The Liberal Media
The republican talk radio shows (you know, with the Rush Limbaughs and the Shawn Hannitys of the world) always talk about the “liberal media.” I know Scars Publications is a part of the media (so to speak), and I don’t think Children, Churches and Daddies is really “liberal.” But when it comes to broadcast journalism, television in particular, we need to objectively ask: is the media liberal, and if so — why?
Before the election, CBS media got in trouble for not checking its sources about the legitimacy of President Bush’s past military experience. They were even documented as saying that they may not have had the guarantees for the legitimacy of their story, but they went with it anyway, because if it wasn’t right, there were other problems with Bush, because, well, they thought he was wrong for the country.
And on election day, they would poll people leaving the booths to see how they voted, and their returns indicated that Kerry was in the lead.
When they saw that their post-voting polling wasn’t accurate, they found that the people looking for results asked mostly women, which may have slanted the vote toward Kerry.
I mean Hell, even fake news shows like the Daily Show seem to revel in their hatred of the Republican Party, and every audience member there praises anything to do with Democrats like Kerry. They would interview conservative politicians, and they would occasionally even get boos form the audience during their interviews.
And I was thinking about this, and I thought about the fact that Bush won a good majority of the states, so I started to think that maybe the media is “liberal.” So the next question I have to ask is, why.
Well, the first reason I’d guess for the media touting liberal ideas would be that they were appealing to what people wanted to hear. Makes sense, because in order to keep people listening, they will report the news — and they’ll also report what people want to hear.
That make sense to me, but...
But if more people voted for Bush, then I would think that more people wouldn’t want to hear all of these views of how wonderful Kerry was.
So then I pulled back to think about this.
Then, I pulled way back. All the way back to looking at the entire country. I looked at the states that had a strong pull for Kerry, versus a strong pull for Bush.
And the thing I noticed was that the Democratic states were states with major cities. Illinois (holding Chicago) went to Kerry. And yeah, living in the Chicago area, I’d go to regular poetry open mics and hear people talk about their utter hatred for Bush. And yeah, the other bigger city players were Democratic states — New York and California both went to Kerry.
Hmm. Okay, so what can that tell me? Keep looking, Janet, and think about what these urban areas have in common and how they effect the government.
Hmm.
Wait, an idea is growing in my head. Let me think this through: Democrats want to expand government programs, and helping to poor, which usually mean more taxes. But who can afford that? Maybe the people who make more money, in the cities, who have to contend with more poor people around and want to give them some sort of relief so... So these poor people aren’t in the way of the rich city-dwellers, working and making money.
No, that can’t be it.
I know this is my editorial, but stop being so opinionated, Janet.
Hmm.
Okay. I’ll get back to thinking more objectively here. Sorry.
I think I’ve got it, but bear with me on this one.
Consider that people in the major cities (like Chicago, or New York, or L.A.) contend with poor people and want to see something done to help them. It may mean more taxes, but this will help these people, and they are willing to pay something extra to help these people out. And heck, if everyone is willing to pitch in just a little, we’d all help and make things better for people in need.
Wow. For a second I felt like I was talking for some relief fund for the starving Ethiopians (or Ethernopians, as Stan Marsh of South Park calls them), and not for people in the United States. (Did I sound like I was from the Red Cross or something when I wrote that last paragraph?)
But that might be a good argument. If people can give money to help people in trouble for other things (poor people in Third World countries, or peole caught in Florida hurricanes who lost their homes), people could be willing to help the needy poor people of this country. And the Democratic Party has become quite the altruistic party, wanting people to give to help other people.
The comforting thing, however, is that the majority of this country doesn’t like giving up their belongings without getting anything in return. The majority of people in this country know that just handing money to people does not help them get out of their problems, because government-granted money should only be a temporary solution to people’s problems, to help them get on their feet and start creating and producing on their own again.
You know, I don’t really know if that’s what the majority of people think. I know that’s what I think, and I just hope that many other people think that way too.
And of the two arguments I posed for why the big city states are liberal, I really prefer to think that the second reason is more accurate.
But then that leaves me with the question I had at the beginning of this editorial: if we’ve inferred that the media is liberal, then we have to ask why.
Hmm. Let me think.
Let me think of where the media comes from.
California. And New York.
Two liberal states.
Do you think the media, stemming from liberal states, could be so objective that it would ignore what it sees all around it — like homeless people trying to get a meal while these broadcast journalists are trying to commute to work at the television station? Like seeing people resorting to drugs and alcohol because they’ve got nothing else, and what little cash they can get is not enough for a new suit for an interview they can’t get for their dream job?
Do you think these people, who commute (possibly in a gas-guzzling expensive SUV) from their nice city flat to their nice city job, see these destitute people daily and want to help them?
You know, to make this world a better place?
Do you think these people would see the squalor and see that there is a political option that would help these people out, through the Democratic Party?
Hmm. Now that I’m thinking about this line of thinking for the media being more liberal, the more I’m getting this idea.
But I guess the thing that bothers me about the notion of the “liberal media” is that a select few locations can decide the way all major (or network) television news leans (instead of being even and just news). And yeah, we’ve also got newspapers and magazines to get news from, but the other problem is that we’re a bunch of Stupid Americans, and it’s a Hell of a lot easier for us to get the news from turning on the free news from our television instead of paying for print media and actually having to read it.
‘Cause reading the news, is, like, work.
So the thing that bugs me is that most people get their news from the liberal news, and people assume it’s not biased, and people almost accept it as the world of God. Do we want people assuming these slanted views are affects of true reporting? Do we want people drawing their conclusions about our world form these slanted views?
Can anyone make an informed decision about anything when they don’t receive all if the information objectively?
Copyright Janet Kuypers.
All rights reserved. No material
may be reprinted without express permission.
|
