Blogs will save us from objective journalism.

Bill O’Reilly hates the blogosphere. He hates many things, of course, among them Pepsi, rapper Ludacris, a wide array of conventional media outlets, and even some of his own guests. But today I focus on an entire media outlet that O’Reilly labels as biased, lacking in evidence, and in large part sensationalized: political blogs.

Of course, O’Reilly doesn’t oppose online journalism on his own. Even more mainstream news anchors (if you can call Mr. O’Reilly a news anchor) tend to scoff and roll their eyes at the notion of “the blogosphere” or the opinions expressed over the internet. O’Reilly has led the most outspoken movement against internet editorialism, though. In June of 2003, Bill had this to say about bloggers:

“Nearly everyday, there’s something written on the Internet about me that’s flat out untrue…the reason these net people get away with all kinds of stuff is that they work for no one. They put stuff up with no restraints. This, of course, is dangerous…”

By July of 2005, the “blogosphere” had become a common slang term for the mainstream news media, and became the focus of one episode of O’Reilly’s Factor program:

“Personal attacks lodged through the internet! How are so-called “Web logs” being used as ideological weapons? And who’s behind the smear campaigns? We’ll have a No Spin look at a dangerous new weapon in the culture wars!”

But as “dangerous” as these “weapons in the culture wars” may seem to some, online outlets such as …

Share

Continue ReadingBlogs will save us from objective journalism.

FCC again inviting big corporations to take more control of the media

The Federal Communications Commission and industry lobbyists are once again trying to let huge media companies get even bigger by resurrecting the same rule changes that millions of Americans rejected in 2003. It's hard to believe that anyone at the FCC could actually be considering the welfare of the American people…

Continue ReadingFCC again inviting big corporations to take more control of the media

Except for FOX, journalists barred from Guantanamo

According to the Indianapolis Star, the reporting from Guantanamo will be less diverse: Now, the Pentagon has shut down access entirely -- at least temporarily -- expelling reporters this week and triggering an outcry from human rights groups, attorneys and media organizations even as the prison comes under renewed criticism…

Continue ReadingExcept for FOX, journalists barred from Guantanamo

Gay Rights “Not a Civil Rights Issue”?

The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) supplies high school LGBT rights groups around the United States with a wealth of useful information, tools, and event and activity guides. For the last few years, I’ve appreciated the planning guides GLSEN provides as a source of brainstorming and public-relations hints. But looking through a GLSEN binder of open forum topics and public speaking tips recently, I came across an unusual and off-putting suggestion:

“Do NOT compare the LGBT Rights movement to the Civil Rights movement.”

Wait, what? The battle for LGBT rights mirrors the Civil Rights movement in a variety of ways. The reactionary backlash and lack of logic behind opponents’ arguments read exactly the same, complete with desperate biblical references. Take for example this judge’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, a pre-Civil-Rights case on interracial marriage:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Indeed, and Almighty God also created Adam and Eve, not, as the social conservatives say, Adam and Steve. The slow social acceptance and increase in violent hate crimes look much the same, too. So what differentiates Gay Rights from Civil Rights, again?

Well, nothing really. It just ruffles a lot of (black, evangelical) feathers to make the comparison. Apparently GLSEN doesn’t …

Share

Continue ReadingGay Rights “Not a Civil Rights Issue”?

When politicians refuse to answer questions, report it.

Why does it seem so easy for comedians to conduct satisfying interviews of politicians and so difficult for mainstream reporters?  For example, check out Jon Stewart’s interview of the RNC’s Ken Mehlman.   Stewart’s recent interview of Mehlman powerfully painted members of the current administration as a pack of lying conniving hypocritical thieves.  

To contrast, the mainstream media usually stumbles out of the gate.  Even when mainstream reporters ask clear questions, they receive heavily spun non-answers which they often treat as answers.  As we all know, these heavily spun non-answers reported by mainstream reporters are not valid perspectives regarding important issues. Such spin-doctored statements are actually filler–opportunities for politicians to claim that they answered questions that they didn’t answer at all. 

What Jon Stewart does on the above video clip is satisfying because he repeatedly indicates to the audience that Mehlman is failing to answer his straightforward questions.  Yes, Stewart does his work as only a good comedian can do, by rolling his eyes, smirking, joking and being sarcastic.  But his work as an interviewer is effective because the audience is constantly being reassured that the questioner (Stewart) is aware that the interviewee (Mehlman) is not really answering his questions.  Stewart’s questions, e.g., about the metric of success in Iraq or the identities of the oil executives with which Dick Cheney secretly met, deserve real answers. How strange that we get more dependable and important information from five minutes comedian interviews than from reams of newsprint and hours and …

Share

Continue ReadingWhen politicians refuse to answer questions, report it.