I caught this fantastic article on CNN earlier today and I think we can all definitely learn from it cos I think we are all guilty of this, and this why we cannot have an honest debate on healthcare.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/03/ruiz.closed.minds/index.html

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- As people shout over each other and tune out diverging views in town hall meetings, the health care debate is proving to be symptomatic of a major ailment threatening our nation:

A contagious culture of closed-mindedness threatens to suffocate our progress as a society.
Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues?
Here's my diagnosis.

Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the successful branding of John Kerry as a flip-flopper doomed his bid. Fear of "flip-flopper syndrome" is apparently catching like the flu, because today politicians are not alone in their determination to adhere to partisan positions despite the changing needs of our nation.

Nearly everyone's so reluctant to appear wishy-washy that they stand firm even when the evidence is against their views. Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening.
First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers. Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "fascism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way.

Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding. We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors.

Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook.

This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues. So how can we overcome this challenge, starting with the health care debate? How do we open our minds to the possibility that we could actually learn from somebody else? Here's my prescription. For starters, we should eschew the notion that changing our minds is a character flaw. To the contrary, experts believe it's a manifestation of higher intelligence. Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland wrote in "Irrationality," his seminal 1992 book: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness."

To further free our minds, we should aggressively treat the three Ls: Let's lose the labels: from "flip-flopper" to "commie," from "fear-monger" to "right-wing nut job." Trash the diatribe; mull the ideas. Let's engage in some constructive lifestyle management, slowing down to ponder -- and make independent decisions -- as enlightened people. We cannot allow the technological evolution to rob us of the intellectual strides of the American Revolution. We must value the art of listening, reflection, comparative analysis, and civil discourse if we're to make the most of our democracy. In the process, we should signal to leaders that we're willing to expand our horizons beyond party lines. Maybe they'll get in front of our parade, collaborating for a change.

Let's request a second opinion and listen to each other. Switch channels. Visit different Web sites. Read a newspaper, while we can still find one. How about stepping into a town hall with an open mind, prepared to converse with people hailing from diverse circumstances? A range of perspectives enriches our viewpoint, empowering us to craft nuanced responses to complex situations.
Ultimately, we must stop thinking that the only thing to think is what we've thought all along. As we learn more about multifaceted matters, our positions should evolve accordingly. Let's accept that it's OK to change your minds.

In the end, opening our minds can only enhance the prognosis for our most cherished patient: America

No wonder i unsubscribed to cable . . . first i stopped watching FOX, then realised MSNBC was simply the same . . . just polar opposites. All in all, a perfect waste of time.

davidylan:

No wonder[b] i unsubscribed to cable [/b] . . . first i stopped watching FOX, then realised MSNBC was simply the same . . . just polar opposites. All in all, a perfect waste of time.

Very brave. I've been asking myself recently, is there any media outlet we can trust? where are we supposed to get the untainted, undiluted news from? I have been doing a mixture of CNN + FOX so as to get both sides . . . it is ridiculous.

CNN is no better . . . you have Lou Dobbs and Rick Sanchez if you want its own version of Fox and MSNBC.

We dont get news anymore, what we have is media outlets informing us (to the point of death) about the opinions of the uninformed. That's what gets ratings. If you want a life of peace try not reading the news at all. Hard to do!

davidylan:

No wonder i unsubscribed to cable . . . first i stopped watching FOX, then realised MSNBC was simply the same . . . just polar opposites. All in all, a perfect waste of time.

Same with me. I've not had cable for many years now.

There is no amount of cable that can give you what PBS and Netflix can give you!!!!

Cable TV is filled with brain atrophying programs. As a matter of fact, all TV, except PBS and a few others.

davidylan:

CNN is no better . . . you have Lou Dobbs and Rick Sanchez if you want its own version of Fox and MSNBC.

We dont get news anymore, what we have is media outlets informing us (to the point of death) about the opinions of the uninformed. That's what gets ratings. If you want a life of peace try not reading the news at all. Hard to do!

