I hate to point this out, but the topic that Banner started was Morality with regards to the press. *checks once again*

Yeah, pretty sure. While I'm sure it's not me that should say this, but it seems the posts have turned more into flame-wars about a thing entirely unrelated to the topic. So I'd like to advise you either to grow up and stop this or start a new topic » Morality w.r.t. war crimes and I shall be happy to post my views there.

 

It is all relevant, I wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't. The reason why people like Garret think the way they do is because the victors of the war does their damnest to put them in the right. How? Influcencing how history is told. Meaning invariably the media. Which takes us back to the gist of this thread.

Media isn't only biased and reported with unfairness in the wizarding world, it's exactly the same in the real world. If anyone wants to listen, Noam Chomsky puts it down better than I could ever do. Sadly I doubt anybody who could actually benefit from broadening their horizons would give him a minute of their time.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4054523048548733881

Does the media have the moral right to self censor/lie about history and facts for the betterment of ___? The brittish wizarding world's main media as with our world's main media have a vested interest in staying in the good graces of the powerful and influential. And the powerful and influential do what they do, influencing state and global policies. This draws a painfully obvious line between the media and the governments. A line which benefits both parties but not necessarily the general populace.

 

I agree with you Kardikek. And I'm not trying to hurt your sentiments.

Everyone knows that History is written by the victors. And this has always been the case and always will be. Consider that if you are the leader of a civilization and after years of war, you finally defeat your enemy. Will you let history focus on the atrocities you committed to win the war or that of your opponent against you?

All I'm trying to say is we aren't discussing how the press mangled the history of the world. We are trying to discuss how the press takes advantage of its freedom and smears the reputation of individuals in its quest of sensational journalism. They know only one fact: The readers are followers and can be easily influenced. They take advantage of this fact and their freedom which is unethical in all respects.

 

I would like to point out that it is the victors who write the majority of the history books. Its a fact thats been true to all wars. Hell look at Iraq. In the early war years it was mainly about the liberating US. May be its a way to justify the time, effort and manpower that was wasted in the war or most likely its a public show to make sure the noose doesn't come around your neck afterwards. And the best tool to do that is the media ever though it's a double edged, backstabbing dagger...

 

The obvious first step to actually giving fair and balanced reporting is to start up a real NEWSpaper - hire real reporters (probably from overseas,) produce a broadsheet and plan to run at a loss for a while. Set policies where advertisers Can Not influence the editorial pages. Make sure that gossip columns are listed as such (or use the politically correct term "opinion pieces.") Find honorable people, ones who are immune to financial pressure, to be editorial staff, and ensure that either the stock is wholly held by people you trust (even if you don't agree with their politics) or follow Disney's example and have the stock so widely disseminated that no one will be able to impose their opinions.

It's interesting that Hogwarts doesn't have any courses in logic or philosophy. Defense could include critical thinking. JKR never mentioned a English grammar course, but *I* had to analyze essays with an eye toward separating data from opinion. Dumbledore, McGonnagall and Flitwick were all dedicated to the students - why is there no effort to teach the kids to Always Consider The Source?

Hogwarts produces so-called adults who tend to slavishly believe whatever they read last. This might be the Ministry's whole aim, bearing in mind that the Prophet is nothing more than the Ministry's property.

 

Real newspaper and reporters: Journalism is a money-making business sweetie. The press loves sensationalism and will go to any length to get a good story.

Gossip Columns: People love to read gossip more than real news. It's a fact, live with it.

Honorable people: Yeah, right.

 

There ARE real newspapers:
Wall Street Journal
Investor's Business Daily
Rolling Stone Magazine
Washington Post (it's mildly sensationalist without being slanderous)

These are just the ones that I know about here in the States.
* looks brave *
I *know* it can be done...

 

Say, er... weren't we talking about the wizarding press?
*confused*

 

But ... but ... even magical people can be taught to think.
* looks appalled *
Can't they?


* thinking about the HP series *
Maybe not...

 

The magical world, as it is portrayed by JKR, will need a real big makeover before they even come close to thinking. At the rate and the way they are going on, it seems highly unlikely that they will come to terms with the progress in the muggle civilization.

It's their highly biased POV that they are magical and hence can wield magic to solve most, if not all, of their problems. Though the magical world is better in some respects than the muggle one (medical field for one), the muggles have their own advantages.

Besides, muggles are scared by anything that doesn't seem natural and the horrors of the magical world are best left to those who can handle them.

And unless the two societies are merged together to get the best of both worlds, the future seems to be bleak.

 

Still, if Harry and Co. want to make a better future for their children, they have to start SOMEWHERE. Changing some aspects of the educational system - shifting the focus to analysis and pattern recognition and away from rote memorization - is a valid first step. Magical humans enjoy long lives and that's part of the problem. It's easy to get stuck in familiar patterns of thought. There is a strong emphasis on age-and-power (very different than our muggle youth-focused society.) Innovation is quietly discouraged. In year6, they were using the same Potions textbook that their parents had used. The SAME textbook - the same issue! If *ANY* subject should be subject to frequent revision, it should be chemistry! Not that Snape ever bothered to TEACH his students.

If the children start making critical thinking part of every thing they do (the way we are taught starting from our preteen years,) then the society as a whole can only benefit. And muckrakers, yellow journalists, and paparazzi will stop being *Fashionable.* Skeeter would be just another sensationalist writer of opinion.

 

Kardikek, Okay... let's establish a few things.

Me... I worked at a number of locations for the USAF and NSA and the AFIWC (Airforce intelligence warfare center) doing strategic intel analysis. I was a cryptologic linguist and intelligence analyst. That means I had to have a solid founding in the principals and theories of modern warfare.

Hell, I was a fucking by name request for HQ when base closures in Europe went through under Clinton. That means I'd established that I knew what the fuck I was talking about when it came to modern strategic warfare to the point that when my base closed, that the warfare center HQ commander asked for me by name to get transfered to Kelly AFB.

Now, on that note...last post, I could have spent a whole post dissecting all your points and explaining to you why you're wrong... but I choose to just let it slide and yuck it up with yak there rather than get into a pointless debate with you.

But no.. you gotta be a jerk about it.

So I'm going to lay it out for you nice and simple.

War is like life.

You (like a country) get up, go to work, do your thing, leave work, go home, and go to bed, and most of the time there is no confrontation... there is no war.

War is essentially like being mugged.

If you are walking home, minding your own business, you have the RIGHT to expect that noone is going to hold you up.

If... god forbid... that happens... and some ass DOES try to mug you. You, as the non-aggressor have the RIGHT to defend yourself with reasonable force depending on what force is arrayed against you.

Additionally others have the right to come to your aide and do likewise in defense of you. Good Samaritan laws more or less.

If that mugger pulls a knife, then you have the right to "up tempo" from your current level of violence and reasonably pull a similar weapon. This is by virtue of the concept of meeting deadly force with similar force in self defense. Fists vs Fists... knife vs knife... gun vs gun. So, if said mugger then pulls a gun, you have the right to do likewise and meet deadly force with similar deadly force in defense of yourself or others.

If a cop shows up, and your assailant had pulled a gun or was reaching for one when you shot your assailant... the cop is not going to consider you a threat or a murderer... you may have to stand trial... but since you didn't start it... you are not likely to be the one found to be at fault. Conversely if the assailant DID shoot and kill you... guess what... he WOULD be up for Murder.

Why? Beacause, the instigator of the violence IS AT FAULT for the confrontation in the first place. Without them causing it... there would not have been a problem. So they get the blame. Period.

Now, conversely, if you were being mugged by an unarmed assailant and you pulled a gun and shot him or her... oh... things are going to get ugly because you did not temper your reaction and meet the threat with reasonable levels of restraint.

This is called TEMPO. In tactical and strategic warfare the central concept of Tempo and escalation of tempo play key roles in determining the doctrine of warfare.

If one side starts firebombing civillians... the other side must do likewise or show the willingness to do likewise to force the other side to stop doing it.

It's just like the mugging example.

If your mugger pulls and knife and so do you... he's going to think twice about pulling that gun, because you might have one too. It's called deterence.

If you have Nukes and your opponent have Nukes, you are both going to be fucking careful NEVER to allow the tempo of combat to run out of control and escalate through oneupsmanship to the point that either you or your opponent will be justified in using them.

