Don’t you love the media?
I agree with George Carlin when he said he only watches the news for entertainment purposes. Almost every day, for some untoward reason, I find myself flipping back and forth between Fox news and CNN. Is it just me, or is it blatantly hilarious how biased both sides are? Consider the Scooter Libby trial. On Fox all they can talk about is Bill Clinton. When Clinton was exposed for perjury, he was impeached, and there was a big to-do about the whole thing. The conservative media’s approach with regard to Libby seems to be to bring up the Clinton situation as often as possible, as if to deflect attention from their assaulted conservative politician’s plight. They find it unbelievable that Libby will face 25-30 years in prison for covering up something they say initially wasn’t even a crime.
Of course, they have a somewhat willfully blind view of this matter, because we all know that even if Bush doesn’t pardon him at the end of his administration, Libby will undoubtedly serve much, much less than 25 years. It seems to be Fox’s modus operandi, however, to ignore this information, instead exaggerating the situation as much as possible in order to make conservatives look as good as possible and liberals as bad as possible.
Now, don’t take the above statements as a declaration of loyalty to CNN. They are just as bad when it comes to biased, partisan media interpretations of events. CNN treats the Libby incident as just another scandal they’d expect from Republicans. Moreover, although CNN strives to appear level-headed and objective, they still fall into the grade-school tactics of insults and name-calling, though admittedly they practice such after a much more subtle fashion than their conservative counterparts, who can often be found sputtering and yelling in interviews, talking over their guests or interviewers.
The truly newsworthy element of all of this is the fact that it is virtually impossible to get unbiased media. Sure, you can try the international media sites, but in the end you cannot avoid committing to some degree of trust with respect to what you are hearing or reading. For the skeptical person, this is difficult, and for the extreme skeptic, impossible. That’s why I agree with Carlin – news media is primarily for entertainment purposes. I say enjoy it for what it is, but don’t take it too seriously. Don’t get swallowed up in an agenda. Consult as many perspectives as you can, and hope that such empirical comparisons will get you somewhat closer to the truth. That being said, though, don’t hold your breath in the hopes of finding unbiased media.
Tracalero said,
March 8, 2007 at 3:13 am
This is so true! Every site / outlet seems to be undoubtly biased to such a large degree as to not even make an attempt at objectivity. I assert that the only “truth” in media comes from watching CNN, FOX, reading various blogs, international sites and grassroots publications and piecing all the information to make a coherant picture. One source leaves you as biased as your source giver anymore.
Hennell said,
March 21, 2007 at 5:19 am
I’m a UK citizen so don’t have the channels here to watch, but what I hear about your news channels is amazing to me. Over here we have quite strict rules on news bias and whilst there is still some difference in the way different channels support things, they have to aim for neutral as best they can. (Especially during elections where the three main party’s must have the same amount of air time in any show and so on).
Our newspapers however have no such rules, and the difference in how they talk about stuff is hilarious. Either way, getting news from a range of places is so much better then listing to one, you might be able to actually build up a picture of what’s really going on.
gimelnus said,
March 21, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Over here we have quite strict rules on news bias and whilst there is still some difference in the way different channels support things, they have to aim for neutral as best they can.”
How are those rules enforced? I mean, how does the system work? Also, do you see the media there as limited? That is, do you ever feel as though you aren’t getting the whole story? Over the years, I have become increasingly exasperated in that, I just don’t trust anything I see on TV anymore. In a sense, I’m reluctant to put any amount of confidence in what I see on a media program for fear of being duped.
Hennell said,
March 24, 2007 at 7:19 am
Wrote a longer comment but it seems to have vanished into the netherworld of the net.
Essentially we have a media regulator (Ofcom) who impose fines on those who don’t broadcast news with due impartiality and due accuracy. The rules on news are here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/
Because anyone can complain to Ofcom about misleading programs news or offensive material, the broadcasters tend to regulate themselves quite tightly. These rules where conditions of their licence to broadcast, so they have a strong obligation to keep to them as much as possible.
As a result I would say our media is less limited; they try to show both sides of an issue and make sure what they are telling us is true and accurate.