             Me thinks that MSNBC is the worst of all-------   You can get undiluted news from WOLF BLITZER of CNN during his Situation Room time
             slot and also from BRET BEIR of FOX NEWS during his Special Report time slot.

davidylan:

CNN is no better . . . you have Lou Dobbs and Rick Sanchez if you want its own version of Fox and MSNBC.

We dont get news anymore, what we have is media outlets informing us (to the point of death) about the opinions of the uninformed. That's what gets ratings. If you want a life of peace try not reading the news at all. Hard to do!

Nail on the head. I know Cnn is just as bad . . . I figured watching the 2 will give extremes and then one can find some kind of balance    but to "not read the news at all"? impossible, at least for me. What can one do?

RichyBlacK:

There is no amount of cable that can give you what PBS and Netflix can give you!!!!

lol, those can't keep you properly informed now . . .

IGWE_USA:

Me thinks that MSNBC is the worst of all------- You can get undiluted news from WOLF BLITZER of CNN during his Situation Room time
slot and also from BRET BEIR of FOX NEWS during his Special Report time slot.

I like Brett. He's a little more reserved and less venomous than other Foxnews hosts. O'Reilly confuses me . . . sometimes he comes across as fair and honest but other times doesn't.

you can try nairaland for pure unadulterated news especially if it is coming from tayo d, kobojunkie,davidylan or pres-elect.

best of luck

JeSoul:

I like Brett. He's a little more reserved and less venomous than other Foxnews hosts. O'Reilly confuses me . . . sometimes he comes across as fair and honest but other times doesn't.

Brett is reserved but is also a fear monger like the others.

the most fair and balanced is Shepard Smith.

The United Kingdom definitely has the best and fairest news channel. The BBC is totally unbiased.

chic2pimp:

The United Kingdom definitely has the best and fairest news channel. The BBC is totally unbiased.

That's BS. The BBC is full of leftist claptrap. Actually, SkyNews fits the bill as fair.

chic2pimp:

The United Kingdom definitely has the best and fairest news channel. The BBC is totally unbiased.

The BBC is probably one of the worst anti-Israel media channels in the West.

davidylan:

The BBC is probably one of the worst anti-Israel media channels in the West.

Don't let your anti-islam stance cloud your judgement. The BBC is not anti-israel. The BBC got more complaints about being pro israel than any other news organisation.

4 Play:

That's BS. The BBC is full of leftist claptrap. Actually, SkyNews fits the bill as fair.

Judging by your choice of sky news being the fairest, I can tell u are right wing. Rupert Mudorch has made no bones about his political stance(sky and fox have the same agenda).

davidylan:

The BBC is probably one of the worst anti-Israel media channels in the West.

Why should they be pro-Israel?

Israel deserves all of the bad press it gets. Murderous zionists deserve no compassion whatsoever. Motherfuckers.

blackspade:

Why should they be pro-Israel?

Israel deserves all of the bad press it gets. Murderous zionists deserve no compassion whatsoever. Motherfuckers.

who are they murdering?

Another close-minded ignorant troll on the prowl again.

PBS is GOAT.

none of that partisan rubbish.

Look at them all dissing FOX news. IMO they're the best!

Tudór:

Look at them all dissing FOX news. IMO they're the best!

Fox news :oTudor you be sean hannity cousin? abi you sef be conservative right winger. . .

Oh dear . . . the very same sins the article laments about is being committed on the very same thread

Because 4Play watches Sky he must be "Right-wing"?
Because Tudor watches FOX he must be "a conservative right-winger"?

I tire for una oh . . .

These are the few good ones:

1. PBS
- Excellent programming
- Unbiased news and political commentaries
- The absolute best documentaries created by mortals:
* NOW (http://www.pbs.org/now/)
* FRONTLINE (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/)
* NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/)
* NOVA scienceNOW (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/)
* Ken Burns' documentaries (http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/) - awe-inspiring, thought-provoking, introspective and beautiful!
* News Hour with Jim Lehrer (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/) - Friday's section with David Brooks and Mark Shields squaring off is the most learned session in all electronic media!
* American Experience (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/) - important figures and epochs in America's history
* American Masters (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/) - in-depth biographies
- PBS is the best!!!

