Right now, our government stands on the brink of crisis. Our elected representatives on Capital Hill are currently debating the budget for our federal government, and without some resolution in the next couple of days, our government will begin shutting down. National Parks would be the first to close, followed by programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, a program that helps to feed pregnant and their young, and only get worse from there. It is an understatement to say that this is a heated debate, and an important one as well, and it is something that the media has its fingers in. Now, one would again hope that the coverage of this story would be at the very least fair. This is the very sort of thing that can get people riled up and create sides. I think it would be to the betterment of all if we were simply told the reality of the situation, and urged to have our representatives compromise, regardless of political affiliation, so we can get this thing figured out. Well, that simply isn't the case. NBC's coverage of the budget crisis is a perfect example. In their article whose link I will include below, the authors are anything but productive, through their article helping to alienate their readers from one party.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/30/20757128-first-thoughts-back-to-square-one-with-hours-to-go-until-a-shutdown?lite
The article, whose is First Thoughts: Back to Square One With Hours to Go Until a Shutdown, seeks to cover the United States' current budget crisis and the issues surrounding it. The authors talk about the disagreement over 'anti-health care legislation', the raising or lowering of the debt ceiling, current political environment on Capital Hill, and things like fundraising emails being sent out and our President's meetings in the Middle East. Though not overly abundant in detail, the authors give the reader a quick and easy look at what is going on in our government today, especially concerning the debt crisis. However, its authors consciously make what is in my opinion a major mistake: it attempts to faction its readers. While the news organization obviously has its own political lean, that to me does not excuse the authors from placing the sole blame of this crisis on the Republican party as they do. They blame the mess on the House (controlled by Republicans) for wanting to anti-health care legislation to the bill, and (rather courageously) put the responsibility of either passing the budget or shutting down the government on Speaker of the House Jim Boehner. While there is absolutely a disagreement concerning what should be done in the way of the Affordable Care Act, it should not be assumed that Republicans are the only ones who want to see reform. Members of both parties have in the past months agreed at least in part that changes need to be made before the Act goes into full effect. Additionally, the authors again help to create sides by its analysis of the debt-ceiling debate: they write that Republicans have nothing to talk about with the liberals unless it involves raising the ceiling (which, of course, has ramifications of its own). Finally, the authors of the article include an excerpt from a Politico article that absolutely blasts Republicans for sending out fundraising emails. While its inclusion is kind of puzzling, it certainty does not fail to paint conservatives in an unfavorable light.
This again is the type of news reporting that hurts the American people more than it helps them. We are currently all at the brink of a crisis, and the media cannot help itself from pointing fingers and creating sides. What I believe we need now, as I have said a thousand times, is a little uniformity. We are all United States citizens, and we are all in this together! It is so easy to want to blame someone else for your problems, but it would be much, much better if we all sucked it up, held hands, and pushed on through as a nation of free individuals. But instead, the media exercises its power by furthering the divides between people and pushing us farther apart. This type of reporting needs to stop, or the wounds that they keep on opening will never be able to heal.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Eye of the Beholder
As I had mentioned in a previous post, one of the purposes of my blog will be to take a look at news stories as they come out, and attempt to point out the biases that exist. Well, I will give a crack at it today for the first time! Now, it will be a Fox News article that I'm covering. That is certainly not to say that I dislike the network or anything like that. It is simply that they published a rather important article this morning, and upon reading it, I noticed a few things that, in my opinion, were unnecessary and/or unneeded.
The article (which can be found here- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/23/whats-end-game-lawmakers-seek-way-out-obamacare-showdown/) is named 'What's the End-Game?'. The story covers the current political issue of the Affordable Care Act, its repeal and/or editing, and extending the time the government will be able to stay upon and work on it. There seems to be concern on both sides about the law, but there is disagreement on whether it should be totally de-funded or simply 'cleaned up'. This story has clear ramifications in that it deals really with almost every citizen of this country, businesses and the way the benefits the provide for their employees, doctors and their wages and who they provide care to, and taxes, just to name a few. But in some ways, the stories merit is undermined by the ideological leaning of the author.
The first and most obvious sign of bias in the article is its constant use of the term 'ObamaCare'. While the term is common, it is often used in an almost derogatory way, both to voice displeasure of the legislation while blaming President Obama for its inception. To me, I would have thought calling the bill by its actual name (the Affordable Care Act) could have taken away a lean that is used against the left-wing throughout the article. The article then seems to characterize the Democratic party, stating they they 'naturally want to strip out provisions de-funding the health law.' This early statement seems to reinforce the sentiment that Democrats don't want to see the Affordable Care Act touched while the Republicans want to see the whole thing taken down brick by brick. That couldn't be further from the truth, and the article even touches on it a little later.
Though this article was not all that biased and actually quite informative, it still had issues. To me, the average reader would have benefited much more if the story read thus: In Congress, there is currently a debate as to what should be done with the Affordable Care Act. While both Democrats and Republicans that something must be done, there is disagreement within the GOP as to if it should be edited or simply de-funded. Talks will certainly continue over the next few weeks, and we will see which way the Republicans intend to go. Stay tuned.
