I saw this cartoon on one of the sites I regularly visit. Exhibit A Press gets the credit for it. It basically summarizes my feelings about the mainstream media.
One of our commenters suggested that Ian and I are probably getting biased coverage of world and national events because Fox News is our main source of news and conservative blogs and talk radio are our main sources of commentary. It's interesting because our Pastor just suggested that we should try to balance ourselves by listening to the opposite end of the political spectrum from our own. My response? I'm pretty clear on the idea that I'm getting biased information and I agree that we should listen to the other side. However, I will likely continue with my news gathering practices for a while. Here's the thing. I live in Los Angeles, so I'm surrounded by Democrats. I am a University professor, so liberal thought is the norm. And a large portion of my work is geared toward policy and programs that will serve the poor, so the social justice advocates are my partners in this mission. My environment is full of left-leaning (or even full on leftist) individuals. So diving deep into the online conservative world is important for me so that I can arm myself with intelligent arguments. And I have learned a LOT from reading some of the smartest writers and brightest thinkers. Honestly, I have tried to listen to the opposite end of the political spectrum. Honestly. But after a few minutes of Air America (back before it went bankrupt) and Daily Kos, I just can't handle it. I just can't handle the negativity that I sense coming from hosts and commenters. So until an intelligent middle-of-the-road venue comes along, I'll stick with what I'm doing. Or maybe as soon as the election is over I'll quit my addiction to political news.
UPDATED:
The quote of the day from Hot Air
“Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the Big Leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play. The few instances where I think the press has gone too far - such as the Times reporter talking to Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends - can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha Bureau.
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.”
The whole article can be read here
Clarice
2 comments:
So it sounds like you are satisfied with biased commentary because they are more intelligent. But I don't think you are for the McCain/Palin ticket because you think they are more intelligent than Obama/Biden, unless you don't think Ivy League schools produce intelligent people. It appears that these sources happen to agree with your already entrenched ideologies and you are more comfortable listening to them. If your personal convictions are already solid, then I don't suppose it would benefit you to analyze issues with facts and ideas from the other side. I do think that you could be objective and even see merits from the other side, and still vote your convictions. That way, you yourself would not appear to be biased. In reality,though, I don't believe there are any purely unbiased reporting out there. It's up to us to sort through all the rhetoric, and then vote our convictions. But that can be a challenge in these times. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I was also wondering what you thought of this comment from the link you provided (all opinionated and inflammatory words aside, is there any merit to what this person said?):
"You are delusional if you truly believe in the so-called “liberal” bias in the media. CBS is owned by Westinghouse, a huge defense contractor. NBC is owned by General Electric, a huge defense contractor. FOX is owned, along with most radio stations in the USA and several papers/mags as well, by Rupert Murdoch. ABC is owned by General Dynamics, a huge defense contractor. The unChristian Right owns a huge number of stations across the land. You could put in your eye and not feel the “liberal” owned media.
The very notion that these conservative fat cats who own most major media in the USA, put their editorial (I mean propaganda) departments in the hands of their sworn idealogical enemies, aka, “liberals” is laughable.
The “liberal” media is a myth. The truth is, there is so little substance to the McCain campain that there isnt much to report on it.
The Ayers connection is a non starter. Ayers paid is debt to society a long time ago and has become a leading educator. If Gordon Liddy can have a nationally broadcast radio show and be friends with McCain, I guess Obama can have a non-controversial relationship with Ayers without becoming the focal point in his campaign.
Moreover, if there was anything to the Rezko link it would already have been exposed, chewed, regurgitated, redigested and shat out repeatedly by the media. There is as much meat there as there was on the Vince Foster “murder” story or any of the nonsense on which Ken Starr wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.
Yes, the media have become a gaggle of propagandists and stenogs. Some are even “investigative” stenogs. However the fault lies in the destruction of the First Amendment and the notion that reporters have a naturally adversarial relationship and their job is to expose what the government (and some individuals) want to keep secret. They can’t do that by attending Georgetown cocktail parties and agreeing to keep every discussion is “off the record” at the pleasure of the interviewee. Millionaire journalists and “reporters” do as they’re told.
The media needs serious reform but chasing rainbows and tilting at windmils isn’t going to recapture the credibility that reporters and “journos” once had. That will take some serious self-reflection and the courage to ask tough questions and speak truth to power. That art has long since disappeared from journalism and is quite unlikely to return anytime soon, at least not in the US, where the entire population has been systematically dumbed down."
Post a Comment