2. ITN
- Unbiased news
- Amazing geographic reach
- Correspondents in very remote sections of our planet

3. BBC
- "The world's oldest and largest broadcaster"
- Unbiased news (except when reporting about Zimbabwe)
- Has the widest reach on earth
- Carried on 33 languages and counting

4. MSNBC - very good



The rest:

5. CNN - not useful
6. FOX - hopelessly useless
7. ABC - not useful
8. NBC - useless
9. CBS - nonsense

RichyBlacK:

3. BBC
- "The world's oldest and largest broadcaster"
- Unbiased news (except when reporting about Zimbabwe)
- Has the widest reach on earth
- Carried on 33 languages and counting

4. MSNBC - very good

MSNBC must be 'very good' to a self-confessed Obamaniac.

BBC unbiased? Unless kissing Palestinians' ass counts as 'unbiased'.

4 Play:


 

MSNBC must be 'very good' to a self-confessed Obamaniac.

BBC unbiased? Unless kissing Palestinians' ass counts as 'unbiased'.

keith olberman kind of ruins MSNBC.  he is the left wing bill o'reilly.

PBS is still the best in my opinion.

Tudór:

Look at them all dissing FOX news. IMO they're the best!

sharrap and sin no more

BBC not biased  . . . i'm sure this is news to the managers of BBC abeg joo.

MSNBC good. . . ok richy, now i know where u are coming from.

if u want true news story, first withdraw from cable tv, then listen to abc/nbc/cbs/itv/etc after which u go to the internet to find out more real news, after which u get confused and hope u got it right. finally, dont believe whatever u read/saw/heard . . b/c there is no true news except that which u witnessed or that which has overwhelming evidence b4 you. e.g of overwhelming evidence is if the tv says it is raining in middlesex, and u live in middlesex and u see the rain then it is true. i.e the news which u dont need anybody to inform u is news that u can believe

like now, there is no evidence that i am a human being. i may be a machine, a goat, a monkey a spirit who knows

no normal human being will say either fox news or msnbc is objectiveand unbiased. the best way to find out the truth is to ask if it was reported in these media networks. if it was, it's a lie

4 Play:




MSNBC must be 'very good' to a self-confessed Obamaniac.

BBC unbiased? Unless kissing Palestinians' ass counts as 'unbiased'.

I am firmly on the LEFT of the ideological divide, if any. I dislike Republicans and all they stand for. In my world, people will be jailed for being Republicans!

So, MSNBC is very good, not excellent, because of some excesses.

Fox is totally useless!

MSNBC is not very good and i consider myself a leftist on many issues.

It is the same drivel albeit opposite of what Fox continuously feeds us with.

JeSoul:

Oh dear . . . the very same sins the article laments about is being committed on the very same thread

Because 4Play watches Sky he must be "Right-wing"?
Because Tudor watches FOX he must be "a conservative right-winger"?

I tire for una oh . . .

There is a HUGE difference between what news channel an individual watches and what he/she consider the fairest. 'BY THEIR CHOICE YOU SHALL KNOW THEM'

@chic2pimp.

All these glib labels that you throw around like a spastic vermin, are you ''middle-wing''?

Were the other constituents of the Murdoch UK empire, The Sun and the Times, being right wing when they endorsed Labour?

4 Play:

@chic2pimp.

All these glib labels that you throw around like a spastic vermin, are you ''middle-wing''?(I am neither left wing nor right wing)

Were the other constituents of the Murdoch UK empire, The Sun and the Times, being right wing when they endorsed Labour?

The only time the sun newspaper has ever backed labour was in 1997 and to honest with you this peculiar step was only taken to save face. Two month prior to the general election held in 1997,the sun newspaper urged his reader to vote tory. A month later when they realised there was no chance of the conservative winning the election,they switched allegiance. THEY HAD NO CHOICE