Saturday, March 10, 2012

Political Science Discussion Board

As I sit here looking at the five choices we have for this week's discussion board I cannot help but feel they are not indicative of what truly transpires with our nation's press in the coverage of news events, at least, not in a modern context; therefore, I shall provide commentary that, hopefully, will address some--if not all--available discussion questions.
I recall watching a local news channel several years ago and as Dawn Hobby's image came into focus she greeted the audience and said, "This is the news we feel you should know at this time." After all these years this has remained engraved in my mind, and I suppose the reason is that--at least to me--it was the first time I felt I was truly encountering a form of censorship, being made to accept what was being offered instead of the myriad of other items that could have been presented; additionally, it was the emphasis she placed on "we feel". To a degree, this was covered on page 269 of our text (The American Democracy, 10th Edition) under the heading "Informing the Public, or Attracting an Audience?" sentences two, three, and four of the second paragraph. While I am sure that news stations make decisions every day on what they will or will not cover, to be told this was rather upsetting; as a result, I never again watched the news on that channel.
Though dead less than two months before I was born, Edward R. Murrow was revered by his peers for his honesty and dedication to truth. http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=murrowedwar. The same was said of Walter Cronkite http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-07-17/news/17929428_1_anchor-seat-walter-cronkite-cbs-anchor, who earned the title "The most trusted man in America." What these men brought to the news industry in general and Americans as a whole was a belief that the news was not tainted by partisanship or unfounded opinion but was pure in its delivery by its messenger. Objective press may have superseded partisan press--and let it be known that I do not agree with censorship in any form--but I believe the unbiased reporting of legitimate, newsworthy items--insofar as the arena of politics is concerned--came to an end the day the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine. In recent history the ONLY news program that has provided a completely unbiased view of politics was Hannity and Colmes, and this is because two opposing views could be presented and debated on and leave viewers with a sense of better understanding. Meet the Press? 60 Minutes? There seems to be a liberal agenda underlying their reporting on the issues of the day, and I can certainly do without that. I am a conservative; I have let this fact be known in previous posts. This does not mean that I wholly agree with any conservative newscast or newscaster, but I am inclined to place more faith in the FOX tagline "We report, you decide" as opposed to the blatantly obvious partisanship of MSNBC. The Associated Press helps to lessen partisanship to some degree, but overall is it still prevalent in our news agencies.
I believe modern media has but two roles, not four, and those would be misdirection and sensationalism. Many people thrive on gossip while not caring one way or the other how the political landscape is progressing, unless the gossip surrounds a politico. Our text made a perfect example of this in reference to Mark Sanford's tryst, and we have but to look less than a year into our past to remember Anthony Weiner http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-anthony-weiner-picture/story?id=13774605 and his inappropriate acts. Currently we have the Limbaugh Fiasco we can look at, but if he was not a man of celebrity would this situation have gotten so far out of hand? Rush likes to state that he is right "99.9% of the time," so do we relegate this faux pas as the .1% he is wrong? Should he have said what he did? Let us look at the big picture. Sandra Fluke, a law student, was complaining that she did not have FREE ACCESS to birth control http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-fluke-s-3000-contraception-testimony-factual-despite-9-month-birth-control-pills. First of all, what is with this sense of entitlement that she feels her birth control devices/medications should be paid for by the government? Second, she quoted a price of three thousand dollars for the entirety of her stay at Georgetown. Slut? Prostitute? Anyway one chooses to look at it, that's a hell of a lot of sex going on, and since she and a partner are having this consensual sex, why do they feel it is not their obligation to pay for contraception themselves? All in all, Rush may have pushed the envelope, but not to the degree where he should have apologized--and his apology was more for his sponsors than Ms. Fluke anyway. The thing is, the liberals jumped all over this, jeering and chiding Limbaugh even as the echoes of their laughter continue to resonate every time Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin "dumb twat" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGE3G5kfzps and "cunt" http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/report-bill-maher-doubles-down-calls-sarah-palin-c-word/. The bottom line is that the only uniformity we see much anymore is partisanship, and the belief that the double standard should exist in favor of the drive-by media.