Media Does, In Fact, Matter
Today's letter to the editor comes from Stephen, who has some questions about the media. I think the questions were originally intended to be hypothetical, but as people like Stephen will no doubt shout angrily, administration critics like me don't care very much about original intent.
Not really, Stephen. If The Media, as a whole, were engaged in such activity, then it would be a problem. That's not the case, however. You have some media outlets that are actively opposed to the current administration. You have other media outlets that exist only to support and defend those currently in power. Somewhere in the middle you have actual journalism, without loyalty to parties or individuals, and who seek to inform and hold all parties accountable. The problem is that true journalism, the core of American media and an invaluable tool for democracy, is being overshadowed and generally goes unrecognized. The far-right considers true journalists to be left-leaning simply by virtue of a journalist's belief in the right of the common people to be informed, which often puts them at odds with right-wing leaders who, as evidenced by the current presidential administration, value secrecy. The far-left considers journalists to be too cautious and, simultaneously, too sensationalist, focusing on what sells instead of what matters. People on both sides of the rift use these accusations to defend their isolationism as they turn only to media sources that aver what they already believe to be true. The problem lies not with how many people voted for the president, or how certain branches of the media treat him. The problem is people who willfully remain ignorant when they have access to more information than has ever been available in human history.
Absolutely they do, Stephen, on both sides. You, for example, believe the right-wing fabrications of a completely left-biased media, forgetting of course that you are getting that message from powerful, established, right-wing media sources. Why do you believe it? You believe it because you already believed it. You want to believe in a media bias against you, because it gives you the moral advantage of being the underdog. You have to ignore the fact that the highest-rated television news channel and political radio broadcasts are in no way examples of true journalism, but media outlets for the far-right. It is easy to ignore the facts, however, when the lies you are being fed fit so much more easily into your worldview.
Some media acknowledges that a few people believe in a media bent on the destruction of the current administration, and pander to that crowd. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, basically earns a big fat paycheck by pandering to them on a regular basis. Plenty of other people feel that the media has been far too forgiving of the current administration, allowing themselves to be cowed into accepting a few measly press conferences a month and never asking tough questions for fear of being shut out of the process. Efforts to turn the various, diverse media outlets into 'The Media,' with one overriding mission, are absolutely beyond the realm of sensible reality. Fox News and Air America are both media outlets, and parts of 'The Media.' Do you believe that they have similar goals? What about Free Republic and Mother Jones? The New York Post and the Village Voice? The truth is, media outlets are independent and generally self-contained. They are as diverse as the public they serve. If you think Air America shouldn't exist for its political leanings, shouldn't you hold the Free Republic to the same standards? Well, I suppose not, if you're emotionally lazy and self-important. Recent studies show that people with those tendencies are more likely to identify as right-wing, so I guess maybe it's not surprising that these cries keep coming from that sector of the media and are so quickly embraced by the ultra-conservative population.
Well, I certainly hope people understand and believe in the Fourth Estate, just like the founding fathers did. Many of them were journalists and pundits in their time, writing newspapers, pamphlets, and other works that led directly to the popularity of sovereignty that allowed the American Revolution to occur. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Payne, and many others were prolific writers of political theory and editorial commentary long beforen they crafted the American government and became politicians. Thomas Jefferson once said that, given the choice between a free government and a free press, he would opt for the free press. Given the importance of the media in the birth of this nation, I do hope people realize that the media is a tool of the citizens, and perhaps the last line of defense for the people when one ideology controls all branches of the government. Unlike the other branches of government, the media needs no established checks and balances, as it naturally checks itself in the course of its duties. The media is not immune to itself, as the most recent election proved. Dan Rather's insufficient research and Fox News's financial ties to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were news items in their own right. Media Matters for America watches Bill O'Reilly, Moorewatch keeps an eye on Michael Moore. The media works as a check against itself, while providing the ultimate oversight for the people. What has the media done for us? Teapot Dome. Tammany Hall. World War II war profiteering. Joe McCarthy's illegal bullying. Watergate. FISA Law manipulation and domestic spying. All brought to light first by watchdog journalists, not the constitutional method of checks and balances.
People are easily led, not because they are stupid, Stephen, but because they often choose the comfort of validation over the effort of information. With so many media options to choose from, people can easily isolate themselves and will, far too often, immerse themselves in a sea of talking heads and pundits who make them feel good about themselves. The Fourth Estate is lost to the Second Self, and journalism becomes nothing more than a band-aid treatment for wavering self-esteem. We all lose when that happens, and therein lies the real problem.
To the Editor:
Is there something wrong with media that work only to destroy a president and a Congress that was elected by over half the voters?
