|
PeterHaberreckerFirstPaper 4 - 20 Apr 2009 - Main.PeterHaberrecker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | This paper was revised as part of the second-paper assignment | | | Innocence | |
<
< | Innocent women and children...
Whenever there is a suicide bombing or, let's say, an air strike or a missile strike going on, the victims seem to include women and children. The media is very quick at telling us that “innocent women and children“ have died in the incident. Although the statement is made quite often, no one seems to realize the implicit statements. In the following, I would like to show the views expressed by the “innocent women and children died” statement for the purpose of showing that people need to be aware of the (often implicit) values expressed by other people and “society”. | >
> | Whenever there is a suicide bombing, an air strike or a missile strike going on, the victims seem to include women and children. Sometimes, the media and certainly politicians are quick at telling us that “innocent women and children“ or “innocent victims” have died in the incident. In the following, I would like use the “innocent women and children” statement to show that we need to be aware of the values implicitly expressed by other people and “society”. | | | Innocence
Innocent? | |
<
< | In our suicide bombing scenario, the first question every journalist should confront himself with is: If the women and children are innocent, they are innocent with respect to what? If a journalist claims that somebody is innocent, he must be able to identify in which respect such person is innocent. Or, to pose the question in a different way: Guilty of what? Guilty of the bombing/air strike? The war? Climate change? Today's weather? We do not know the answer, the journalist would not tell us what he believes the victim is not guilty of. But since the answer to that question is not self evident, every journalist should provide his audience with his answer to it.
In addition, the claim is usually made quite soon after the incident happened, usually at the very next day. But how does the journalist know that the victims are innocent? The exact identity of the victims might not even be known at the time he writes his article. And even if, do journalists really read the victims' biographies before claiming their innocence? | >
> | In our suicide bombing scenario, the first question everyone should confront himself with is: If the victims are deemed to be innocent, they are innocent with respect to what? Or, to pose the question in a different way: Guilty of what? Guilty of the bombing/air strike? The war? Climate change? In most cases, the journalist would not tell us what he believes the victim is not guilty of. But since the answer to that question is not self evident, every journalist should provide his audience with his personal answer.
Does Innocence matter?
Once he have answered the first question, we may proceed to the second one: Does it matter whether the dead are guilty or innocent? Let's assume that these women and children are guilty, that they caused the war, or the climate change. Does that make the killings any better? Is it better to kill guilty people? | | | | |
<
< | Does innocence matter?
Once he have answered the first question, we may proceed to the second one: Does it matter whether the dead are guilty or innocent? Let's assume that these women and children are guilty, that they caused the war, the climate change, today's weather. Does that make the killings any better? Is it better to kill guilty people? The journalist who expressly states that the killed are innocent implies that killing guilty people is different (otherwise, he would not have stated the innocence). | | | | |
<
< | Women and children v. men
That leads us to the third and last question we have to pose: Is it important that women and children have been killed and not men? In the classic ship wreckage scenario, the “women and children first” policy might make some sense since men are considered to be stronger and therefore better equipped to rescue themselves. In suicide bombings or air strikes, however, it seems to me that men are as vulnerable as women and children. If that is true, why is it that journalists still explicitly mention the death of women and children? Again, by telling us that women and children have died, the journalist wants to tell us something. Is it that the death of a young human being is worse than the death of an old person (or, for that matter, an old man)? Or shouldn't we assume that each human life is worth the same, that we cannot balance one human life against another? | >
> | Women and Children v. Men
That leads us to the third and last question we have to pose: Is it important that women and children have been killed and not men? In the classic ship wreckage scenario, the “women and children first” policy might make some sense since men are considered to be stronger and therefore better equipped to rescue themselves. In suicide bombings or air strikes, however, it seems to me that men are as vulnerable as women and children. If that is true, why is it that journalists still explicitly mention the death of women and children? Is it that the death of a young human being is worse than the death of an old person (or, for that matter, an old man)? | | | | |
<
< | Journalist's purpose and impact | >
> | Journalist's Purpose and Impact | | | What the media does here is changing the world using words. In my view, journalists are implicitly expressing at least two opinions: First, it is better to kill guilty people than innocent people. Second, it is better to kill men than women and children. Since these statements may be controversial, they are not expressed explicitly. They are well packaged and transmitted indirectly. However, there is a good chance that the reader will consume this viewpoint and internalize it. Most consumers are not asking the questions I just raised above, they prefer to accept the views (implicitly) expressed. The journalist helps the consumer in his passivity by not expressing his point of view directly. | |
<
< | That being said, I am not quite sure whether every journalist actually knows what he is doing or whether the reference to “innocent women and children” is a mere reflex: suicide bombing automatically entails innocent victims. (Whenever the German government promises monetary help to the victims of natural catastrophes, such help is necessarily “quick and unbureaucratic”). | >
