OR: The Difference Between Editting and Reporting the News...
I attended a recent showing of "Outfoxed" which was billed by those that I had heard speak of it as a left wing attempt at bashing Rupert Murdoch and Foxnews for right wing bias in editting the news to fit the propoganda mechanism that is the current right wing administration. There were descriptions that included "poor quality filming and camera work" as well as "editting issues" that made the film in part unwatchable. However, the film raises several issues that should be considered regardless of your political persuasion because the issue of news reporting is central in a republic to the decision making process of the people.
Thomas Jefferson (who as President received criticsm quite often, sometimes very undeserved) said that the country was better off with a "free press and not a free government" than vice-versa. What Jefferson meant by a free press was that the media that reports the news should take a critical eye to what government did to ensure that the people were getting both sides of the argument the government would present.
Governments have their own information dissemanation methods including spokespeople to voice their own points of view as well as contacts within the "edittorial community" (the talking heads and pundits who bombard us with their opinions of what the personalities of politics are doing). The news organizations then must take pains to scrutinize the information provided as well as digging nto the issues that face us and present us with all sides.
The history of propoganda in the world is full of examples of when the press does not take on the aspect of presenting the public with a well rounded look at issues. Consider PRAVDA in the old Soviet Union. The purpose of PRAVDA was to tell the people that the Soviet Union was the best place in the world, everything was getting better and better and say problems were temporary and that sooner rather than later everyone would be living the good life. All people needed to do was what the government thought was best for them, not question, and accept that their sacrifice was worthwhile.
Is this the argument Outfoxed makes? It certainly takes Fox, fox reporters and producers and personalities (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Brit Hume) to task for multiple occurences of bias in mixing opinion with news until the line between the two are so blurred that the viewer would be hard pressed to tell where one starts and the other ends. But further, it illustrates the connection between making money by all news organizations and content of broadcasts. This includes the major networks as well as CNN.
Many of you might think (as I did at one time) that CNN was the balance to Fox but this is now in question in my own mind because the methods of "spinning" that Fox is often accused of are widespread on CNN in an attempt to keep advertising dollars that might leave with lower ratings. So, does that mean that the advertisers are really in control of the news media and the ultimate determination of what we see and how we see it?
To answer this you have to ask yourself what the advertisers want you to see. Do they want you to question the government? Is uncertainty in the future to their advantage? Do you buy more stuff when you feel good or unsure?
Personally I think that the smoke and mirrors in the stock market may be the best indication of this. Consider the unemployment rate and the increases we have seen in inflation and unrest and the world and there does seem to be a disconnect between the reality and how the news is portrayed in the media. Questioning by all news sources is muted and we are constantly reminded that the new car, house, and job are just around the corner.
Remind you of anything?