But ultimately, while history is decided by the winners, later history always looks at who the troublemakers really were. So yes... just like the police look at who the mugger is and who the muggee is... (The mugger being the one at fault for the confrontation) so to it matters who is the aggressor is in a war... and by their conduct and how they choose to escalate hostilities... the course of a war is dictated.

 

Y'know, that line about "being written by the winners" is getting less valid these days. With information floating freely and in great quantities and being duplicated often and everywhere all over the world, it has to be LOTS harder to pull off a long-term hoax. Analysts work full time, debunkers spend nights and weekends, conspiracy theorists live on the 'Net.

Maybe we'll finally find out whether the Truth really will bring freedom...

 

No history being written by the winner will always be a constant in life. There will be patriots and patriots will glaze over what they would consider exagerated claims, or maybe the whole story isn't there and they will list all the reasons their country had the right to do it. While it is true information is a lot more available these days, that information will always be opininated. And even if it wasn't there are always people who are perfectly able to ignore the truth.

 

It isn't always patriotism that prompts people to write their version of history. There are other less desirable factors. I will tell you know that had the Axis powers won then the stories we tell, the discussions we have, and maybe even the ideal we hold would be very different.

 

So, did JKR insert Skeeter (and her slime) for a *reason,* other than to just abuse Harry even more? The Prophet is the mouthpiece of the Ministry, which is wholly-owned by those of the Pureblood agenda. Why else would they target him so young, and with so much venom, unless it's spite about the destruction of Voldemort?

Dark Wizards and their civil wars have undoubtedly done A Lot of culling to the entire magical human genetic trait. It seems that every generation of British wizards has it's mass murderer/cult leader.

Which brings us back to education. "Those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it." Hogwarts was supposed to be a good school, yet all it turned out was sheep. How many people on either the Dark or Light sides actually Made A Decision? How many simply followed their parents, or were swept up by rhetoric? I have to say that the Order of the Phoenix was as much a classic "cult of personality" as the Death Eaters.

People read the Prophet, even KNOWING that it was a rag, and believed its articles unquestioningly. And they reacted viciously to whoever was chosen as "victim of the week." No one CARED that the Prophet's stalking goat would change with the weather.

I have to agree with fanficcers who believe that Dumbledore deliberately neglected to protect Harry from the paparazzi. AD's only logical reason for this lapse is to "toughen him up." Years of slander would have convinced ME to leave the country as soon as possible, but Dumbledore was lucky in that the Second Voldemort War blew up while Harry was still a minor, and couldn't run for it. ** No. I shouldn't have said that. Harry is so invested in Hogwarts and his friends, and Ginny, that leaving never even occurred to him. AD's manipulations worked out PERFECTLY for the old man's plans. Not surprising - he'd had a century and a half of life experience, and specialized practice in the psyche of adolescents.

There are times when I think AD is as evil as Skeeter, just less obvious.

 

***MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT WARNING***
*** BEWARE OF FALLING LETTERS ***

Honestly... I'd say no. I think... and this is just my opinion, that she was there simply to torment Harry, just like Fudge.

Here's the thing... and mind you, like I said...this is just my opinion, JKR chose a certain style to how she presented adults in her series and Wizards in particular.

Adults were presented in the light of how children see them... specifically... what children THINK adults are... which is... big children.

Ya see, that's the thing, when we adults look at children, we see them as potentially mature people. We have the perspective of being adults, so in front of us their infantile attitudes are annoying, but be cut them slack because we see the potential for them to become adults once they wise up.

Children look at an adult... and they don't know any state other than being a kid... so they just see a big kid.

Now, that said. Really take a good long look at the adults in the story. If you substituted kids in makeup for the adults and let them pretend to act like they think adults act like... you'd have a fair approximation of what the adults in the series are like. All pretense... no substance.

In JKR's world, Elected officials act pompous and irresponsible and are only interested in being re-elected and are otherwise incapable of doing anything intelligent (A child's view of elected officials) Reporters are all invasive and their cameras have big flash bulbs that go off blindingly... and sure enough that's how the reporters in the HP verse act. Gossip columnists are nasty women that make up mean hearted stories about everyone and try to ruin their lives (again... another childlike view and stereotype) Celebrities are narcissistic phonies (Another childlike generalization that was exemplified in Gilderoy lockhart). Even the teachers are not immune to the childlike views. Mothers like Molly Weasley act and look like a child's perspective of what mums act like (good natured yelling and lots of largely pointless chores) Even Snape is presented as being a child's version of a hook nosed and nasty teacher... someone that is willing to carry a grudge from childhood over to the son of his enemy.

The list just goes on and on. Even Dumbledore is a mockup of an adult. His penchant for changing the rules to benefit Harry just shows the world seen through a childlike attitude/understanding of how school rules work. To a child school rules seem unending and nebulous... and as a result they see them as things that the school master just makes up or changes as he wills. Not as actual codes that he simply enforces. It's all about perspective.

So I'd say that Skeeter wasn't created as a moral lesson... because JKR herself is crap at delivering a moral lesson of value. Skeeter is a child's view of what a gossipy reporter is.

All that said... I think that how JKR presented the adults in the Wizarding world may well have a kernel of truth to it.

Imagine a society of people who can get most everything they want at a wave of a wand. Where is the impetus in such a society to achieve anything? Where is the impetus to "grow up?" Instead, it is entirely possible that you'd end up with a society that IS so intellectually and spiritually lazy that they'd not be interested in advancing and just indulge themselves in the trappings of adulthood with no real maturity in place.

Why advance if you don't need to? and if you can instead have your pet house elf feed you, bathe you, and care for most of your physical needs? Why worry about working hard and being innovative if you can wave a wand and do most of the tasks you need?

In such a society, imagine what the "adults" would act like after a few generations. They would simply BE spoilt children playacting at being adults... Just like JKRs seems to have her adult characters act.
They aren't just sheep... they're a society frozen in juvenile pursuits with a childlike inability to understand things from a true adult perspective.

Occam's razor might suggest it's because they act like that because their society is made up of nonsensically immature people. One that's so immature in attitude that they don't think anything of it.

Again... Hogwarts is supposed to be a good school. But maybe the reason we see the school as being so abysmal at teaching it's students how to be intelligent and responsible people is because the Wizarding world itself is so intellectually dead (in comparison to our own) that Hogwarts (as awful as it is) is good in comparison to whatever else is out there.

Just a thought.

Even Molly bought into it... and she knew Harry. That tells me that the overall IQ of the residents of the Wizarding world is about equal to that of a shrub. They're naive , gullible, and childlike in their incredulity. Maybe that's why Voldemort was such a huge threat. He was a person who could SEE how fucking stupid wizards and witches were... and decided that he could easily manipulate them because they had the mental sophistication of a dish sponge. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Dumbledore is a good example of what a person with a smidgeon of guile could pull off in a society of intellectual dullards. Though for what happened to Harry... it simply isn't realistic. Ten years of abuse under the Dursley's without a single visit from a social worker? I think not. Especially with Harry being exposed at school to England's Nanny state mentality.

No, Dumbledore had to have been on top of that situation (and thus setting up Harry's abuse) none stop to keep Harry in that sort of a pressure cooker. So yeah, if you were going to get realistic about the situation, Dumbledore likely headed off any number of social work interventions... and therefore would have had to have set Harry up through all his life as some sort of sick experiment patterned after Tom's life history.

Maybe Dumbledore put Harry through all that crap to prove to himself that it wasn't HIS fault that Tom went bad. Sort of a "Let's put another kid through the same crap Tom did."thing, that way if he doesn't turn out bad, then we'll know it wasn't his fault."

 

I have a sole question for those above. What is your source for Hogwarts being a good school?

I hope to god it is not Hagrid telling Harry ''ye're going to teh bestest magic school in the world, with teh bestest headmaster ever''. Hagrid is first a simple minded fool, good natured perhaps, but limited nonetheless. Second, Hagrid is obviously biased towards Dumbledore, and as such the man could run the magical world's version of Michael Jackson's ranch and he would still praise it to be the best thing since flush toilets were invented.

Hagrid aside, the references for Hogwarts being the best school are poor, if not inexistent. The Triwizard Tournament only sets it as one of the three schools with most clot in Europe. Furthermore, the performance of each champion is debatable, since the Tournament was rigged by Barty Jr.

