Commentary and Interpretation

When surfing around the TV dial, one of the types of programming I often stop at and watch for a while is commentary, and there’s plenty of it. It’s good to hear all sides of an issue, even if I know that I may vehemently disagree with some of them. Even with these, though, there is usually a kernel of truth or a valid concern that underlies them. And knowing what motivates people to have such differing points of view is the beginning step in reconciling them with each other to form a reasonable synthesis of opinion.

The best sources of opinion on TV are the C-Span channels because those running them allow a wide span of diverse opinions to be expressed, while giving the speakers enough time (not just sound bites) to express them. Sometimes, on the cable news channels, I can hear some good opinions being espoused, but with these I have a problem with supposedly unbiased news reporting being mixed together so seamlessly with the editorializing. I want my news straightforward. If I want to hear different reactions to a story, I can then go somewhere else for that.

There is special type of commentary around that I have little use for, and that is interpretation, particularly of speeches. Just look at those Geico Insurance commercials where a lady is giving a testimonial about how good Geico is, with somebody like Burt Bacharach or Little Richard sitting next to her giving his own comical interpretation of her experience. Some sort of interpretation is necessary, like sign language or foreign language interpretation. But it’s really bothersome for me to sit through a speech, be it by the President or another speaker, and then have to listen to someone else tell me what he said. And usually those performing this annoying task focus in on small portions of the speech to make a big deal about. It’s one thing for someone to give their opinion about something; that’s what I do all the time on my blog. But it’s another thing for someone to tell me what I just heard, as if I am unable to assimilate the speech myself!

Interpretation carries over into other areas besides public speeches. In religion, the interpretation of scriptures has become a pervasive element in our contemporary religious culture. Apparently, it’s not enough for someone to read the Bible, the Quran, or some other religion’s scripture; he apparently must also have someone telling him what he just read. Now I have no problem with someone analyzing or commenting on scriptures. What I object to is for some self-appointed “holy person” to dictate to me what these scriptures must mean or else I’m in error and oppose God! In other words, I don’t need a buffer between me and what I’m reading. After all, isn’t the original author of any scripture supposedly writing his own interpretation of a revelation to him from God? Why would I need a “second interpretation”?! I suspect, in some cases, that the religious interpreter may have a agenda to promote that involves overemphasis on some parts of scripture and underemphasis on others in order support the interpreter’s own viewpoints. It’s true that, like the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40, I may reach a passage in my reading that I don’t understand. Then I might ask someone what they believed it meant. But even then, I would still characterize their take on it as no more or less than their opinion, which I could accept or reject based on whether it made sense to me.