The Media... presenting facts or falsifying events?
The Media... oh, how I dislike nearly any form of it... yet how I long to know what is going on in this world. Now, after having read a portion of the book entitled "Media Literacy" I find it even more interesting that so many people interpret the news in such a literal sence, not that I wasn't in awe of the numbers doing this to begin with, it has merely hit me with a little more force after having done this reading. The bias present within all of us has a funny way of controlling everything that is presented within any publication... take, for example, this one; my extreme negative bias towards the Media is facilitating my writing this blog. I guess that means we all must take any information presented to us, unless explicitly and undeniably factual, with, as they say, a grain of salt.
"The first myth is that news is actually what happened." This rather minute quote sums up so much about any form of news really; the way I see it, there are always at least three sides to a story... yours, theirs, and then what actually happened. Journalists, not being priviledged to all possible information on any event, must fill in the gaps, make sense out of what they "know", pulling together something that resembles the actual event that took place. Yet, at the same time the target audience must be kept in mind, and as such there is the entertainment factor that also must be taken into account. Come on, who wants to get a story on a fourth grade speeling-bee? Not much drama there...
Expanding off of that last comment, the people want drama, and I'm no different. I'd be much more attentive and interested in a shootout that happened between two rival gangs than I would be for a spelling-bee... it's the entertainment factor. Yet that degrades the news, because ultimately, and I truly agree with the reading on this one, when news is aimed at entertaining the masses, so much good news, so much positive information on what is going on in this world is completely cut out. Bias controls what is shown, what isn't shown, how certain stories are presented... bias controls all that you see, hear and read... news-wise. More and more it's all about the money, and how do news broadcasts build revenues... paid advertisements. Such advertisements are put on by organizations who believe they will gain a significant amount of publicity, yet they must be certain that they will recieve adequate air time, and to do this they look at ratings. This all eventually leads to the news becoming nothing more than a glorified way to see just as much death, destruction and choas as any fictional film or epic novel... but who can blame the news stations for giving the people what they want to see. I guess my biggest problem with the Media as a whole is in the shift from reporting news, that is, those important stories spanning from N.orth to E.ast to W.est to S.outh--N.E.W.S.-- without allowing major money making corporations to control the stories comming forth, to utterly pathetic networks carring not about those people or places or events portrayed within the stories; nowadays it's all about the money.
Commercialism... yeah, it's a good way to pay for things, but damn, I don't need a pen that can double as booklamp, or a nose hair timmer, or that Swiffer thing, which you will constantly have to keep buying those little pads for. I mean, come one, buy a damn mop... trust me, they work better and cost less. A little off track with that last one... my point here is that nowadays there is always a motive, always an agenda, and I am rebelling. Screw the news... give me the facts, unregulated, unaltered, and never cleared by those with the money.
Media... aka Theatre
Before I delve into my thoughts on the John Stewart video clip, which can be found at the following site--http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater231.html#-- I would first like to start off by stating that I have no previous experience with Crossfire as I rarely sacrifice my invaluable time to sit on my ass and take part in what I like to call passive politics. Yet, if you have not seen the clip, I would recommend watching it.
Throughout the entirity of the clip I sat in astonishment... I saw men attacking the integrity of each other, though this was not the source of my awe. What I found most intriguing was the fact that both parties, no matter how childish, still managed to make decent arguements in light of the humour. Stewart mentioned that he saw television media as theatre; on this point I would have to agree full-forced. Behind every news story is a reporter with an agenda, and what better way to further the cause than to put on an act, an act in which the presenter tries whole-heartedly to press upon those observing the views and beliefs of said reporter, or at least those presented within the report. It is bias that make the act necessary, and by necessary I mean to the cause that is being pushed forth, for without bias a report has not the means by which it can sway the opinion of those observing the report... the decision to agree or disagree would be to a much greater extent dependent solely on the analysis that is made by those observing. With the bias that is presented, the act that is put on, the truth that is "bent", one observing can be more easily swayed by the so called facts to believe, well, whatever one reporting wants them to. That's not to say that people are so ignorant that they cannot see through the act, take in information from other outside sources, and made a truly considerate decision on what to believe... but people are lazy. It's much easier to trust in something that appears to be true, that appears to have substantiating claims in reality, than to go out and do the research... and those with an agenda know this.
Getting back on track, John also made the statement, "What you do is partisan hackery." To an extent I feel that this is true, though keep in mind I have never before viewed this show. It merely seems to me that any show in which politicians are brought in to back their views can be seen as furthering the cause, or agenda if you will, of said politicians in that they are given the opportunity to bring in their bias and bent truths--not that all politicians lie... but I believe that those who are successful do-- and impress them upon those watching. On the same token, shows such as Crossfire are established as a means to ask some highly important questions that I'm sure burn inside so many, giving the people a chance to get answers to some of the questions they hold for said politicians, which is what the two men hosting the show were trying to impress upon. At the same time though, I find it highly unlikely that a show such as this one will take a chance at truly attacking the integrity of someone in such a high position of power, thus many questions, some of the most important, go unanswered. Take, for example, the Presidential debates that took place during this last election year... there were so many topics that were not hit on merely for the sake of saving face-- while I was unable to view the debates in their entirity, due to an unbearable workload and then surgery, I did catch the majority of them and found that many issues, and some rather pressing in the minds of Americans, were not even touched. I guess that is the beauty of debate... there are guidlines to follow so as not to drag one party or another down (in the eyes of the public) into the depths of scum from which they can often reside.
Just Started Up...
So I recently signed up for this site and I figured that I would quickly set up my first blog here on this site. I am using this as my disclaimer in a way, in that I am an extremely opinionative person and I love to argue, so feel fre to do the same. I look forward to any and all responses that will come my way.
The Arcane One
