If the Media were Liberal...
If the Media were truly Liberal, this (minus the sarcastic bookends) is the kind of thing we'd see during the day after Oprah, instead of after Midnight on a Saturday:
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Interesting.
I think that it definitely raises a point about to much corporate control in the media and politics.
Interestingly enough though a lot of people are now saying that using more nuclear energy is a greener alternative to our current petroleum/coal based ways of generating things like electricity. Of course a big conspiracy theorist would say that people who profit from nuclear energy are pushing this idea.
As far as the media goes it's definitely a problem though. The availability of the internet is helping things though. Mixed bag though while news can be reported free of corporate agenda's pretty much anyone can post information on a high traffic site like Wikipedia.
P.S Where did you did this video up?
It's from Saturday Night Live. Not sure which era, but I'm guessing late Nineties, or early 2000's.
Nuclear energy is cleaner than carbon-based energy, but it's not very efficient in terms of the cost and the enormous use of land. Then there's the matter of what to do with the waste. Nobody wants nuclear waste buried in their own state.
There are greener technologies, although none produce as much energy as nuclear. Yet.
I'm a bit confused about the point - is it that there is no bias in media? Or that it varies by broadcast, cable, print (newspapers or periodicals)? Is it that broadcasters or corporate executives suppress their views in news reporting - that there is no advocacy or bias? I've always liked the Brit print press - their newspapers proudly trumpet their bias! We're conservative! We're liberal! We criticize whoever runs the country! We think we should run the country!
Back to an earlier post, Michael Moore was on Leno last night. I was surprised - Leno did a decent interview. I learned much more from a calm Mr. Moore than I did from the CNN interview. He did a good thing - said he'd lost 30 pounds, was on track to lose a pound a year, challenged the audience to join him and spoke of taking an interest in your own health (which he hadn't done, he said).
He said he was being persecuted by the Justice Department for going to Cuba to get health care for 9/11 firefighters. Leno said "aren't they investigating you for going to Cuba, not for seeking health care?" It was done in a tactful way - interview kept on track.
My earlier comment about polarization - listening to the interview reinforced my opinion that Mr. Moore did a service in highlighting the difficulties in our health care system. Then he proposes as the only alternative a national health plan. That's the polarization. I think there are a range of options that should be explored. Mr. Moore said private insurance should not be an option. Leno asked "you're not saying, though, that people who can afford supplemental insurance, who might want a private room or something, like in Canada, can't have it if they want to pay for it?" Mr. Moore did not answer. Leno asked again. Again, no answer (he spoke of the number of people without insurance).
I think staking out a position, in advance, as the only alternative will lead people to dig in their heels with no real progress. Our system's built on compromise.
He did say he was critical of Hillary in the film as she's done zip for health care and she's the second largest recipient (I believe I have that right) of contributions from the health care industry than any of the candidates. Harvey Weinstein (studio exec) called him every day to get him to cut the spot (he's a Hillary supporter). Mr. Moore refused, saying he'd take on people from the Left or the Right. Good for him.
I think the point's pretty clear. The "Liberal Media" doesn't exist. How many times have you seen Ann Coulter on TV? Compare that to how many times you've seen Michael Moore on TV.
If we really had a Liberal Media, it wouldn't take Michael Moore to advocate universal health insurance, for instance. We'd see puff pieces about Canada's and Britain's health care on CNN or the nightly news.
When's the last time you saw that?
It's a great video. It's important to note that bias in media often has little to do with liberal or conservative. Sure, some of the big corporate interests behind these companies are objectionable to liberal. However, some of it is narrow corporate interest that might be objectionable to other. We've all seen ABC promote Disneyworld/Land. That's not liberal or conservative. It's the profit motive of a specific company.
When I teach this in my US politics class I emphasize that there are lots of sources of bias in news sources and that the audience should be ready for any of them. I think the noise over the "liberal media" is partially an attempt to keep us from asking other questions.
Exactly! That helps answer Paul's question, my point is that the supposed "liberal" or "conservative" biases in the Media are sideshows. Smokescreens. The Media is, and always has been, biased toward its advertisers, especially advertisers with deep pockets and the prospect of longevity. If Michael Moore were a multinational corporation who could become a long term advertiser, I'm sure the Nightly News would look a little more like Sicko or Farenheit 911.
Post a Comment