To live is to fly

In watching the show “Friday Night Lights” recently, part of what drew me to it (and yet also makes it almost hard to watch) is the emotional intimacy inherent in the show.

Between the excellent writing and the usage of camera shots that make you feel as if you’re watching a conversation, you’re left with an intimate connection to these people, a feeling that the issues and events in the show reflect true human emotion.

The show doesn’t do this in some sappy Lifetime Movie of the Week or Titanic manner, but more authentically, meant to reflect the emotional struggles all people face.

And perhaps that very real, often melancholy feel to the show is why it has struggled for years to find a real audience. It’s much easier to be able to watch the same emotionless, or at best pandering drivel found on television and in the media than to view what actually confronts the painful realities of life.

And just as most Americans seem to be infinitely more content watching shows such as “American Idol” or one of the ubiquitous versions of “Law and Order” or “CSI” for entertainment, for coverage of topical news and politics, it also seems much this way.

Many decry the death of “objective” journalism as though the human element can, or has ever been able to, truly be removed from a story. That is not to say that personal prejudices or biases should ever stop a story from being published or that they should replace the facts.

No one in their right mind would argue as such, yet in the same breath, it must be said that truth and facts do not stand in opposition to passion and personal opinion.

It seems that some people either cannot separate, or do little to stop personal feelings from clouding proper judgement of vital issues in society.

To argue for pure objectivity is essentially to state that the only way to discuss an issue is to remove the human element, to suggest that we so lack control over our personal beliefs and passions that we must present each story from a droll, banal, nearly robotic position.

Objectivity and impartiality are not mutually exclusive of each other, and it is not necessary to be objective to be able to be impartial on an issue.

Far more dangerous for modern journalism and writing is not the lack of objectivity, but the usage of cheap appeals to emotion, particularly the usage of pandering, “alligator tear” crying television hosts who use propaganda and scare tactics instead of logical analysis in discussing an issue.

And just as those with real hearts and minds can differentiate between the purposefully sappy music of “artists” such as Celine Dion, John Mayer, The Eagles and Journey and the actual passion of musicians such as Sigur Ros or Townes Van Zandt, to name only two, we must also be able to differentiate between journalistically pandering propaganda and passionate discourse.

To remove passion in the name of objectivity would only hurt, not improve, our society.


E-mail: mrstraw@indiana.edu