1
   

Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:17 am
Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism


The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and critical thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I thought I might compare and contrast the professional journalist with the professional military officer in an attempt to focus upon the difference and importance of these two intellectual traits of comprehension.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient, and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical thinking, and honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer's behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist. During the Vietnam War the journalist often played the role of critical analyst. While one can see some positive reasons for the cheerleader and propagandist I will assume that overall this is not a proper role for the journalist in a democracy. The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation.

Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the ideal journalist who presents the facts fairly, accurately, and in a balanced manner. The ability ?'to connect the dots' in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist. Knowledge is important but understanding and critical thinking is more important.

We certainly want our military officers educated more in the didactic mode than in the Socratic mode whereas we would find that journalist educated in the Socratic mode would be the better journalist. The journalist must be able to recognize the prejudices of others as well as recognizing his/her own biases.

What might one say as regarding the contrasting importance of critical thinking and knowledge for a teacher, engineer, accountant, nurse, factory worker or secretary? With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than critical thinking when analyzing the individual as a worker. The credentials that appear on most resumes are those testifying to a degree of knowledge by the job applicant. We do not even have a metric for understanding or critical thinking.

I think it is correct to assume that knowledge can be imparted by a teacher to an individual more quickly and efficiently using the standard technique whereas the Socratic technique, while developing understanding and critical thinking, is much less efficient in imparting knowledge. Here, as in everything else there is a trade off. In a set period of time more knowledge can be imparted using the standard mode.

The question then becomes: is it more important to have citizens with greater knowledge and less understanding and critical thinking or citizens with greater understanding and critical thinking and less knowledge?

I claim that democracy is more dependent upon the citizen who exemplifies more the characteristic of the ideal journalist than the ideal military officer.

Democracy will eventually live or die based upon the degree of sophistication for critical thinking and understanding by our citizens. Our schools and colleges have made some small attempt to teach Critical Thinking but adults cannot wait for the distant future when many of our citizens have learned Critical Thinking. Today's adult must proceed with the effort to become a self-learner of Critical Thinking.

I think there are several levels of critical thinking, do you agree?

Do you think that the journalist or the military officer offers the best example for educating the citizens of a democracy?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 628 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 02:03 pm
Hi Coberst,

What an interesting post. It's certainly not one I could have put together (especially regarding the history of journalism).

Before answering your questions at the bottom of the page, I have some observations in the body of the post :

Quote:
The officer's behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action…. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms.


Not being a military officer, I wouldn't have described what they need to be able to do as an algorithm…though I guess it would come close. I would have said it was more like what you attributed to journalists :

Quote:
ability ?'to connect the dots' in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist.


With the difference being in timeframe allowed (military may have to do so instantaneously), and the consequent results (military failure to connect the dots instaneously may result in friendly deaths).

Quote:
The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist…


I didn't find the journalism to be any different in the leadup to the Iraq war.

Quote:
Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists


My low opinion of journalism comes from their onesided stories and their related their lack of critical analysis of important issues…but I guess that's more a low standard of journalism than what you are talking about (it just seems to be the overwhelming majority of them today)

Quote:
With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than critical thinking when…


Wouldn't you need knowledge to be able to critically think ? …otherwise it becomes critical feeling (and the ?'feeling' is usually based on unconcsciously remembered knowledge anyway)

Quote:
The question then becomes: is it more important to have citizens with greater knowledge and less understanding and critical thinking or citizens with greater understanding and critical thinking and less knowledge?


I presume you mean in relation to democracy? Both. You need expert and visionary, analyst and engineer. Otherwise you have the visionary leading the democracy down the path he ?'understands' to be the best, based on faulty knowledge and a vision that can't be put into action.

Further, understanding, but without knowledge to provide understanding (for example : the real reasons for the Iraq war), leads to corruptible democracy.

Yet that said, when knowledge is given, the ability to understand that knowledge, and more importantly, the ability to join knowledge from differing fields into a cohesive picture…that may give you an understand of a current policy (again as an easy eg. Iraq)…is essential to good democracy.

Quote:
I claim that democracy is more dependent upon the citizen who exemplifies more the characteristic of the ideal journalist than the ideal military officer.

