To agree or live free?

Freedom is a means, not an end to peace and happiness. Freedom, in particular free thought, instigates division and tension. It may be good, healthy, or efficient at times to submit to a single opinion. However, for the most part, freedom, as we live with imperfection, means living in tension.

This tension is exemplified by the comparison of news agencies. Take for example foxnews.com and bbc.co.uk. Their coverage of the Indonesian earthquakes was subtly, yet significantly different. Fox News did not report on survivors until the sixth paragraph, and they reported on the number of ‘bodies’ found. The BBC began with revealing the deaths of 1,000 ‘people’. Fox's first quotation reads, "They were sucked 100 feet deep into the earth... Even the mosque's minaret, taller than 65 feet, disappeared." The reader is left with a sense of awe rather than despair over the tragedy. The BBC first quotes an affected village resident: "Don't bother trying to bring aid up here. Everyone is dead". This quotation speaks of the devastation of the people of Indonesia. Both choices affect the tone of each article.

John Stuart Mill writes "…that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good..." Mill is saying that in our fallible state we must choose between agreeing and living free. I am biased to the BBC's report of the earthquake. They told the story succinctly. However, Fox’s representation may be equally as beneficial. Perhaps reading 'bodies' rather than 'people' is healthier for my psyche.

Fox and BBC choose to cover different events overall. The deaths of 27 militants in Pakistan, and that an Afghan policeman killed two US soldiers were newsworthy for Fox. The elections and fights for free speech in Greece and Italy, respectively, were covered by the BBC and not by Fox. Both of these publications have conviction about why they publish what they publish. To say either of them should be suffered to silence would be to declare myself in a state of infallibility above the rest of the human race. The truth suffers when opinions – whether right or wrong (Mill would say all opinions are more or less half-truths) – are suppressed.

Publishers censor everyday according to Judith Andre. They are limited by economic forces, which, in effect, censor material. They possess beliefs and values that are not arbitrary and subjective; these values affect what becomes news. For example, Fox published portions of Roman Polanski’s past as he faces charges for having sex with a minor, while BBC did not. By publishing that his pregnant wife was murdered a couple of decades before this incident, Fox incites compassion for Polanski. Perhaps this was fair; perhaps it was not. The bottom line is, this discussion about what should and should not be published and why needs to continue. I would rather feel this tension of being free than feel the oppression of perfect unity in a fallen and fallible world.