> | As you might have guessed, the problem just described not only applies to journalism and is a mere example of what goes in our everyday life – we are surrounded by implicit views, opinions and values every day. Most people however do not seem to realize this fact (or did you ever question the “innocent women and children” statement?). Just take gender stereotypes perpetuated in television: It's usually a man advertising for cars, women are advertising for detergent. In most movies, people see marriage as the ultimate fulfillment of life. So why is it that so many women still chose to stay at home and look after the children instead of pursuing their professional career (and having the man staying at home)? And do so many men pursue their professional career instead of doing something else? Why is it still unusual for a man to change his last name upon marriage? Is that due to a completely conscious decision or is it due to internalized and unquestioned traditions and views shown in almost every TV series? | | | | |
<
< | As you might have guessed, the attitude just described not only applies to journalism, but to everyday life – we are surrounded by implicit views, opinions and values every day. Most people however do not seem to realize this fact (or did you ever question the “innocent women and children” statement?). Be it gender stereotypes perpetuated in television (in the news, TV ads and TV series) or other political or moral statements portrayed by society. Why do so many women still chose to stay at home and look after the children instead of pursuing their professional career (and having the man staying at home)? Is that due to a completely conscious decision or is it due to internalized and unquestioned traditions and views shown in almost every TV series? | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but much in a much more subtle way and that everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views and to question them. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition. Certainly, this applies all the more to lawyers. | >
> | It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but in a much more subtle way. Everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition.
It is equally important that people realize that they too use tools to express their values. The journalist in my example does it (although I am not entirely sure whether all journalists really know what they are doing) and we all do it every day, sometimes unconsciously.
The aforesaid applies all the more to lawyers. In Western societies, lawyers do not only perform as attorneys, prosecutors and judges, they are also highly involved in politics. Be it as President of the United States or a Member of Congress, lawyers influence our lives. Lawyers rely on words more than most other professions do. So whenever lawyers hear, read or speak, they should be fully aware of the implicit values that words transmit.
| | |
- The first response I found I had to the piece was the recognition that its premise was wrong: the news sources I see and hear every day, like the NY Times, the Wash Post, the Guardian, NPR and BBC, do not report the deaths of innocent women and children, except to quote the politicians who do editorialize in those ways (as in calling bombers "cowardly"). The recognition of implicit biases in all sorts of communications is as important as you say in building social awareness for lawyers. But it's hard to know what to make of the fact that most of the essay's time and effort seems to be spent twisting backwards ad forwards a non-existent insight.
|
|
|
PeterHaberreckerFirstPaper 3 - 02 Apr 2009 - Main.AndrewCase
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | Innocence
Innocent women and children... | | | It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but much in a much more subtle way and that everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views and to question them. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition. Certainly, this applies all the more to lawyers.
- The first response I found I had to the piece was the recognition that its premise was wrong: the news sources I see and hear every day, like the NY Times, the Wash Post, the Guardian, NPR and BBC, do not report the deaths of innocent women and children, except to quote the politicians who do editorialize in those ways (as in calling bombers "cowardly"). The recognition of implicit biases in all sorts of communications is as important as you say in building social awareness for lawyers. But it's hard to know what to make of the fact that most of the essay's time and effort seems to be spent twisting backwards ad forwards a non-existent insight.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
Peter -- in order to edit this, you may want to read Orwell's Killing Civilians (1937), which for reasons that Prof. Moglen can perhaps explain appears unavailable on the internet. The general sentiment of it is in his As I Please column on pages 150-152 of this collection | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
PeterHaberreckerFirstPaper 2 - 31 Mar 2009 - Main.IanSullivan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Innocence | | | Conclusion
It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but much in a much more subtle way and that everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views and to question them. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition. Certainly, this applies all the more to lawyers. | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, PeterHaberrecker
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- The first response I found I had to the piece was the recognition that its premise was wrong: the news sources I see and hear every day, like the NY Times, the Wash Post, the Guardian, NPR and BBC, do not report the deaths of innocent women and children, except to quote the politicians who do editorialize in those ways (as in calling bombers "cowardly"). The recognition of implicit biases in all sorts of communications is as important as you say in building social awareness for lawyers. But it's hard to know what to make of the fact that most of the essay's time and effort seems to be spent twisting backwards ad forwards a non-existent insight.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
PeterHaberreckerFirstPaper 1 - 28 Feb 2009 - Main.PeterHaberrecker
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Innocence
Innocent women and children...
