The Media Is Complicit.
And by that I mean, the media was the slutty groupie to George W. Bush's rock band. They followed him everywhere he went and defended/justified everything his Administration did.
They are the primary reason the American People did not ask questions about 9/11, Iraq and any policy that originated from these two events.
Now they want to be "shocked" about the McCain's Campaigns lies, even though they are still carrying the water for them (because they just love Palin apparently).
They want to lament the "chaos" that would have come if Bill and Hillary Clinton had not backed Barack Obama 100%, yet yawned while McCain was practically pushing Bush off-stage last week.
People wonder why, in light of things like this, that so many still watch the new (let alone believe what they read/watch/hear). The answer is simple: they still believe the media is impartial and has the people's best interest.
The truth is that the media is little more than quasi-competing corporations, i.e., businesses. And anyone who's studied business or ran one can tell you that the goal of a business isn't to help people or even keep them informed; it's to make ungodly amounts of money. So when "respected" media outlets scrub articles, re-word the quotes of certain political figures, insist that every single story has two sides (hmm, don't remember journalists insisting on speaking to some terrorists after 9/11 to hear their side of things), and post misleading scrolls on the bottom of their programs, it shouldn't be a surprise as to why they do this.
I have yet to hear one network or newspaper say something to the effect of: "We made a colossal mistake in accepting the Bush Administration premise that Saddam Hussein's Iraq were primary players in the September 11th Attacks without doing proper research and fact-checking. We were wrong to cheerlead and celebrate the invasion of Iraq. We apologize."
I don't expect them to ever do this. Ever.
Not only have they made boatloads of money via viewership, but there's the moral implications of basically telling their audience to shut the hell up and obey. And that's the subtle transition of our media that has made Americans just as suspicious of reporters, journalists and pundits as they are of politicians. It's part of the reason blogs exist.
Personally, I don't care if a hardcore conservative, liberal or libertarian writes an article about how their views on life and take on society will help save the world. My problem has always been people like this who hide under a veil of supposed mainstreamism. If you are liberal, say so! If your conservative "family values" Senator is caught in a whorehouse, have the stones to admit it, don't try to spin or justify that person's actions.
We have some serious problems in this country, and a media that's obsessed with which group is in what camp or what name someone supposedly called someone else is not helping the discourse. If people want that kind of drama, they can watch TNT or some damn reality show. The news needs to be more about information and less about "infotainment."
But as long as news is a business, and not a public service, we're due for (way) more of the later.
They are the primary reason the American People did not ask questions about 9/11, Iraq and any policy that originated from these two events.
Now they want to be "shocked" about the McCain's Campaigns lies, even though they are still carrying the water for them (because they just love Palin apparently).
They want to lament the "chaos" that would have come if Bill and Hillary Clinton had not backed Barack Obama 100%, yet yawned while McCain was practically pushing Bush off-stage last week.
People wonder why, in light of things like this, that so many still watch the new (let alone believe what they read/watch/hear). The answer is simple: they still believe the media is impartial and has the people's best interest.
The truth is that the media is little more than quasi-competing corporations, i.e., businesses. And anyone who's studied business or ran one can tell you that the goal of a business isn't to help people or even keep them informed; it's to make ungodly amounts of money. So when "respected" media outlets scrub articles, re-word the quotes of certain political figures, insist that every single story has two sides (hmm, don't remember journalists insisting on speaking to some terrorists after 9/11 to hear their side of things), and post misleading scrolls on the bottom of their programs, it shouldn't be a surprise as to why they do this.
I have yet to hear one network or newspaper say something to the effect of: "We made a colossal mistake in accepting the Bush Administration premise that Saddam Hussein's Iraq were primary players in the September 11th Attacks without doing proper research and fact-checking. We were wrong to cheerlead and celebrate the invasion of Iraq. We apologize."
I don't expect them to ever do this. Ever.
Not only have they made boatloads of money via viewership, but there's the moral implications of basically telling their audience to shut the hell up and obey. And that's the subtle transition of our media that has made Americans just as suspicious of reporters, journalists and pundits as they are of politicians. It's part of the reason blogs exist.
Personally, I don't care if a hardcore conservative, liberal or libertarian writes an article about how their views on life and take on society will help save the world. My problem has always been people like this who hide under a veil of supposed mainstreamism. If you are liberal, say so! If your conservative "family values" Senator is caught in a whorehouse, have the stones to admit it, don't try to spin or justify that person's actions.
We have some serious problems in this country, and a media that's obsessed with which group is in what camp or what name someone supposedly called someone else is not helping the discourse. If people want that kind of drama, they can watch TNT or some damn reality show. The news needs to be more about information and less about "infotainment."
But as long as news is a business, and not a public service, we're due for (way) more of the later.
Comments
"Is it a conspiracy, or a long-term business plan?"
Which, of course, is why the Republicans tried, years ago (during the reign of that bastard Gingrich) to eliminate funding to Public Broadcasting (while simultaneously giving tax-cuts, and so effectively adding funding, to the FOX Corporation). Never mind the wonderful example of the BBC, "competition makes everything better", right?