Monday, February 21, 2005

On the 'Liberal Media'

From Asheville-Citizen Times, Dec. 17, 2003

Lately there has been much talk from the conservative pundits and spin doctors crying foul about a biased "liberal" media unfairly attacking the president and the G.O.P. These talk show hosts, administrators, and other faces of modern conservatism point at the reporting of the war in Iraq, of the current economy, and of the unanswered questions surrounding the tragedy of 9/11. The conservatives are seemingly on the defensive, feeling unfairly preyed upon, victims of a leftist conspiracy to make them look bad in hopes of dethroning Bush in 2004. But to this citizen, I find this crying laughable at best.
Three points need to be made about the media in order to understand my amusement. First, it should be stated that the main stream media outlets are not owned by a diverse citizenry but instead are controlled by six main companies that are in turn run by some of the wealthiest 1% of our population, not a bunch of poor hippies. Their aim is not necessarily to shed light on truths but to sell their product in the form of the news, reality TV, and the weekly Hollywood style mini-series. Ratings (i.e., profits) are the bottom line, even for the news. Second, these profiteering capitalists are not exactly tree hugging, pacifistic, union organizers creating grass roots movements like Martin Luther King Jr, Caesar Chavez, or Ghandi but are instead incredibly rich conservatives. Take for example the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch. He controls not only numerous visual mediums but also owns many major publishing companies as well. He has shut down local stations for playing programs that were "too left" and has tried to censor books dealing with politics, ones he felt were "unpatriotic" because they critically examined questionable facts about our current leaders. He is also a major contributor to the G.O.P. Not exactly what I would call liberal. Finally, if it truly was a liberal media, I believe our current president would be facing a massive public outcry for his removal (along with the 15 million protestors in the world who simultaneously marched against him, something the "liberal," U.S. media largely missed). The man has almost certainly lied to his people. Not about his sex life, but about the need to sacrifice our sons in the desert. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were guaranteed to be there? Why did Bush omit pages of the investigation into 9/11 pertaining to the Saudi Arabian connection? And why is our fearless leader so afraid of standard press conferences?
Liberal media? I think not. The media sells us what sells and what sells is conflict. If this was a liberal media questions about our president’s (alledged) cocaine use, AWOL during wartime, drunk driving, businesses with the bin Ladens, connections to ENRON, Haliburton, defense contractors, the Taliban, and Mr. Hussein would all be splashed across every newspaper, magazine cover, and nightly news show. I highly doubt he would have ever been elected (or was it appointed?) and reelection would seem like a ludicrous idea. Bill Clinton was no saint but if the media had all this on top of Monica, he would have swung from the gallows.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home