Garret has some points as regarding the child like quality to matters and characters in the books, but we are debating the HP world. Simply stamping a ''book for children'' mark on it does nothing. We know HP is a book for children, although it had the potential to grow. We are fascinated by the universe and like to debate it from our perspective and not by just stamping ''children'' on it.

Coming back to Hogwarts, we do not have any claim as to it being the best school.

[=quote]Imagine a society of people who can get most everything they want at a wave of a wand. Where is the impetus in such a society to achieve anything? Where is the impetus to "grow up?" Instead, it is entirely possible that you'd end up with a society that IS so intellectually and spiritually lazy that they'd not be interested in advancing and just indulge themselves in the trappings of adulthood with no real maturity in place.[/quote]

Not everything can be obtained with a wand. In fact that is mainly a fanon perspective of things. JKR, although she has not adhered to it a great deal, has stated that she placed limits on what can be done. Magic was not developed a great deal, but if anything could be obtained with a wand, poverty stricken families like the Weasleys would not exist.

Magic does not make everything possible, it merely changes the rules of the playing field. Perhaps it is a mere personal preference of mine, but I like to think of Magic as not giving you everything on a platter, but giving you the tools to get things just like in the muggle world. You can sew your clothes as a muggle, you can use a charm to sew fabrics with your wand. But you can't transfigure clothes from dust or other crap. I state again, this is not a canon argument, but merely my rules. I find a world where you can get anything very distasteful, as it would eliminate social classes and turn into Magical Communism.

 

Agreed, Hagrid's comments are a poor indicator of truth no matter how you slice them.

However, I lean more toward buying the claim that it's one of the best schools because someone like Draco Malfoy attends there (His father could buy him a place at whatever school he would want but places him at hogwarts. ) The addition of the triwizard's tourney is another indicator of clout if not quality... but the attention paid the school as well as the attention paid by the ministry to Hogwarts strikes me as being a good indicator of it being considered a very important (and thus well funded and therefore able to afford the best instructors) school indeed.

The essential point that I think JKR is trying to get across is that hogwarts is assumed to be a great school.

But then again... JKR is shitty about establishing an internally consistent setting.

On one hand she claims the the magical UK's population is 3000, and then comments that Hogwarts population is about a 1000, then 600, then says that the stadium for the world cup is packed and has 100,000... which would be 33 times the population she set for the UK.

She's bullocks for consistency.

Whoa... hang on... don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to just slap a "for kids" sticker on it and dismiss the arguement... I'm saying that her characterization of Adults in her book are those of adults seen through a child's eyes. Their actions are shown to be capricious, nonsensical, and largely very immature throughout the books. I'm saying that authors need to figure out for themselves what the truth is. Are the adults actually acting like that? or are the kids simply unable to see things as they really are and are just filtering things through a childish viewpoint? Or perhaps a combination of the two? Regardless, there are a lot of questionable actions taken in the books by adults that simply are so hoplessly childlsh and insulting to the idea of these people BEING actual adults that it's a matter of consideration.

Determining what is the truth of the matter can have very different impacts on the sort of fanfic story told as a result.

Well, there are indications. I mean I simply don't see all the rich purebloods sending their children off to Hogwarts if the quality wasn't up to their standards. Better to home school the children with personal tutors if such was the case.

 

I guess part of my assessment IS because of Hagrid's opinion, and the TriWizard (any tournament that has close contact with NESTING DRAGONS has to aimed at the elite.) Crouch rigged most of the last task, but he didn't drug or influence those dragons. Moreover, I wouldn't believe Malfoy and the other super-rich noble-equivalent would accept anything less than a top-notch education for their children. It would be a matter of pride, and also a way to gain and concentrate power in a Family line.

That said, on a purely personal assessment:
I CAN NOT see McGonnagall as someone who would have to "settle" for teaching at a second-ranked school. It might be fanon, but I seem to remember that Flitwick was a duelling champion. Even Trelawney had multiple confirmed prophecies to her credit.

Dumbledore had a real problem with finding and keeping Defense teachers. That doesn't make sense - he should have been able to simply up the wages until the prospective applicants were lined up outside the door. Was it ever actually proven that the DADA course was cursed?