Not really, Stephen. If The Media, as a whole, were engaged in such activity, then it would be a problem. That's not the case, however. You have some media outlets that are actively opposed to the current administration. You have other media outlets that exist only to support and defend those currently in power. Somewhere in the middle you have actual journalism, without loyalty to parties or individuals, and who seek to inform and hold all parties accountable. The problem is that true journalism, the core of American media and an invaluable tool for democracy, is being overshadowed and generally goes unrecognized. The far-right considers true journalists to be left-leaning simply by virtue of a journalist's belief in the right of the common people to be informed, which often puts them at odds with right-wing leaders who, as evidenced by the current presidential administration, value secrecy. The far-left considers journalists to be too cautious and, simultaneously, too sensationalist, focusing on what sells instead of what matters. People on both sides of the rift use these accusations to defend their isolationism as they turn only to media sources that aver what they already believe to be true. The problem lies not with how many people voted for the president, or how certain branches of the media treat him. The problem is people who willfully remain ignorant when they have access to more information than has ever been available in human history.
Do the people really believe the lies that the media are feeding them?
Absolutely they do, Stephen, on both sides. You, for example, believe the right-wing fabrications of a completely left-biased media, forgetting of course that you are getting that message from powerful, established, right-wing media sources. Why do you believe it? You believe it because you already believed it. You want to believe in a media bias against you, because it gives you the moral advantage of being the underdog. You have to ignore the fact that the highest-rated television news channel and political radio broadcasts are in no way examples of true journalism, but media outlets for the far-right. It is easy to ignore the facts, however, when the lies you are being fed fit so much more easily into your worldview.
Do the media believe the people have not yet come to the realization that the media want to destroy the administration, no matter what it will do to our country and the world?
Some media acknowledges that a few people believe in a media bent on the destruction of the current administration, and pander to that crowd. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, basically earns a big fat paycheck by pandering to them on a regular basis. Plenty of other people feel that the media has been far too forgiving of the current administration, allowing themselves to be cowed into accepting a few measly press conferences a month and never asking tough questions for fear of being shut out of the process. Efforts to turn the various, diverse media outlets into 'The Media,' with one overriding mission, are absolutely beyond the realm of sensible reality. Fox News and Air America are both media outlets, and parts of 'The Media.' Do you believe that they have similar goals? What about Free Republic and Mother Jones? The New York Post and the Village Voice? The truth is, media outlets are independent and generally self-contained. They are as diverse as the public they serve. If you think Air America shouldn't exist for its political leanings, shouldn't you hold the Free Republic to the same standards? Well, I suppose not, if you're emotionally lazy and self-important. Recent studies show that people with those tendencies are more likely to identify as right-wing, so I guess maybe it's not surprising that these cries keep coming from that sector of the media and are so quickly embraced by the ultra-conservative population.
Do the people understand that these media consider themselves the "Fourth Estate" -- the fourth branch of government -- and look at the people as stupid and easily led?
Stephen
Well, I certainly hope people understand and believe in the Fourth Estate, just like the founding fathers did. Many of them were journalists and pundits in their time, writing newspapers, pamphlets, and other works that led directly to the popularity of sovereignty that allowed the American Revolution to occur. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Payne, and many others were prolific writers of political theory and editorial commentary long beforen they crafted the American government and became politicians. Thomas Jefferson once said that, given the choice between a free government and a free press, he would opt for the free press. Given the importance of the media in the birth of this nation, I do hope people realize that the media is a tool of the citizens, and perhaps the last line of defense for the people when one ideology controls all branches of the government. Unlike the other branches of government, the media needs no established checks and balances, as it naturally checks itself in the course of its duties. The media is not immune to itself, as the most recent election proved. Dan Rather's insufficient research and Fox News's financial ties to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were news items in their own right. Media Matters for America watches Bill O'Reilly, Moorewatch keeps an eye on Michael Moore. The media works as a check against itself, while providing the ultimate oversight for the people. What has the media done for us? Teapot Dome. Tammany Hall. World War II war profiteering. Joe McCarthy's illegal bullying. Watergate. FISA Law manipulation and domestic spying. All brought to light first by watchdog journalists, not the constitutional method of checks and balances.
People are easily led, not because they are stupid, Stephen, but because they often choose the comfort of validation over the effort of information. With so many media options to choose from, people can easily isolate themselves and will, far too often, immerse themselves in a sea of talking heads and pundits who make them feel good about themselves. The Fourth Estate is lost to the Second Self, and journalism becomes nothing more than a band-aid treatment for wavering self-esteem. We all lose when that happens, and therein lies the real problem.
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
"No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.
posted by Zafrod at 11:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home