money? I default to the boring non-sensationalist not for profit media. I'm not sure why being "not for profit" is always considered "left."

Sometimes I think the media constantly struggles between flat-earthers and round earthers. We should try to, perhaps, understand flat-earthers, but the media often strives to be in the middle so that they don't seem too one sided. It just sometimes seems to me that when we're trying to find the "center" we're abdicating the pursuit of the truth.

Expand full comment

No posts