|
Articles:
Politics
Fox
News, the GOP Propaganda Machine
Monday, May 16, 2005
I'm
honestly perplexed whenever I hear a conservative complain
about how the media-at-large is "liberally biased".
I assume their perception is that the media generally sides
with the liberal point of view on various issues, while attacking
or ignoring the conservative view. Based on the above-average
amount of time I spend following various news media, I would
have to disagree. For the sake of a relatively short argument,
I'll focus on television news.
On
a typical day, I usually watch MSNBC and CNN Headline News.
MSNBC in particular has some very thought-provoking discussion
from both liberals and conservatives. I'm especially fond
of "Connected: Coast to Coast" with Ron Reagan and
Monica Crowley. They are an outspoken liberal and conservative,
respectively, who manage to have intelligent discussions about
political issues. Both sides are represented equally well,
and I don't see any "liberal bias" on that show.
I also enjoy "Hardball with Chris Matthews". Perhaps
some conservatives think he's "liberally biased"
because he asks hard questions to a number of conservative
guests. In case these people weren't paying attention, however,
he asks hard questions of ALL his guests, hence the name "Hardball".
Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough even has his own show,
and former conservative presidential candidate Pat Buchanan
is often present on-air to give his opinions. Dan Abrams seems
pretty conservative to me, as well. Is it fair to say MSNBC
is "liberally biased" with all of this conservative
representation? Although I don't watch CNN as often, I know
they also have similar representation.
Nevertheless,
some conservatives felt that such stations only reported the
"liberal" side of things, and formed Fox News to
"combat" the issue. In their effort to "correct"
a "liberal bias", they in essence formed a "conservatively
biased" news station. Any time I watch Fox News, I'm
presented with one pundit or another praising the actions
of various conservative politicians. Any time a liberal appears
on this station, it is only so a host of conservatives can
gang up on them and deride their point of view. Stories center
around attempts by liberals to "attack their way of life",
and the heroic actions of conservatives to stop them. Where
is the liberal representation on this channel? MSNBC has Scarborough,
Buchanan, Crowley, Abrams, and others. Who does Fox News have?
Conservatives on MSNBC are given equal time and respect, while
token liberals on Fox are treated with contempt. In spite
of this, how can Fox News call itself "Fair and Balanced"
with a straight face? I feel like they should just come out
and call themselves "GOP News", or perhaps more
accurately, "The GOP Propaganda Machine".
What
about the anchors during the regular news day? On both MSNBC
and Headline News, I fail to see any "liberal bias".
They dish out the same stories as any other network. Does
it seem like a disproportionate number of stories have to
do with the members of the Bush administration? Maybe, but
gosh, could it be that way because these are the people currently
running the country? Does it seem like many of them are negative
rather than positive in nature? Perhaps, but could it be that
way because these politicians answer to the American people,
who have a right to know about any malfeasance? Back in the
1990s, weren't most stories about the Clinton administration?
Weren't most of those negative in nature, with Whitewater
and Monica Lewinski? Where was the liberal bias then? If the
media were truly liberally biased, then why did these scandals
reach such heights of attention? Clinton was even impeached,
after all, and the so-called "liberally biased"
media covered all of it. I never saw any news network cheerleading
Clinton or the Democrats the way Fox News roots for Bush and
the GOP.
Since
the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches, and
will likely soon control the judicial branch, it only makes
sense that most news stories will be about the GOP. They control
new legislation, executive decisions, and soon, judicial decisions.
They make and enforce the rules, so of course most news stories
scrutinize their actions!
Politicians
can be equated to employees of the public. Shouldn't an employer
have the right to know if their workers are sleeping on the
job, stealing from the company, exhibiting negligence in their
duties, or other examples of poor performance? In this regard,
I believe it is the media's duty to inform the public of any
potential impropriety. Average citizens do not possess the
means to discover such inadequacies by themselves. Because
of this, the investigational powers of the media serve the
public by bringing these issues before them. Therefore, the
media is only doing its duty by reporting critical stories.
Any outlet that fails to report such problems is grossly negligent.
The people need aggressive sources of news that are willing
to report problems rather than blindly spew partisan propaganda.
In
authoritarian regimes of the past, governments controlled
the news outlets and released only praise for their leaders.
Citizens in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia only heard of
the heroics of their glorious dictators, not of their crimes.
In spite of this, some Americans seem to think we should all
follow this authoritarian trend. They seem to believe we should
all stand behind our current leaders, praise them, and blissfully
ignore any reports of potential malfeasance. But if we do
that, are we any better than the subjugated masses who allowed
Hitler or Stalin's genocidal actions? This is a democracy,
run by the people. It's our right and our duty to question
our leaders, seek the truth, and criticize any actions with
which we disagree. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "dissent
is the highest form of patriotism".
Yet
we still have some conservatives who criticize any news media
that report criticisms of our elected leadership. Can you
imagine living in a nation where all the media is like Fox
News? Where you only hear about how great the GOP leaders
are? Where you never hear about any impropriety, except that
of the liberal minority who controls nothing? I see this as
a nightmare scenario, akin to Nazi Germany, where there is
no bipartisan dialogue, no discussion of disparate ideas,
only the relentless march of unilateral authoritarian ideals.
Calling the media in general "liberally biased"
seems, to me, like a cheap but effective way to turn the people
against REAL "fair and balanced" reporting. Turning
them, as well, into submissive drones who readily accept whatever
propaganda the party in power feeds them. Ridiculing those
who have the nerve to question or disagree as "unpatriotic"
and "un-American" is, to me, as unpatriotic and
un-American as it gets.
Mere
unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to
be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom
of grave illness in our society. --Earl Warren
Those
who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves
exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion
achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. --Felix Frankfurter
Dissent
is the highest form of patriotism. --Thomas Jefferson
In
a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the
voice of the multitude. --George Washington
Comments
By
J.Braggs on Friday, May 20, 2005
I
don't believe there are any laws governing the unbiased-ness
of news stations. (other than having to give campaigners =
opportunities for air time) So why would you expect it to
be that way? That's the reason I don't watch the news. EVER.
I could care less about republicans or democrats or green
party or left wing or right wing or conservatives or liberals
or any other title placed on people. And the more I here that
this country is 'ran by' republicans or it's 'ran by' democrats,
the more I want to puke.
This
country that was founded 'by the people, for the people' ended
that idea when we elected our first president. Oh, we get
to vote him in to office, but what do we get to do after that?
Send him a letter? No, he'll never see it. Call him? No, do
you have the number to the oval office? Email? No, he won't
see that either. Contact our congressman? Senator? Any state
representative? Same answers apply.
Who
cares what the news media covers. That's why God created romote
controls. Will we ever see unbiased reports when it comes
to the people we voted into office and the decisions "they"
make? No, not until machines take over the media with their
non-thinking way of covering what we want to see in the news.
Or...
If
you REALLY want an unbiased opinion about a news topic, ask
someone like me.
J.
|
