An old friend of mine posted a story on social media today with headlines that read “Losing My Religion for Equality. Jimmy Carter leaves Southern Baptists after 60 years, saying, “Too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.”
I read the article that said he left the Southern Baptist Church because of the church’s view that women should be subservient to men. The article then concentrated on women’s equality. The story posted came out of a site called The Age which is based in Australia.
So, being an analyst, I did a web search and found the actual article that said he left the Southern Baptist Convention (where church leaders gather to decide the view of the church) because they were voting to keep women in secondary roles in the church. He is however remaining with the Baptist Church and is still a deacon in that church.
So I responded to my friend that the title was in fact misleading and therefore the story attached is unreliable in nature due to the author trying to sensationalize for ratings.
The response that came back was it was his opinion that it was okay because it got people to read and understand the article.
I thought about this and what he is really saying is “It is okay to lie as long as it promotes your beliefs.” His response back was that he thought it was “unreal” for me to have the stance that the media needs to be held to a standard of facts UNLESS it is announced beforehand that what you are about to read or listen to is identified as an editorial.
I shake my head when thinking how this guy used to be my best friend and now I don’t know if he is listed as a friend on social media because of our past friendship or what, because who he is today is not recognizable from the past.
So my first thought in this post is: “Media used to give us facts, now it gives us what it wants us to believe as facts.”
The second thought on this post is: “Do we hold on to past friendships only because we want to hold on to the past?”