I just read an interesting quote: supposedly, Tommy Chong said that "The GOP-run media is using 'Parisgate' as a distraction." Now, of course, just because somebody said that Tommy Chong actually said that, doesn't mean that he actually did. If he did say it, it doesn't necessarily mean that he believes it--after all, what have you heard from TC lately, other than his jail sentence for misdemeanor possession (more on that later)? It seems to me that he may be just trying to garner some attention. This link supposedly has video of TC spouting the above quote (but I couldn't get the video to play on my computer): http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/11/tommy-chong-the-gop-run-media-is-using-parisgate-as-a-distraction/
Anyway, let's examine the statement. If the GOP controlled the media, do you really think that we would be hearing all the criticism in the media about GOP policies? Wouldn't a GOP-run media tell us about how well the war in Iraq is going? Mission accomplished! we have lost a few soldiers in 'training accidents' in Iraq, but nothing serious. Everything is going well. Isn't that the sort of news you would expect?
I think that the basic mistake is that the media (in general) is pushing a particular political agenda. I think that there are individuals in the media that are, but that the media itself is not. If you look at media coverage of our elected officials, generally, in the early days of a given administration, the media gives whoever favorable coverage, but after they've been in office a few months, the coverage starts to get less and less favorable. The coverage that President Bush has gotten lately makes it seem as if the media is controlled by the DNC, but the coverage that President Clinton got during his last days in office supports the GOP-run media theory. A lot of people seem to think that the purpose of a news agency is to report the news. It's not. The purpose of a news agency is to sell advertising. If a news agency thinks that it can sell more newspapers (and thereby get their ads in the hands of more people) by covering Paris Hilton's escapades than by reporting on the war in Iraq, then that's exactly what they are going to do. If a television news program thinks that more people want to hear about Pat Tillman than Rosie O'Donnell, then that's what they are going to report on. Is that fair? No, not really, but that's the way it is.
I got into a discussion a few years ago with a guy that was of the opinion that John F. Kennedy Jr. should not be entitled to more and better search and rescue operations than ordinary citizens. Well, I don't know too many 'ordinary citizens' who get lost at sea when their private jet goes down, but anyway, okay, basically, I agree, a person lost at sea should expect to be looked for, whether they are rich and/or politically connected or not. But I pointed out to him that just because JFK Jr. got more media coverage, it didn't necessarily follow that he got more rescuers looking for him. I explained that usually when somebody goes missing, the media only really covers it locally, where that individual is known, as opposed to JFK Jr. who was nationally known, and was the son (and namesake) of one of the most popular presidents ever. His search and rescue merits national attention, and he ends up getting a lot more media coverage. His response was that he wasn't talking about the media coverage, he was talking about the efforts being expended to try to find him. So I asked him why he thought more effort was going into the JFK Jr. SAR than for Joe Average. His response: Just look at the media coverage.
I'm sorry, but you are never going to get the whole story from the media coverage, no matter who happens to be controlling the media. Even when you have news agencies with editors and reporters that are legitimately committed to reporting the news without bias, when you get right down to it, the organization has to make a profit. If you can't attract people's attention, you can't sell advertising. And if your news offends the sensibilities of the companies that are buying your ad-space, something's gonna give. Sometimes the truth is a casualty of reporting the news.
Anyway, let's examine the statement. If the GOP controlled the media, do you really think that we would be hearing all the criticism in the media about GOP policies? Wouldn't a GOP-run media tell us about how well the war in Iraq is going? Mission accomplished! we have lost a few soldiers in 'training accidents' in Iraq, but nothing serious. Everything is going well. Isn't that the sort of news you would expect?
I think that the basic mistake is that the media (in general) is pushing a particular political agenda. I think that there are individuals in the media that are, but that the media itself is not. If you look at media coverage of our elected officials, generally, in the early days of a given administration, the media gives whoever favorable coverage, but after they've been in office a few months, the coverage starts to get less and less favorable. The coverage that President Bush has gotten lately makes it seem as if the media is controlled by the DNC, but the coverage that President Clinton got during his last days in office supports the GOP-run media theory. A lot of people seem to think that the purpose of a news agency is to report the news. It's not. The purpose of a news agency is to sell advertising. If a news agency thinks that it can sell more newspapers (and thereby get their ads in the hands of more people) by covering Paris Hilton's escapades than by reporting on the war in Iraq, then that's exactly what they are going to do. If a television news program thinks that more people want to hear about Pat Tillman than Rosie O'Donnell, then that's what they are going to report on. Is that fair? No, not really, but that's the way it is.
I got into a discussion a few years ago with a guy that was of the opinion that John F. Kennedy Jr. should not be entitled to more and better search and rescue operations than ordinary citizens. Well, I don't know too many 'ordinary citizens' who get lost at sea when their private jet goes down, but anyway, okay, basically, I agree, a person lost at sea should expect to be looked for, whether they are rich and/or politically connected or not. But I pointed out to him that just because JFK Jr. got more media coverage, it didn't necessarily follow that he got more rescuers looking for him. I explained that usually when somebody goes missing, the media only really covers it locally, where that individual is known, as opposed to JFK Jr. who was nationally known, and was the son (and namesake) of one of the most popular presidents ever. His search and rescue merits national attention, and he ends up getting a lot more media coverage. His response was that he wasn't talking about the media coverage, he was talking about the efforts being expended to try to find him. So I asked him why he thought more effort was going into the JFK Jr. SAR than for Joe Average. His response: Just look at the media coverage.
I'm sorry, but you are never going to get the whole story from the media coverage, no matter who happens to be controlling the media. Even when you have news agencies with editors and reporters that are legitimately committed to reporting the news without bias, when you get right down to it, the organization has to make a profit. If you can't attract people's attention, you can't sell advertising. And if your news offends the sensibilities of the companies that are buying your ad-space, something's gonna give. Sometimes the truth is a casualty of reporting the news.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment