I just do not get it. My hope is that while I write that logic or reason will seep in that enables me to understand the liberal media's quest to soil Sarah Palin. No one had heard of the former Alaskan Governor prior to Sen. McCain's decision to add her to the Republican Presidential ticket. Since that time she was quit as Governor and written a new book called "Going Rogue". Today she is at Fort Bragg signing books. At first there was not going to be media allowed then outcry came from the liberal press to which a change was made to allow media attendance at the book signing. It is a book signing, yet the liberal media is doing what it can to discredit and discount Governor Palin. Why?
The latest issue of Newsweek had Sarah Palin on the cover. The photo on the cover had Sarah Palin in a jogging suit that was originally shot for a different magazine. Newsweek posed the question "How Do you solve a problem like Sarah?" on the cover with the tag line of "she's bad news for the GOP – and for everybody else, too." I still don't get it. What is it about Sarah Palin that scares the liberal press? Perhaps the Augusta Chronicle editorial staff member has it right as to the hysteria of media probing of Palin by stating, "We understand the media's fear. Sarah Palin embodies a conservative values system that horrifies liberals. But what's really frightening is how the media take those values and reflect them in a funhouse mirror back to the public, trying to pass that off as the truth"(http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/11/23/edi_556743.shtml).
Over the weekend the Senate finally moved forward on health care reform by voting to allow the bill to the floor. So, why is that not the hot topic of the day? Why is the liberal media not digging into the bill to vet it, to bring to light the amount of new taxes, to investigate the purpose of the Health Benefits Advisory Board, or why the bill, if passed, does not establish a public option until 4 or 5 years later? Instead the media is spending a lot of air time to the Sarah Palin book tour. In reading the news articles about Sarah Palin, I may have found my answer in a blogger on The Huffington Post. Eric Boehlert posted "Palin's book and Obama's bow: A media week to forget" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/palins-book-and-obamas-bo_b_367325.html). Mr. Boehlert lashes out at the mass media as reporting on "pointless, vacuous 'news' stories" because it is "easy, lazy, and safe thing" to report on.
President Obama has not even been in office a year, yet the media is doing what they can to discuss the faults of Sarah Palin. Can the media please get back to solid, investigative reporting of the news of the day? All this addiction by the liberal press to cover the Palin book tour does is distracting the public from the real news of the day. Well I guess I did get my answer to my original point. Journalism is dead in the United States and people are not really interested in items that will affect our lives like health care reform, increase taxes, mounting debt, printing of money by the Fed, and the elephant in the room; inflation.
Food for thought...
ReplyDeleteWhy do conservatives keep calling it the "Liberal Media"? Truthfully, there is no proof that the media is overtly liberal and never has been. Those conservatives, to me, simply don't like what the media is reporting to them.
Now, I am quite progressive, and I certainly can agree that Sarah Palin is a non-issue. I may have my personal opinions about her but in context she is no longer the governor of Alaska so her polital views are pointless. So why is she so popular? Because true journalism has fallen to the "National Equirer" style. Conflict is the new medium. Why is Fox News so popular? Why did MSNBC jump into the fray? Glenn Beck REALLY only wants to sell books.
Conflict.
You ask really good questions about the healthcare bill(as you should) but nobody cares what you think. They care what Sarah Palin thinks.
Or Newt Gingrich.
They interview the most fringe right-wing congressman/senator about what they think of healthcare reform. And the other side will interview the fringe left-wing, and so on.
Hannity interviewed CHUCK NORRIS the other night.
Really?
What expertise does he have to try and sway my belief one way or the other?
Personally, I stick with NPR. It's not perfect but the reporting is balanced and more often than not accurate.
Let's face it, with the exception of FoxNews every major outlet reports the news from a strong progressive slant. The worst being MSNBC or NBC in general.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that rolling out Chuck Norris or any other celebrity just does not make a lot of sense. And yes, who in the government is going to want to listen to guy sitting in his living in small town Minnesota. That being said, I will continue to write my congress members and the president. Maybe sometime someone will listen.
