Changes have occurred during my half-century in community journalism

A mishmash of events, but what has it all meant?

When I began what has become a nearly half-century career in community journalism in September of 1975, I had no idea of what lie ahead—for myself or the world around me. All these years later, I’m not sure I can say with any clarity what’s transpired.

A mishmash of events would be a fair description, including those of a personal nature as well as others that fall into such headings as local, state, national, and worldwide. Policial, social, religious, and cultural would comprise other categories of this collage.

But what has it all meant? What happened and why? Such questions are an aspect of that all-too-human characteristic which attempts to glean a pattern, either underlying or self-evident, from the past. The vanity evident in our seeking to impose order from the seeming chaos and then taking it a step further and trying to assign some purpose.

“Guilty” as charged.

Changes have, of course, occurred within those broad headings and categories. Technology is, perhaps, the most evident. Personal computers, the internet, digital photography, automated manufacturing processes, microwave ovens, satellite dishes, smart phones, online shopping, computerized cars, and most recently the use of artificial intelligence…the list goes on. Many have made life easier or at the very least different. But there has been collateral damage as well. The process of ‘creative destruction’ that sees new businesses and services along with jobs emerging with the advances, while others—tied to what’s being replaced or marginalized—falling by the wayside. Amazon has replaced Sears in retail, Kodak went the way of film-based photography, and this communication devise I carry in my pocket made the public phone booth an historical artifact.

But what about less tangible things like civil rights, poverty, armed conflicts, the threat of nuclear weapons, freedom of expression, religious tolerance, a proper balance of free trade, education, civil discourse, a cure for cancer, environmental protection, mental health, gun violence, safe neighborhoods, political repression, drug addiction, land uses and zoning, economic development, and similar matters of social interaction and concern that have kept me and other journalists busy over the years? There have been changes in these realms as well during the last 50 years, although maybe tug-of-war is a better analogy. The measurement of what happened and what it meant is less clear and concise than with the technological advances.

In dealing with such questions, it’s perhaps prudent to note that there is a tendency to treat ‘change’ as synonymous with ‘progress’ and that ‘progress’ usually being considered an ‘improvement.’ As noted, changes can be a mixed bag. While inevitable, they can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on circumstances and—in making this human judgement—how they affect yours truly.

If they come to be regarded as a step forward in the human condition, then they are described as progress. Still, as I’ve learned after 50 years of reporting and as a reader of history, such judgement is often tentative and, forgive me, ‘subject to change.’

“Two steps forward, one step back” or “one step forward, two steps back” is how many social, political, and cultural issues or causes unfold. That’s because what one person sees as ‘progress’, another believes is a ‘calamity.’

Most would regard improved treatments for certain cancers as progress. On the other hand, legislation which expands civil-rights protections and the need for a wider social safety net find people holding differing views on the need or benefit.

What’s of interest as well, at least to me, is that some of the measurements themselves are being called to question. The scientific method, the seemingly objective criteria used for approving drugs and medical treatments, and how to best protect and promote public health—once seemingly infallible—are now treated with the same skepticism as the merits of funding a Congressman’s proposed hometown project and as apt to be criticized for being politically motivated as a Supreme Court decision.

The standards of impartial judgement, based on evidence, deductive and inductive reasoning, and the use of a fixed process, have become or are becoming victims of the current harsh and inflexible rhetoric—called ‘subjective’ by those for whom personal belief is the usual predetermining factor. Another case of the ‘kettle calling the skillet black’ and of seeking to place others in their Procrustean bed where everyone needs to conform to their viewpoint, or else.

In looking back and in taking measure of the current situation, I can’t say that education or the accumulation of personal knowledge, in and of itself, is the remedy or antidote, although ignorance—whether promoted or willful—is not a preferable alternative. Being smart, while admirable, does not mean someone is smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong or what’s fair and unfair or, if knowing the difference, having the initiative and at times the courage to act on this choice. And too often we’ve seen the educated person use their abilities on behalf of less-than-admirable causes either from deliberate intent or due to self-deception.

In making this observation, I’m hopefully not guilty of such behavior myself.

The necessary added ingredient, I’d say, is developing a moral compass. But even then, incorporating an ethical approach loses its virtue when it borders on moral certainty or is used to justify a sense of superiority—a form of intellectual arrogance. The more useful approach, I believe, comes from looking inward as well as outward; questioning oneself along with making judgements about what others are doing or how the general enterprise is being handled.

Introspection, self-reflection, and critical thinking are tools that, when used and refined, can help us wade through the ethical considerations that face us, personally and as a society. A degree of humility is helpful as well. Not every choice is clear cut or an obvious difference between what’s good or bad, ethical or unethical. Sometimes it’s choosing the lesser of two evils or deciding if short-term expediencies outweigh long-term repercussions. Sometimes it means admitting a mistake in judgement and making amends. Sometimes it means standing alone or in a small minority against the tide of popular opinion. Sometimes it means accepting that there can be two sides to an argument—maybe more.

Empathy, compassion, a forgiving heart, and tolerance—those benign aspects of human emotion and behavior—are other tools worthy of adding to our daily routines and public policy. Easier said than done, for sure, but a worthy pursuit, nonetheless.

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist and commentator.