Will and Jack’s presentation on the media coverage during the Civil War was very interesting to me. In their lecture, they showed the differences between two opposing newspapers, exposing bias from each side. Relating this to the media outlets today, I realized that very little has changed. While there are some talk and television shows that are moderately moderate (cool use of words I know), a majority of our media outlets have a political agenda based on their own views. In turn, the American people benefit but also lose, and as people, we need to realize the best course of action to get the true coverage of important events.
Today’s media has many matchups, if you will. For every conservative mind, there is a liberal one. These are a few competitions I created.
Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Franken
National Review vs. Air America
Bill O’Reilly vs. Keith Olbermann
FoxNews vs. MSNBC
In these particular cases, the names on the left are the more conservative while the names on the right are more liberal. However, in the end, one’s views on a particular media outlet are strictly based on his or her particular perspective. For example, for a liberal like myself, I happen to agree with many of the views Keith Olbermann and Al Franken take on issues. For a conservative, the situation would be reversed. Ultimately, each on of these people or shows is catering to a specific audience of liberals or conservatives.
I first want to point out the some of the problems I see with the way our media presents stories. First, through these extreme views, we end up polarizing Democrats, Republicans, and different views. Furthermore, we create a politics of hate that. Also, rather than cover stories fairly, these hosts turn this into an ego contest, where we end up resorting to elementary type recess fights where the hosts call each other names and bicker at each other (a good video for this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY&NR=1). The last problem is that people only see their particular views. Americans that watch these shows only hear the opinions that cater to their own beliefs, once again polarizing the people of the US.
While this may be more difficult to do, I want to point out some good things about the way our media is constructed. These political adversaries try to balance each other out. They also make politics more interesting for a nation of highly apathetic voters. These hosts also show the freedom the US poses in terms of free speech and the ability to speak against or for the government. Finally, if people watch the shows they disagree with, they can gain a larger perspective in terms of political issues. I would highly encourage people do this.
Last week, Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host, said he “hopes Obama fails” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4xY0G90rHc). While this statement has been somewhat taken out of context, it nicely sums up the American mass media of the 21st century. While it seems obvious there is a terrible nature to this, there is also some good. As an American, I challenge myself to take everything the media presents with an understanding that there is bias so that I can really understand what is going on in our country and the world. In the end, I would highly encourage everyone else to do the same.
5 comments:
Michael, I liked your extremely long post. I think that only watching media that caters to your political views cuts you off from a total understanding of politics. I think that these petty squabbles between hosts like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman ultimately take away from the audience because the hosts are being selfish. In AP Gov, we have talked a lot about how voters know less and less about the actual policies of the candidates that they are voting for, and how the media effects that. If the media was less biased (which probably will never happen), people will have a better knowledge and the ability to make more educated votes.
I really like some of your points here. I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about conservatives only watching conservative shows and liberals only watching more liberal shows. We mentioned this in class, and this may have no relevance here, but a good leader must be open minded. People do not watch shows that check their own beliefs, instead only choosing to watch shows that support what they already think. Watching shows or listening to views that you might not agree with is the right way to form an opinion. Not only will you truly understand the entire issue, but you will in return have more respect for the opposition.
I agree that the news coverage and its following polarizes the US into basically the liberals and conservatives. Also, although these two parties dominate politics, the general public seems to know nothing about who they are voting for. I don't think that the bias of the media would have any difference on the general publics voting knowledge as people usually just expect someone to teach them about it rather than actually learning it themselves. Basically I'm saying that even if the media became less biased people would still be uneducated about politics in general.
I like how you say that all of our political spokesmen (such as the people you listed) are representing the different views of all the american people and how for every democrat, liberal, moderate, ect. spokesman balance each other out.
I think you touched on this, but one of the main goals of any news organization is to gain viewers. Sometimes, the best way to do this is to tell the people what they want to hear. Therefore, bias often gains more of an audience. That being ssaid, I think Paul is absolutely correct when he says that these biases take away from people's (voter's) balanced knowledge.
Post a Comment