"But to innovate is a mistake,
because there's nothing new under the sun.
Because we're all getting tired of the media,
Because it tries so hard to make you like something.
Because we're all getting tired of the media,
Because creating something new is just recycling"
I love the repetition at the beginning of each line of the chorus and I think Matt Theissen has a point. As a journalism major, it's hard for me to watch the election coverage sometimes. Not only for the reasons that bug everyone else like the fact that IT IS ALL CNN AND FOX talk about. But also because of the way certain outlets handle stories and how their choices conflict with what I'm being taught in school.
Because I look at FOX News's Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and I think to myself, "Do these guys think they're actually fooling anyone." And the answer is no. They KNOW they are. In 2003, The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted a polling of FOX News viewers.
According to Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service, "PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions."
That's a lot of misinformed people. And not only that, just the other night on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed the long rumored question of whether or not the White House delivered talking points to FOX News correspondents.
Keith Olbermann on his show Countdown said as far as MSNBC knows FOX News still does this for FOX News "propagandists... to spout as if ventriloquist dummies as if they had thought of it themselves, as if they had come to those opinions independently, as if there was a process that had been either Fair of Balanced." Check out the video below.
And to FOX News viewers, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on that network. It's not because CNN doesn't do the wrong things too, it's just that their not nearly as blatant about it as FOX News is. However, CNN and the rest of the media has its fair share of problems.
For instance with Barack Obama and the rumors surrounding his run for the presidency which are spread through those emails we all get from our neo-con relatives and the internet. Even though CNN isn't starting these rumors they sure do love to air them and spread them. But that's just their job right? Take a look at this video from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In it Stewart looks at CNN's looking down on rumors while continuing to perpetuate them themselves.
There is another video on the Daily Show Web site that covers the media's criticism of McCain's campaign as well and it is equally ridiculous. Either way, I guess my only advice is to be careful who you listen to. These reporters on TV are in a cutthroat business where the big money goes with the big stories so they tend to make things bigger than they really are. But you already know that.
So what's your opinion, does the media have the control over elections that people say it does? Or are we independent for the most part and capable of picking a President without CNN or FOX News' help. Because I can tell you right now, they don't think we are. It's their job, and mine someday.
2 comments:
From the numbers I have seen, only about 1/3 of the population actually votes, if that much. Out of that ~100 million, I would say that there are enough people that don't think through things on their own, and who simply take what they hear on FOX/MSNBC/anywhere else and and go and vote for whichever republicrat was prescribed to them (and we both know that there is no other option, right?).
Basically, I think that the various media do have a large amount of control on elections, but it is control via public ignorance more than control via power.
P.S. - Have you read the story about Wal-mart execs telling their employees to vote for McCain? Obama, apparently, would make it too easy for them to unionize.
P.P.S. - It looks like you started Text [Edit] up about the same time I started my blog up. Feel free to hop over and check it out.
I agree with Weston. In my last psych class we talked for about 3 days straight about the power of persuasion and how easy it is for the media to persuade viewers, as well as instigate aggression. 3 key factors in persuasion are, attractiveness, credibility, and time. The news takes careful measures to create seemingly attractive news anchors for us to look at(Riley's case would have to be credibility due to age); a positive physical-attractiveness stereotype causes us to believe that attractive people are smart and outgoing, believable. It is the same tactic used by attorneys to make their clients appear innocent to the jury; dress them up. Credibility comes with the name of the news company such as the simple names FOX and CNN. Those names carry with them the idea of reputible news sources, and people attach those ideas to those names. And everyone knows how much time American's spend watching the news. Repitition is key. And at the point that the message is retained, the source doesn't even matter anymore, because you can dissociate the source and still believe the message.
Don't think that news companies know this? They spend a ton of money each year testing for these results. The only hope that people have is the ability to be able to counterargue against what they're being told. And how should we expect them to do that when the only "Truths" they're hearing is from the same biased lairs who they're trying to arguing against. Is there any safe source of information?
Post a Comment