Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Media's TRUE Bias.
My bile level is requiring more frequent purges. The current BS that I am having too much difficulty swallowing is the increasing role of media outlets in stirring up discord. Do peaceful people watch the news? No, I'd think they would rather watch entertainment or read a good book. Cable news, network news and web news outlets and any other mainstream news source are no longer interested in "Beware surveillance", they are only interested in audience size as a way of increasing revenue.
It works like this: create a divisive, speculative, and invariably spurious "wedge" issue (is Michelle Obama a terrorist) and then pretend to represent a fair and balanced interpretation for the ignorant masses. People emotionally involved in any real issue often mistake these phony issues as germane to the debate. The association with real issues makes viewers concerned/angry/fearful enough to watch, and the ratings climb.
The down side of this tendency is that advertising money is not the only gain from this behavior by the media, there is also palpable gain from the acquisition of hearts and minds, that is, propaganda. Everyone is so caught up in blue vs. red that they fail to see the facile way in which their opinions are being molded into divisiveness. The media seeks not resolution, only never ending conflict. No matter which side prevails each day, the media wins.
I have been perusing commentary in some blogs from time to time, and what I see is a division of two essential opinions: [1]. Change is immanent and the time for the return of intellect is at hand. [2]. The religious and cultural values of the so-called American middle class are in danger as never before. Now let's boil these down further: [1]. hope is to return [2]. fear is to return; i.e., hope vs. fear.
With news outlets that only benefit from conflict, is it any wonder that America cannot find any common ground from which to build a progressive consensus? Despite my frustration with conservative imbecility and liberal indecisiveness (conservative vs. liberal), I choose instead to adopt the first opinion, hope, because it holds within it the tolerance to encompass the second.
If America woke up tomorrow morning with 40+ more IQ points per capita, then maybe they would see that no opinion, however violently maintained is immune to possibility. It is possible that conservatives can lose obstinate ignorance, and it is also true that liberals could possibly grow some balls. One point of similarity that both sides hold is this: They both have an overarching mortal enemy that they cannot even see: the media.
It works like this: create a divisive, speculative, and invariably spurious "wedge" issue (is Michelle Obama a terrorist) and then pretend to represent a fair and balanced interpretation for the ignorant masses. People emotionally involved in any real issue often mistake these phony issues as germane to the debate. The association with real issues makes viewers concerned/angry/fearful enough to watch, and the ratings climb.
The down side of this tendency is that advertising money is not the only gain from this behavior by the media, there is also palpable gain from the acquisition of hearts and minds, that is, propaganda. Everyone is so caught up in blue vs. red that they fail to see the facile way in which their opinions are being molded into divisiveness. The media seeks not resolution, only never ending conflict. No matter which side prevails each day, the media wins.
I have been perusing commentary in some blogs from time to time, and what I see is a division of two essential opinions: [1]. Change is immanent and the time for the return of intellect is at hand. [2]. The religious and cultural values of the so-called American middle class are in danger as never before. Now let's boil these down further: [1]. hope is to return [2]. fear is to return; i.e., hope vs. fear.
With news outlets that only benefit from conflict, is it any wonder that America cannot find any common ground from which to build a progressive consensus? Despite my frustration with conservative imbecility and liberal indecisiveness (conservative vs. liberal), I choose instead to adopt the first opinion, hope, because it holds within it the tolerance to encompass the second.
If America woke up tomorrow morning with 40+ more IQ points per capita, then maybe they would see that no opinion, however violently maintained is immune to possibility. It is possible that conservatives can lose obstinate ignorance, and it is also true that liberals could possibly grow some balls. One point of similarity that both sides hold is this: They both have an overarching mortal enemy that they cannot even see: the media.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Anatomy of the Smear.
In the beginning, the McCain campaign looked likely to be conducted in a gentlemanly fashion. This does not now appear to be the case. The latest affront to decency committed by the GOP is this new book about Barack Obama: "Obama Nation" (don't you just love puns?). The book's author, Jerome Corsi, poses as an investigative journalist and attempts to lend the veneer of plausibility to the blizzard of false claims directed at the person (not the policies) of Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle.
In his book, he cites spurious sources to back up his bizarre opinions, and most of his "sources" are other right-wing bloggers. In short, he is lead vocalist but he has backup singers and they are all singing the same tune. It is all about the appearance of legitimacy.
It is an interesting technique the smear mongers have developed:
[1]. Have some clown like Corsi, (of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth fame) write a book in which all the outrageous claims about Obama and his wife are analyzed with an eye towards creating doubt in the often confused mind of the American voter.
[2]. Get a GOP member highly placed in the publishing industry to publish it as a nonfiction book without regard for its journalistic accuracy.
[3]. Rich GOP members order many pallets of this book, which they will later return for a restock fee (If they even get shipped which is unlikely, often a purchase order will suffice for the NY Times). These hefty book orders trigger a New York Times bestseller classification.
[4]. The public thinks that many people have bought copies, mistaking the bestseller classification as an indication of actual relevance, so they buy copies too.
[5]. Doubt generated in the minds of the few that take the time to read it combine with the confused sheep mentality of the voting booth. Rumor has now become, for a brief time, fact; it will be disproved in its entirety AFTER the election.
It is quite ingenious really. Inexpensive, limited in its possibility of repercussion, and if the 2004 election is any example, very effective. Libel suits filed against the publisher or author will take months to get to court, and by that time the election is over; unreasonable doubt has swung indecision away from the target candidate, and back to the alternative: the most likely not-Bush that the GOP can find; in this case, John McCain.
Too bad, about John, I kinda liked the guy, but there is no way in hell I could vote for him now.
In his book, he cites spurious sources to back up his bizarre opinions, and most of his "sources" are other right-wing bloggers. In short, he is lead vocalist but he has backup singers and they are all singing the same tune. It is all about the appearance of legitimacy.
It is an interesting technique the smear mongers have developed:
[1]. Have some clown like Corsi, (of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth fame) write a book in which all the outrageous claims about Obama and his wife are analyzed with an eye towards creating doubt in the often confused mind of the American voter.
[2]. Get a GOP member highly placed in the publishing industry to publish it as a nonfiction book without regard for its journalistic accuracy.
[3]. Rich GOP members order many pallets of this book, which they will later return for a restock fee (If they even get shipped which is unlikely, often a purchase order will suffice for the NY Times). These hefty book orders trigger a New York Times bestseller classification.
[4]. The public thinks that many people have bought copies, mistaking the bestseller classification as an indication of actual relevance, so they buy copies too.
[5]. Doubt generated in the minds of the few that take the time to read it combine with the confused sheep mentality of the voting booth. Rumor has now become, for a brief time, fact; it will be disproved in its entirety AFTER the election.
It is quite ingenious really. Inexpensive, limited in its possibility of repercussion, and if the 2004 election is any example, very effective. Libel suits filed against the publisher or author will take months to get to court, and by that time the election is over; unreasonable doubt has swung indecision away from the target candidate, and back to the alternative: the most likely not-Bush that the GOP can find; in this case, John McCain.
Too bad, about John, I kinda liked the guy, but there is no way in hell I could vote for him now.