If it was written similar to that, then the story could be looked at objectively. But perhaps that's not what the media wants? The sooner Democrats and Republicans, both who are politicians and citizens, realize that they are Americans first, the sooner issues like this one can be handled productively.
The article (which can be found here- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/23/whats-end-game-lawmakers-seek-way-out-obamacare-showdown/) is named 'What's the End-Game?'. The story covers the current political issue of the Affordable Care Act, its repeal and/or editing, and extending the time the government will be able to stay upon and work on it. There seems to be concern on both sides about the law, but there is disagreement on whether it should be totally de-funded or simply 'cleaned up'. This story has clear ramifications in that it deals really with almost every citizen of this country, businesses and the way the benefits the provide for their employees, doctors and their wages and who they provide care to, and taxes, just to name a few. But in some ways, the stories merit is undermined by the ideological leaning of the author.
The first and most obvious sign of bias in the article is its constant use of the term 'ObamaCare'. While the term is common, it is often used in an almost derogatory way, both to voice displeasure of the legislation while blaming President Obama for its inception. To me, I would have thought calling the bill by its actual name (the Affordable Care Act) could have taken away a lean that is used against the left-wing throughout the article. The article then seems to characterize the Democratic party, stating they they 'naturally want to strip out provisions de-funding the health law.' This early statement seems to reinforce the sentiment that Democrats don't want to see the Affordable Care Act touched while the Republicans want to see the whole thing taken down brick by brick. That couldn't be further from the truth, and the article even touches on it a little later.
Though this article was not all that biased and actually quite informative, it still had issues. To me, the average reader would have benefited much more if the story read thus: In Congress, there is currently a debate as to what should be done with the Affordable Care Act. While both Democrats and Republicans that something must be done, there is disagreement within the GOP as to if it should be edited or simply de-funded. Talks will certainly continue over the next few weeks, and we will see which way the Republicans intend to go. Stay tuned.
If it was written similar to that, then the story could be looked at objectively. But perhaps that's not what the media wants? The sooner Democrats and Republicans, both who are politicians and citizens, realize that they are Americans first, the sooner issues like this one can be handled productively.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Appreciation of Power
As early as September 2002, Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize winner who was at the time a journalist for the New York Times, reported that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. For months afterword, she, along with many, many other media outlets, continued to publish reports that claimed that Iraq had WMD's, and were seeking to use them. These reports, along with testimonies given by the government, were the driving forces in selling an invasion of Iraq to the American people. And it worked.
My point isn't that the people were lied to, or that the United States invasion of Iraq was wrong. I am simply trying to point out the power that the mass media has, and what the government can do with it when able to harness it. As we have found out today, the information Judith Miller and dozens, if not hundreds, of other journalists were given proved highly inaccurate and, at times, sensational. Sources such as Ahmed Chalabi proved uninformed, and even CIA employees, who one would think would be at least honest in their reports, admitted to falsifying information for various reasons. But they were the ones being used to create stories. The government may or may not have known the truth behind all of the 'facts', but they certainty worked with the mass media to get the point across. They leaked information to the press and even provided information, all in the aim of it leading to a story in support of desired government action.
To me, the reality of the situation was and is simple: the majority will believe what they are told on the news. It is how most get their information. The average American doesn't have the time and/or desire to properly inform themselves about their government and its affairs, so they look to the news. They can find out in twenty minutes what is going on and how they should feel about it. People are impressionable and often naive, and they believe that what they hear on television, read in a newspaper, or hear on a social media website is the truth. Unfortunately, much like this case, it isn't always that way. While the media has a responsibility to its viewers/readers to report honest news, it is never guaranteed or even desired. The people are in fact found at its will. The media can play an important role in the 'democratic process', as we've talked about in our class, by accurately informing people with largely unbiased news, or it can play the people, possibly even being used by the government to get its agenda across. The best lesson that can be learned is that we, as responsible citizens, must appreciate the power the media posses, and do our best to offset it. While we should desire an honest and informative mass media, we should also do our best to inform ourselves and read between the lines, letting our opinions and views be based on solid info.
The media is an important tool in the democratic process found here in this country, and can be used in a very positive way to inform oneself on current events. However, it should not be taken for granted that the information it provides is always 100% factual. If so, it can cause a real problem, leading to the possible manipulation of the people and the way that they support/disapprove of their government. Its in the people's best interest to avoid that.
My point isn't that the people were lied to, or that the United States invasion of Iraq was wrong. I am simply trying to point out the power that the mass media has, and what the government can do with it when able to harness it. As we have found out today, the information Judith Miller and dozens, if not hundreds, of other journalists were given proved highly inaccurate and, at times, sensational. Sources such as Ahmed Chalabi proved uninformed, and even CIA employees, who one would think would be at least honest in their reports, admitted to falsifying information for various reasons. But they were the ones being used to create stories. The government may or may not have known the truth behind all of the 'facts', but they certainty worked with the mass media to get the point across. They leaked information to the press and even provided information, all in the aim of it leading to a story in support of desired government action.
