If a household product is found to have somewhat harmful chemicals in it, the media and its viewers automatically assume that the presence of such chemicals in our lives is increasing, and our cumulative health decreasing. It may or may not be true, but we still assume. When moralists push an agenda, the thought is always that if, indeed, what they're railing against is truly "wrong," then we can assume there is a corollary decrease in the quality or "correctness" (for lack of a better term) of life in America. Without even saying it, nearly every news item or political agenda pushes the same general finality: things are getting worse.

When one looks, one-by-one, through the headlines of any newspaper or news website- or listens, one-by-one, to the issues in any political speech- one would have to assume, without knowing otherwise, that our modern life moves more often to the negative than the positive. Even our heroes- persons we look at in a positive light- are heroes because they overcame or brought focus to negative situations which presumably still affect a great number of people.

Most of what one hears in the news or hears in political diatribes is, most likely, true. Sure, people lie or misrepresent facts every now and then- and we catch most of them. The problem is not in any one particular story, nor in one particular set of bastardized statistics. The problem is in overall focus.

There is a theory that applies to debate on Internet discussions groups called "Godwin's Law." In so many words, it states that the instant that Nazis or Hitler are brought up in an argument, the argument effectively ceases and the person who mentioned the Nazis automatically loses the argument. I like to use life expectancy as a sort-of reverse Godwin's Law: the logic behind most every argument which suggests that conditions or qualities of life are moving negatively is effectively nullified (at least in a global sense) when one realizes that life expectancy continues to grow.

Again, it is important to realize the distinction here. There are, indeed, factual negative consequences in many issues we discuss, report on, and debate. There are, indeed, issues which cause our overall physical, mental, and even moral "health" to decrease. Of course, there are also (most likely outweighing) converse positive effects through other issues. Without playing "my stats against your stats," lets just say that in the whole of culture, the positives have- and always will- prevail over the negatives.

This is not to say that the media, and those who establish the ensuing discussions on issues, are necessarily responsible for ensuring that all points reference their overarching global implications. They're not. At the same time, however, when looking at the sheer majority of discussions presented through mass channels, true end-result, global implications are certainly lacking.