Reading and Listening
My method of staying current on events is to read and listen as often as possible. I read the local newspaper and often USA Today, then check stories online from a variety of outlets. Whenever a new issue appears, I try to get the facts through checking all of these sources, which cover the spectrum of political bias.
How about a couple of recent examples of stories we've all been hearing in August:
Cindy Sheehan
The regular networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) tell us Cindy is a grieving mother of a son killed in Iraq who wants to meet with the president to express her concerns about the war. They craft their stories and interviews with this woman to support this message, and manage the story to convey a disbelief that Bush would be so callous to reject a meeting with this poor grieving mother.
But the alternative news sources tell a somewhat different story. Yes, Cindy is a grieving mother who lost a son in Iraq. But she and her family had a meeting with Bush last year, when he apparently spent a lot of time with them and was very comforting and caring for their loss. Cindy turns out to be a fire-breathing extreme liberal who talks about Bush as the new Hitler who should be impeached and prosecuted. She says her son was killed, not by terrorist bombers in Iraq, but by President Bush. That the Iraq war was concocted by the president to support Israel and enrich his oil buddies. She's even gone so far as to suggest that we should help the Palestinians drive the Jews from Palestine and stop our support for Israel. And no, these aren't distortions or characterizations by some right-wing pundits, but real quotes from Cindy herself.
In addition, we find out that she is surrounded and supported by the most radical leftist groups in the country, like MoveOn.Org and Code Pink. And she keeps a regular blog on Michael Moore's website. And much more.
Air America and the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club
Here is a story you won't find anywhere but the alternative media. If you haven't heard already, there was a guy named Evan Cohen who was a major player in the launch of the liberal Air America network, which was formed in an attempt to offset the influence of conservative radio talkers like Limbaugh and Hannity.
The simple story is that Cohen diverted a little under $900K from the New York City charity into Air America, purportedly as a "loan". The charity can't get the money back, because the media corporation the money was funneled into folded and Air America reorganized under another name, apparently to try to leave behind the debts in the former bankrupt media company. Obviously this is a criminal case, and Cohen will be prosecuted for his malfeasance in the matter.
The above are the fundamental facts of the case, which any reasonable person could interpret as some widespread fraud and ethical lapses in the Air America organization, not just Cohen. But the major news media outlets don't consider this to be a story worthy of publication. Nobody's covering it except for the conservative outlets.
Both of these stories are clear illustrations of how the news is carefully managed by the journalistic outlets who are supposed to be the protectors of our democracy. Instead of a commitment to dig up the whole truth no matter where it leads, journalists are instead carefully managing the news to either ignore stories that might hurt their "side", while spinning or obscuring the facts in other stories to convey their desired message to the masses.
In reading through some liberal blogs and articles, I've noticed their visceral hatred for conservative media, in the form of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang. What I've particularly noticed is through all their protestations that mock Fox's "Fair and Balanced" pledge and call the individual commentators the worst names they can imagine, they offer zero examples to back up their attacks.
I've searched in vain for a liberal example of distorted reporting on any individual topic. They don't exist. I try watching different news programs on television to spot the differences, comparing reporting on the Today Show or Nightly News to Fox News. Certainly Fox News has O'Reilly and Hannity, who openly present themselves as conservatives (but I find O'Reilly to be more of a moderate). The difference is that people like Brian Williams and Katie Couric pretend to be fair while showing clear bias in reporting, while the Fox News program just reports the news.
The easiest way to tell the difference is to catch the reporting on a particular story of the day from one of the mainline networks and compare to Fox. Most of the time, the story will be presented on the mainline network with very little substantive facts and lots of interviews with Democrat or liberal leaders who tell the reporters and viewers what everyone should think about the story. Most of the time there is a one-sentence sound byte from a Republican or conservative, or no alternate viewpoint at all offered in the reporting of the story. So if you are frustrated by high gas prices, for example, and want to find out why they are so high, you are more likely to get a message from some interview with a Democrat politician that it's the oil companies making obscene profits causing the problem.
Then switch to Fox News. There the story will dig into the causes of fluctuation in crude oil prices, such as increased world-wide demand, especially by China, the fact that environmentalists have successfully blocked oil exploration in America, and that refinery capacity is maxed out but environmental restrictions won't permit building more.
These days a citizen's identification with one party or the other, I believe, is closely tied to two major factors: Religious belief or lack thereof, and knowledge of the factual truth of each important issue. Atheists are more likely to be Democrats whether they know the facts of issues or not, just because they perceive Republicans as being pro-religion and therefore anti-debauchery. Everyone else who doesn't really pay much attention to politics, those who would not be able to name the Secretary of State or Speaker of the House, is usually going to be a Democrat, just because they only hear the occasional sound byte from their music radio station or television that tells them about the evil Bush administration.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that our democracy depends on an educated and involved populace? He couldn't have been more correct, and we're fast approaching mass ignorance, which will evolve into tyranny.