To me, the reality of the situation was and is simple: the majority will believe what they are told on the news. It is how most get their information. The average American doesn't have the time and/or desire to properly inform themselves about their government and its affairs, so they look to the news. They can find out in twenty minutes what is going on and how they should feel about it. People are impressionable and often naive, and they believe that what they hear on television, read in a newspaper, or hear on a social media website is the truth. Unfortunately, much like this case, it isn't always that way. While the media has a responsibility to its viewers/readers to report honest news, it is never guaranteed or even desired. The people are in fact found at its will. The media can play an important role in the 'democratic process', as we've talked about in our class, by accurately informing people with largely unbiased news, or it can play the people, possibly even being used by the government to get its agenda across. The best lesson that can be learned is that we, as responsible citizens, must appreciate the power the media posses, and do our best to offset it. While we should desire an honest and informative mass media, we should also do our best to inform ourselves and read between the lines, letting our opinions and views be based on solid info.
The media is an important tool in the democratic process found here in this country, and can be used in a very positive way to inform oneself on current events. However, it should not be taken for granted that the information it provides is always 100% factual. If so, it can cause a real problem, leading to the possible manipulation of the people and the way that they support/disapprove of their government. Its in the people's best interest to avoid that.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
East of Eden
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
-James Madison
While staring into the face of the deep, in the moments before plunging into the troubled waters, one simple and unassuming question should be asked: how important is the truth?
Most would give the same response: the truth is very important. Yet I would dispute their conviction.
Politics is any many ways a struggle for power: within government lie the means of control, and through control one exercises power. Politics is just the process through which this power is attained, and it's here that media plays its part. Mass media is a vital tool that can be used to either gain or detract from political/government support. Without votes, politicians cannot gain office, and against public outcry, the government cannot freely exercise their power. By spinning stories or using/dismissing particular facts/actualities, the media can help sway their massive audiences in one direction or another. This influence makes mass media and politics inseparable, but not to the public's benefit. In the never-ending chess match that is the United States political culture, the truth behind candidate's positions, government actions, and current events and their circumstances is left by the wayside. What is fed to us is a fabrication of the truth, adorned with the political trappings of whichever political party the news source supports. Please do not be mistaken, media institutions have just as much invested interest in politics as anyone else, and the reason why they are able to act on their desires is because of us.
Every person in this country has their own opinion on things, and knows how they would like to see things done. Though we may say that the truth is very important, what we are often more concerned about is being right. We like to see the media cover issues a certain way because it falls in line with our opinions, or don't like it because we disagree with their premise. We aren't looking for the truth, we are looking for someone to tell us what we what to here.
The purpose of this blog is to sort through all of that garbage. My endeavors will include looking at certain issues or current events objectively, and revealing how the media changes or distorts to get a certain message across. While I have my own biases just like anyone else, I will do my very best to be fair always, and set my sights on how, regardless of the position, it is we the people being hurt by the media's actions in the way they report the news. All we must do now is prepare for the plunge!
-James Madison
While staring into the face of the deep, in the moments before plunging into the troubled waters, one simple and unassuming question should be asked: how important is the truth?
Most would give the same response: the truth is very important. Yet I would dispute their conviction.
Politics is any many ways a struggle for power: within government lie the means of control, and through control one exercises power. Politics is just the process through which this power is attained, and it's here that media plays its part. Mass media is a vital tool that can be used to either gain or detract from political/government support. Without votes, politicians cannot gain office, and against public outcry, the government cannot freely exercise their power. By spinning stories or using/dismissing particular facts/actualities, the media can help sway their massive audiences in one direction or another. This influence makes mass media and politics inseparable, but not to the public's benefit. In the never-ending chess match that is the United States political culture, the truth behind candidate's positions, government actions, and current events and their circumstances is left by the wayside. What is fed to us is a fabrication of the truth, adorned with the political trappings of whichever political party the news source supports. Please do not be mistaken, media institutions have just as much invested interest in politics as anyone else, and the reason why they are able to act on their desires is because of us.
Every person in this country has their own opinion on things, and knows how they would like to see things done. Though we may say that the truth is very important, what we are often more concerned about is being right. We like to see the media cover issues a certain way because it falls in line with our opinions, or don't like it because we disagree with their premise. We aren't looking for the truth, we are looking for someone to tell us what we what to here.
The purpose of this blog is to sort through all of that garbage. My endeavors will include looking at certain issues or current events objectively, and revealing how the media changes or distorts to get a certain message across. While I have my own biases just like anyone else, I will do my very best to be fair always, and set my sights on how, regardless of the position, it is we the people being hurt by the media's actions in the way they report the news. All we must do now is prepare for the plunge!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)