The biggest ?'problem' with military officers is they must be indoctrinated in the belief of the righteousness of their country, whose cause must always be right, or at least, less wrong than their enemy …otherwise how else can one expect them to kill another human being just because their country says so? (well I'm sure the sociopaths wouldn't mind)

Quote:
Democracy will eventually live or die based upon the degree of sophistication for critical thinking and understanding by our citizens.


A degree of knowledge is required to critical thinking. With knowledge as a base, then in general I still agree with what you said.

Quote:
I think there are several levels of critical thinking, do you agree?


Hmmm, no. I think there are people better able to join the dots (those dots require knowledge), and that there are people more willing to seek out knowledge, and that there are people with better memories, and people who are more curious, and a combination of such (and probably other factors) affect ones ability at critical thinking, but I wouldn't say that we could honestly classify people into levels…because of the factors involved.

Quote:
Do you think that the journalist or the military officer offers the best example for educating the citizens of a democracy?


Going back to the problem with indoctrination military types into the righteousness of ones country…

But in terms of pure thinking….the military types will provide the visionaries…

The journalists will provide the critics,

The military types will provide the doers

The journalists will provide the talkers/debators

Both are necessary to democracy.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 04:19 pm
i'm of the opinion that any group of people can produce a visionary, even a positive one, not just the military.

(even republicans...)
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 03:25 am
Comprehension is a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

There is a great difference between knowing and understanding. Everyone can answer "yes" when asked if they know music. We receive answers that go on forever when we ask a teenager if they know music. We awaken instant and sentimental memories when we ask an older person to tell what they know about music.

Silence and puzzlement is our response when we ask a person "do you understand music?" Occasionally the question "do you understand music?" receives an expression of delight and a verbal outpouring. The person who understands music--they are few and far between--has studied music in a way very few of us have. I suspect such a person is not only a lover but also a student of music. I do not understand music but I do understand the meaning of "understanding music".

I create this musical metaphor for the purpose of illuminating a state of affairs of which we are seldom conscious.

Our formal educational system teaches us the knowledge required for making a living. Our formal education does not teach us the understanding required to live well. The development of understanding is something each of us must create on our own. If we do not recognize this fact we will not pursue this understanding and if we do not pursue this understanding we will remain intellectually naive.

We start our formal education experience as intellectually naïve children and end it twelve to eighteen years later as well informed intellectually naïve grown ups.

After formal education ends our understanding begins. The task of understanding is a private enterprise by me and for me. Understanding begins with this recognition and continues as one creates a process for the solitary activity of self-learning. I think a person could look at self-learning as a hobby, it could be one of your hobbies like tennis or golf, just a few hours each week and I suspect after a while it will become a very important part of your life style. Developing a sophisticated intellect is a solitary study lasting a lifetime.

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness?-smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge?-long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding?-a best friend bringing constant April.


Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; "Understanding is a kind of ecstasy."
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 04:05 am
vikorr


An algorithm is a step by step description for action and this is what the military depends upon. Everyone in the military has to follow standard operating procedures because all plans are dependent upon that as a known.

Bias like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This has been how the conservatives have been able to negate the negative happenings, especially in the war, at least before the Washington Times came on the scene.

Critical Thinking is process, character, knowledge, skill, and attitude. Good judgments require both the proper process, character, knowledge, skill, and attitude; and also knowledge about the subject under consideration.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 05:04 am
Quote:
i'm of the opinion that any group of people can produce a visionary, even a positive one, not just the military.


Hi Tiny, that's quite true. I think it's just that the military system identifies people who are able to join the dots, and think strategically, and then trains those abilities to a higher standard.
………….
Quote:
There is a great difference between knowing and understanding. Everyone can answer "yes" when asked if they know music.


Hi coberst. Yes, I understand this, and that is a fair generalization…but your example has little to do with either journalists or military officers as per the original post…my post was trying to relate knowledge and understanding to that original comparison.

Quote:
vikorr

An algorithm is a step by step description for action and this is what the military depends upon. Everyone in the military has to follow standard operating procedures because all plans are dependent upon that as a known.

Oh, I was thinking mathematical algorithm, which is the only place I have ever heard the term used.

Out of curiosity, are you certain that the military operate the way you describe? (it seems a recipe for many problems to me)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 03:55:56