I have worked as a journalist, and one of the main tasks of a journalist is research, and giving the facts. Listening to people and giving others the opportunity to react. It's researching, without interpreting. It's putting into words what can be seen.
One might call it objective account. Saying how it is without changing things, witnessing.
It requires a sharp mind. To be a scientist is another part of the spectrum. (I am both)
When opinions and visions are involved one is not giving the facts, one gives an interpretation, it gets subjective.
It requires a lot of self reflection to wipe away influeces.
One's own history colours what we see and hear, but also the political arena, even the direction the paper takes for which we work. The pressure to earn money and keep the job. (That's why I stayed independent.)
Journalists among each other talk a lot. They tell how they are able to work, if they are free. if they dare to say what needs to be said.
When I hear from journalists in another country that they adjust or have to adjust what they are writing out of fear of loosing their job I get worried.
Because it means that people in that country are not able to get insight in what is happening there. They get a nicer picture, to keep them calm, elect a certain person, or repress their freedom, etc etc.
I see it happening.
Again!
My religion is different.
I can't believe there is a higher power that condoned all the millions of deaths during WW2 because in the end it would have been good for everyone, one way or another.
It feels like a game: no poblem people are lost, humanity will survive anyway. The game will be won.
I don't believe in a paternal figure that is OK with his children being killed for a good cause or a good outcome.
My religion is that every human being is able to make choices, for right and wrong.
The basics are the same: the 10 commandments, the precepts, the 8fold path.......
But the responsibility works out far different.
In fact almost every religion is based on selfless love and kindness to others.
And there are people who think that that doesn't apply to them. I don't mind if they call themselves christian or non-believer.
WW2 started the same.
Had the same sociological issues and consequences.
And what was most important: the same happened with people: thinking it would all turn out for the best, so many people stayed silent. And others feared for the lives of their friends, families and children and because of that kept their mouths shut.
But the boots came into the streets,
stopped in front of houses,
they dragged people out,
just knowing a name.
In the Bible they came for the firstborn son, in WW2 they came for the Jews, the Roma and Sinti, and now they come for those who don't have the paperwork to show.
I just took one of the things that were and are happening as an example.
A lot more is going on.
Does the result really justifies the means?
Are there really people who are better human beings than others when they don't show the selfless kindness religion asks?
Is praying for a leader enough to accept all the harm he does?
Praying is not paying, it's hoping things will turn out well.
But hope is not enough in the face of evil.
Or do we need to learn to live together, share what we have?
About the history books.
Anne Frank's Diary can be placed in the present time........
You know about racial discrimination.
In WW2 black people were used for the jobs others didn't want to do.
They were sent to Europe to do the same here. They were considered too stupid to fight.
Yet, they had to.
And they did well.
They were among the troops that freed the south of my country.
On the cemetry they worked too. Digging graves and laying comrades to rest.
After the war it became in fashion to erect information boards, telling the stories of individual people, groups, etc.
November 2025 they were removed by the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC).
We consider it fasification of history, but the american government isn't bothered by it.
I won't comment with my own perspective.
I already did a while ago.
Saying that the European Union was initiated to bully the USA, no, it was to find better and easier ways to trade between the countries.
The list is long...
Far too long!!!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment