Do you watch people suffer on news/tv for entertainment purposes?
Honestly if a person just watches the news and sees people suffer and yet does not do anything about it (like personally donating time, money, clothing or etc) these poor people are reduced to nothing more then a form of entertainment ?
Do you watch the news just to say that you "know something" to entertain-yourself or in an attempt to impress people with your vast-knowledge or do you actually "do" something to help these people in need.
note: depending on the government to do it for you doesn't count
Do you watch the news just to say that you "know something" to entertain-yourself or in an attempt to impress people with your vast-knowledge or do you actually "do" something to help these people in need.
note: depending on the government to do it for you doesn't count
Comments
Originally posted by johnsocal
Honestly if a person just watches the news and sees people suffer and yet does not do anything about it (like personally donating time, money, clothing or etc) these poor people are reduced to nothing more then a form of entertainment ?
Do you watch the news just to say that you "know something" to entertain-yourself or in an attempt to impress people with your vast-knowledge or do you actually "do" something to help these people in need.
note: depending on the government to do it for you doesn't count
Do you just post to do moral lessons ?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Do you just post to do moral lessons ?
Do you oppose for the sole sake of opposing?
To not act upon what one knows is heartless.
Originally posted by johnsocal
Do you oppose for the sole sake of opposing?
To not act upon what one knows is heartless.
No, you give, because your heart dictate you to do so. Not because it's a moral obligation.
The tsunami is a terrible disaster, but there is also a lot of terrible disasters all around the world, who do not benefit of the same mediatic coverage. Unfortunately the sum of those disasters kill way more people. Malaria kill 2 millions people each year, but it's not a mediatic case : there is no moving heart images.
It's good that people (me included) in the early hours gave some money to those people, but I think it would be hateful, if it turn, in a generosity contest limited to this single event. I hate people who claim to be more generous than others. I love the anonymous people who gave for the tsunamis, because their heart dictate this, without been vocal about it. I hate when giving money is becoming a political argument
Originally posted by Powerdoc
No you give, because your heart dictate you to do so. Not because it's a moral obligation.
The tsunami is a terrible disaster, but there is also a lot of terrible disasters all around the world, who do not benefit of the same mediatic coverage. Unfortunately the sum of those disasters kill way more people. Malaria kill 2 millions people each year, but it's not a mediatic case : there is no moving heart images.
It's good that people (me included) in the early hours gave some money to those people, but I think it would be hateful, if it turn, in a generosity contest limited to this single event.
Who said that generosity should be limited to single event or should stop as soon as the entertainment value of a particular news story fades?
I believe that many people (intentionally and unintentionally) confuse themselves to a particular point that they become mentally paralyzed/confused. These very same people when then use their confusion as a justification (or rationalization) as a reason that prevents themselves from acting upon the knowledge they have because they are either lazy or fear the consequences of making a choice.
All I can say is help an individual who needs it and don't wreck a good apology with a poor excuse.
Originally posted by Giaguara
johnsocal, tell me. do you either not watch TV at all, or do you donate your money and time to actually change what you see? ie charities etc?
I do read/watch alot of news (cnn,bbc,foxnews,msnbc, and etc) but I also donate a portion of my income (about 6% in 2004) to Christian charities that focus mainly on helping the poorest of the poor.
News is a nothing but a pile of shit. It is all the bad happenings all around the world being shoved down your throat every single day. I don't like that. Being informed doesn't mean you have to suffer in front of the idiot box.
Oh, and why should depending on your government not count? When i vote for a government of decent and capable people who will look out for people in need domestically and abroad, i realise there will be a price to pay. It just might beat giving money to the people with the biggest marketing machine behind them, or with the most tv cameras around.
What is truly sickening is that the moment the red cross announced they would be shifting excess funds from the Tsunami relief to other causes who don't get media exposure, the outcry was so big they had to come back on the decision and promise it would all go to Tsunami victims.
Some watch the news and don't take action and other don't watch the news so they won't have a reason to take action.
Words and thoughts without action are meaningless.
Originally posted by johnsocal
My point is unless you allow the knowledge you attain from the news to cause you to "act" and "help" then what is the purpose of watching/reading the news to begin with other then it being a source of entertainment?
Some watch the news and don't take action and other don't watch the news so they won't have a reason to take action.
Words and thoughts without action are meaningless.
I expect that nobody or very few people watch news for entertainement. Most of them watch new for their own information and or education. Only a twisted mind could see news as an entertainement.
Now the question of taking action is an other question. It's related to the way, you react with the world.
I will also add, that only reacting to news is a bad thing. News are a magnificator lens, that focus on some issues for a limited amount of time, and then tend to vanish afterwhile.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I expect that nobody or very few people watch news for entertainement. Most of them watch new for their own information and or education. Only a twisted mind could see news as an entertainement.
Now the question of taking action is an other question. It's related to the way, you react with the world.
I will also add, that only reacting to news is a bad thing. News are a magnificator lens, that focus on some issues for a limited amount of time, and then tend to vanish afterwhile.
I agree with for the most part but for the news and information to be considered "education" that knowledge would need to be put into action otherwise that knowledge is nothing more then mental jewelry used to impress others (or to make one feel important) and regardless if one wants to admit it or not if action is not taken news has been reduced "entertainment".
In regards to another persons post:
I watch, read and etc multiple sources of news and information because I never like to rely on a single source for news and etc.
A main reason I don't depend on the government to be generous (or caring) for me persoanlly because the government (like all monopolies) is inefficient, slow to react, and non-innovative.
Originally posted by johnsocal
I agree with for the most part but for the news and information to be considered "education" that knowledge would need to be put into action otherwise that knowledge is nothing more then mental jewelry used to impress others (or to make one feel important) and regardless if one wants to admit it or not if action is not taken news has been reduced "entertainment".
It's a question of time.
Perhaps something you witness some years ago, or the sum of news you witnesses may change your life and your actions in the future.
Sometimes, it's a new event that make you react, but only because several events before prepared you to do so. I have an expression in french for this.
" c'est la goutte d'eau qui fait deborder le vase"
I will try to find a translation tomorrow. My wife is sleeping, and I don't want to wake up her.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I do it to make you really, really mad.
Kill Your Television.
Originally posted by johnsocal
My point is unless you allow the knowledge you attain from the news to cause you to "act" and "help" then what is the purpose of watching/reading the news to begin with other then it being a source of entertainment?
Some watch the news and don't take action and other don't watch the news so they won't have a reason to take action.
Words and thoughts without action are meaningless.
Everybody except less than a handful of individuals that I know that do watch TV, don't really do anything about what they see in the news.
If the tsunamis would have happened in the more beaten areas of the world, say in those parts of Africa where hunger has been a long time friend, or around Iraq .. would all those corporations and people handled out help as willingly?
Originally posted by johnsocal
I don't know how anyone could have an excuse considering that even Apple has it set up to make an online donation via itunes- http://www.apple.com/give/
Just a shame the donation goes to the US Redcross. Funds have a habit of not going to the right people!