I love my kids. I love my husband. I love my parents. All of this true.
But my first love was baseball. From the time I was a bright-eyed kid taking in the sights and smells of Fenway Park, America’s pastime has had a hold on me. Luckily, I married someone who loves it as much as I do, and so when Dan and I bought our first place, we knew that the MLB package would be worked into the budget. With this magical invention, baseball enthusiasts can not only watch their own team, but all 30 teams across both leagues.
When the package first became available, I was thrilled to finally be able to watch the Red Sox any time I wanted to — not just when they were playing the Yankees (I live in New Jersey). That meant I could listen to the Sox telecast instead of suffering through the Yankee announcers, who I’m pretty sure were fined for speaking anything but praise for the Bronx Bombers.
Interestingly, once we ordered the package, I found I wasn’t glued to the New England Sports Network — at least, not all the time. In fact, Dan and I quickly came to appreciate the chance to hear different voices. He became an even bigger fan of the legendary Vin Scully (longtime announcer of the LA Dodgers), while I found that I really enjoyed listening to the Detroit Tigers’ broadcast team, led by Dan Dickerson. It was clear that Dickerson came to each game armed with information about players from both teams, and he seemed to know just when to pepper those nuggets into the telecast.
On the other hand, there were teams whose announcers focused solely on their own players, which, in my opinion, adds nothing to the telecast. Part of what makes baseball so great is the fact that within the game, there are countless matchups that can influence the outcome — for example, how a right-handed pitcher would fare against a lefty pinch hitter, or whether the baserunner can outrun the left fielder’s throwing arm. An announcer that has this type of knowledge on players can paint a much more vivid picture.
I thought about all of this when I read an article that broke down the results of the Presidential election. At first I had no desire to waste any more brain space on the story that hijacked the news media for weeks, but my curiosity got the best of me. And I’m glad it did, because the author, Trent Lapinski — an admitted Bernie Sanders supporter — made some interesting points. He believes many Democratic voters were shocked by the results because they were wearing blinders by “only following other liberals on social media, and only reading liberal news.”
By doing this, Lapinski believes people were “insulating themselves within their own echo chamber, ignoring anything outside their bubble.”
And he doesn’t limit this view to those with left-wing views (nor should he, in my opinion). No matter how you lean politically, “Getting the news from just your friends is a logical fallacy, you need to know your enemies, and realize they’re not much different from yourself.”
Even if they are, you need to know where they stand. And so the lesson is simple — if you want a worldview, don’t just look locally. Read articles written by those with differing philosophies. Follow Facebook pages of people you didn’t vote for. Watch the Yankees telecast.
Yes, it might make you upset, or even angry. Maybe it will make you so angry that you pop the bubble.
Share Your Thoughts
You must be logged in to post a comment.