I heard a rumor that NPR is planning on establishing a regular news program too. As to your question why Fox News is so popular. Simply put it is the only news outlet that offers a slant opposite of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC. Now I did blog about the absurd attacks being made by the White House on Foxnews channel.
Extreme's does make, at least it seems, good ratings. It is those great ratings that has killed journalism; print media included.
Politics is the new entertainment...and I don't care what you say, FoxNews is popular for the controversy that follows their bombastic opinion shows. They are guilty of marginalizing, not just disagreeing with those who see things left of center. But it is hard for you to see those things because you probably agree with a majority of what they opine. And nobody has ever said they can't do it. MSNBC is trying to get a foot-hold in the opposite manor with some limited success.
ReplyDeleteI think the "attacks" that the White House made on Fox News was waaay overblown. I mean c'mon...they haven't been very nice to him, not that they need to be, but one of his advisers makes a comment that is critical of the reporting of Fox News and somehow a huge war erupts. I believe that Bush publically disavowed the New York Times and never gave an interview to Mike Wallace, who had been interviewing presidents since Eisenhower.
I personally think that the main problem is that people really have a hard time making their own decisions anymore. Mass media has really infected how were supposed to react to issues. We as a nation are drawn in to controversy, stamped, and labeled as who we are without us really realizing what we truly believe. A lot of it is corporate america which makes billions off the 24 news and opinion cycle.
I am glad that you sit in small town Minnesota and blog about current issues. I don't always agree with what you say, but this outlet is good to express my opinions and I hope to enlighten some. My eternal fear is that I become marginalized because of my progressive slant. I have had conflicts with individuals personally just because I see things more liberally. I really don't understand it and our nation is weaker because of it.
You are right on the mark when you see the main problem being people not making the tough decisions. Which is part of the reason, I believe, that our government has grown unchecked for so long. In regards to Fox's opinion ranters and the MSNBC ranters I watch as a soruce of entertainment and feel that somewhere in there the truth lies.
ReplyDeleteAm a bit confused on how Corporate America makes money off of the 24 hour news cycle. Don't see how Goldman Sachs, GM, IBM, Microsoft or the Minnesota Vikings make money off the 24 hour news cycle.
While I know that hundreds of people are reading our discussions (at least that is what google analytics is telling me), it would be more robust if others chimed in more. Understandably we are all busy and trying to keep up with the news of the day can be a bit overwhelming with all the outlets available.
If I marginalize your comments, please drop me a line as I try not to as it does not lead to positive dialogue. Thanks for your continued participation.
You got me...using the euphamism "corporate america" to describe one or two media corporations. But my point is that to make the billions that they profit and attract investors, they need a product to get the majority of America to watch. That would be political conflict.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, you don't marginalize my comments at all.
Actually, it would be corporate America. Large companies advertise on shows that have high viewers. They do so because the advertising improves their sales. So the more controversial, the more viewers, which means more eyes seeing those ads which results in more sales.
ReplyDeleteCould you please provide some independent source that shows a liberal slant? Is that just your opinion?
I don't think the White House fears Palin at all. However, if she wants to be in the news, to go on book tours, to be in the media, to push half truths and death panel lies, then she needs to expect some criticism as well. She's positioning herself to run for President and it's only go to get worse. It comes with the territory.
I wrote this in my blog entry Fox News vs. White House: Sound Strategy? back on October 14th:
ReplyDeleteThe Pew Research Center (an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization) tracked campaign stories during the 2008 Presidentail election. It found that Fox News showed 40% negative stories on Obama as well as 40% on Republican candidate Sen. McCain. Over at CNN the contrast was a 22-point difference with 39% negative stories on Obama and 61% negative stories on McCain. Then we have MSNBC that ran only 14% negative stories on Obama while running 73% negatiave stories on McCain.
I would have to review Pew Research group again to see if any updated data is given on media slant.