How about a couple of recent examples of stories we've all been hearing in August:
Cindy Sheehan
The regular networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) tell us Cindy is a grieving mother of a son killed in Iraq who wants to meet with the president to express her concerns about the war. They craft their stories and interviews with this woman to support this message, and manage the story to convey a disbelief that Bush would be so callous to reject a meeting with this poor grieving mother.
But the alternative news sources tell a somewhat different story. Yes, Cindy is a grieving mother who lost a son in Iraq. But she and her family had a meeting with Bush last year, when he apparently spent a lot of time with them and was very comforting and caring for their loss. Cindy turns out to be a fire-breathing extreme liberal who talks about Bush as the new Hitler who should be impeached and prosecuted. She says her son was killed, not by terrorist bombers in Iraq, but by President Bush. That the Iraq war was concocted by the president to support Israel and enrich his oil buddies. She's even gone so far as to suggest that we should help the Palestinians drive the Jews from Palestine and stop our support for Israel. And no, these aren't distortions or characterizations by some right-wing pundits, but real quotes from Cindy herself.
In addition, we find out that she is surrounded and supported by the most radical leftist groups in the country, like MoveOn.Org and Code Pink. And she keeps a regular blog on Michael Moore's website. And much more.
Air America and the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club
Here is a story you won't find anywhere but the alternative media. If you haven't heard already, there was a guy named Evan Cohen who was a major player in the launch of the liberal Air America network, which was formed in an attempt to offset the influence of conservative radio talkers like Limbaugh and Hannity.
The simple story is that Cohen diverted a little under $900K from the New York City charity into Air America, purportedly as a "loan". The charity can't get the money back, because the media corporation the money was funneled into folded and Air America reorganized under another name, apparently to try to leave behind the debts in the former bankrupt media company. Obviously this is a criminal case, and Cohen will be prosecuted for his malfeasance in the matter.
The above are the fundamental facts of the case, which any reasonable person could interpret as some widespread fraud and ethical lapses in the Air America organization, not just Cohen. But the major news media outlets don't consider this to be a story worthy of publication. Nobody's covering it except for the conservative outlets.
Both of these stories are clear illustrations of how the news is carefully managed by the journalistic outlets who are supposed to be the protectors of our democracy. Instead of a commitment to dig up the whole truth no matter where it leads, journalists are instead carefully managing the news to either ignore stories that might hurt their "side", while spinning or obscuring the facts in other stories to convey their desired message to the masses.
In reading through some liberal blogs and articles, I've noticed their visceral hatred for conservative media, in the form of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang. What I've particularly noticed is through all their protestations that mock Fox's "Fair and Balanced" pledge and call the individual commentators the worst names they can imagine, they offer zero examples to back up their attacks.
I've searched in vain for a liberal example of distorted reporting on any individual topic. They don't exist. I try watching different news programs on television to spot the differences, comparing reporting on the Today Show or Nightly News to Fox News. Certainly Fox News has O'Reilly and Hannity, who openly present themselves as conservatives (but I find O'Reilly to be more of a moderate). The difference is that people like Brian Williams and Katie Couric pretend to be fair while showing clear bias in reporting, while the Fox News program just reports the news.
The easiest way to tell the difference is to catch the reporting on a particular story of the day from one of the mainline networks and compare to Fox. Most of the time, the story will be presented on the mainline network with very little substantive facts and lots of interviews with Democrat or liberal leaders who tell the reporters and viewers what everyone should think about the story. Most of the time there is a one-sentence sound byte from a Republican or conservative, or no alternate viewpoint at all offered in the reporting of the story. So if you are frustrated by high gas prices, for example, and want to find out why they are so high, you are more likely to get a message from some interview with a Democrat politician that it's the oil companies making obscene profits causing the problem.
Then switch to Fox News. There the story will dig into the causes of fluctuation in crude oil prices, such as increased world-wide demand, especially by China, the fact that environmentalists have successfully blocked oil exploration in America, and that refinery capacity is maxed out but environmental restrictions won't permit building more.
These days a citizen's identification with one party or the other, I believe, is closely tied to two major factors: Religious belief or lack thereof, and knowledge of the factual truth of each important issue. Atheists are more likely to be Democrats whether they know the facts of issues or not, just because they perceive Republicans as being pro-religion and therefore anti-debauchery. Everyone else who doesn't really pay much attention to politics, those who would not be able to name the Secretary of State or Speaker of the House, is usually going to be a Democrat, just because they only hear the occasional sound byte from their music radio station or television that tells them about the evil Bush administration.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that our democracy depends on an educated and involved populace? He couldn't have been more correct, and we're fast approaching mass ignorance, which will evolve into tyranny.
posted by Dan S. at 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home