Whenever there is a suicide bombing or, let's say, an air strike or a missile strike going on, the victims seem to include women and children. The media is very quick at telling us that “innocent women and children“ have died in the incident. Although the statement is made quite often, no one seems to realize the implicit statements. In the following, I would like to show the views expressed by the “innocent women and children died” statement for the purpose of showing that people need to be aware of the (often implicit) values expressed by other people and “society”.
Innocence
Innocent?
In our suicide bombing scenario, the first question every journalist should confront himself with is: If the women and children are innocent, they are innocent with respect to what? If a journalist claims that somebody is innocent, he must be able to identify in which respect such person is innocent. Or, to pose the question in a different way: Guilty of what? Guilty of the bombing/air strike? The war? Climate change? Today's weather? We do not know the answer, the journalist would not tell us what he believes the victim is not guilty of. But since the answer to that question is not self evident, every journalist should provide his audience with his answer to it.
In addition, the claim is usually made quite soon after the incident happened, usually at the very next day. But how does the journalist know that the victims are innocent? The exact identity of the victims might not even be known at the time he writes his article. And even if, do journalists really read the victims' biographies before claiming their innocence?
Does innocence matter?
Once he have answered the first question, we may proceed to the second one: Does it matter whether the dead are guilty or innocent? Let's assume that these women and children are guilty, that they caused the war, the climate change, today's weather. Does that make the killings any better? Is it better to kill guilty people? The journalist who expressly states that the killed are innocent implies that killing guilty people is different (otherwise, he would not have stated the innocence).
Women and children v. men
That leads us to the third and last question we have to pose: Is it important that women and children have been killed and not men? In the classic ship wreckage scenario, the “women and children first” policy might make some sense since men are considered to be stronger and therefore better equipped to rescue themselves. In suicide bombings or air strikes, however, it seems to me that men are as vulnerable as women and children. If that is true, why is it that journalists still explicitly mention the death of women and children? Again, by telling us that women and children have died, the journalist wants to tell us something. Is it that the death of a young human being is worse than the death of an old person (or, for that matter, an old man)? Or shouldn't we assume that each human life is worth the same, that we cannot balance one human life against another?
Journalist's purpose and impact
What the media does here is changing the world using words. In my view, journalists are implicitly expressing at least two opinions: First, it is better to kill guilty people than innocent people. Second, it is better to kill men than women and children. Since these statements may be controversial, they are not expressed explicitly. They are well packaged and transmitted indirectly. However, there is a good chance that the reader will consume this viewpoint and internalize it. Most consumers are not asking the questions I just raised above, they prefer to accept the views (implicitly) expressed. The journalist helps the consumer in his passivity by not expressing his point of view directly.
That being said, I am not quite sure whether every journalist actually knows what he is doing or whether the reference to “innocent women and children” is a mere reflex: suicide bombing automatically entails innocent victims. (Whenever the German government promises monetary help to the victims of natural catastrophes, such help is necessarily “quick and unbureaucratic”).
As you might have guessed, the attitude just described not only applies to journalism, but to everyday life – we are surrounded by implicit views, opinions and values every day. Most people however do not seem to realize this fact (or did you ever question the “innocent women and children” statement?). Be it gender stereotypes perpetuated in television (in the news, TV ads and TV series) or other political or moral statements portrayed by society. Why do so many women still chose to stay at home and look after the children instead of pursuing their professional career (and having the man staying at home)? Is that due to a completely conscious decision or is it due to internalized and unquestioned traditions and views shown in almost every TV series?
Conclusion
It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but much in a much more subtle way and that everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views and to question them. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition. Certainly, this applies all the more to lawyers.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, PeterHaberrecker
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|