Opinions and debates

In the seemingly perpetual campaigning across the country, serious damage is being done to essential aspects of our uniquely American freedoms.  Political campaigns, aided and abetted by the media, are leading the way in causing the damage.  Damage that is magnified by the quasi-to-actual anonymity of social media.

Freedom of expression is a pillar of freedom upon which our nation stands.  This freedom extends to the ability to express opinion and then debate the merits of said views.  In establishing this freedom, wisely neither the Constitution nor the Amendments require that the opinions be based on fact or even logical conclusion.  It is debate about the opinion that will or will not convince others of its merit.  Those opinions with value will earn support and those without will be disregarded.

Or at least that is the way things should work.  But it is certainly not the way it happens today.

Starting at the very top, pursuing votes as a candidate for president has devolved into anything but informed opinions being debated, so that the electorate may determine which have merit.  Rather than mature iterations of opinion and debate, candidates sling about outlandish insults at one another.  Hyperbole replaces reason.  All sorts of intent and behaviors are ascribed to opponents.  And this goes on unchecked.

The behavior is left unchecked by the media, who actually serve to inflame the situation.  Talking heads no longer merely report, they filter, edit, and opine to meet their personal objectives.  The damaging behavior, left unchecked, aided and abetted by the media, is subsequently proliferated by rampant social media.  And social media is notoriously unreliable, but certainly full of scathing, often anonymous screed.  But hey, if a candidate for the presidency and the media can behave in such a repugnant manner, should not voters able to follow suit.

Imagine primary and general campaigns in which the candidates refrained from the hyper-toxic accusations and personal attacks.  What if the campaigns strictly put forth their opinions on important matters, then debated their opponents on the merits pro and con?  What if the media simply reported the stated opinions and accurately reported the ensuing debates, without attempting to tilt the information one direction or another?

Yes, under our system of free speech an individual can utter falsehoods with legal immunity.  Individuals can take to social media and communicate inflammatory and wholly false rhetoric with legal immunity.  And individuals on social media can transmit all sorts of vile, reprehensible, and troubling comments without being held legally responsible.

Imagine candidates not declaring as fact matters that are subsequently proven to be false.  Imagine candidates not employing social media to communicate inflammatory comments.  Imagine candidates communicating civilly.  Imagine candidates presenting opinions and seriously debating their merits. 

That would exhibit the manner in which our freedom of expression of opinions and debates is meant to be. 

If candidates, starting with those seeking the presidency, set the tone and example by taking this approach, the damage would be slowed.  If followed by the media seriously and judiciously reporting the opinions and debates, without leaning one way or the other, the damage would be further slowed.  And maybe, just maybe, such examples set by candidates and the media would bleed over into the realm of social media.