Study: Media Covered Up Rev. Wright's Extremism Quote:
| None of the Big Three aired any of Wright’s 2003 sermon accusing the federal government of hiding the truth about their “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” and all three “mostly ignored” his remarks calling the 9/11 attacks “America’s chickens coming home to roost.” |
Newsmax.com – Study: Media Covered Up Rev. Wright's Extremism Quote:
| “But voters who sampled only a light menu of news from Big Three network TV could easily have missed the depths of Reverend Wright’s outrageous remarks. No one could find in these stories a scouring scrutiny of Obama’s decades of membership in his controversial church.” |
Here's a secret. The media is supposed to be a public servant. It is supposed to watch out for us. Remember that.
They may sometimes lead the way, and we may slavishly follow it. But the people in charge of the media are constantly looking to please and cater to OUR needs, our demands and our whims. And in that context the media should accommodate their audience's infatuation or even obsession with Obama. But they should also
equally accommodate our intense preference for John McCain. (Sports announcers manage to remain objective and impartial. News people can do it too, if we want them to.)
But in this election season the media has abrogated their responsibility to us. They have ceased to fulfill their obligation and instead they have become consumers. It's like your company IT guy stops responding immediately to your computer problems and instead schedules your problem around his online postings here at DP. But even though they have given up the idea of objectivity they continue to do whatever is necessary to keep the ad revenues flowing.
What is behind this seemingly sudden lack of professionalism?
I'm not really sure, but I think the age of YouTube and handheld mini-DV or memory chip video cameras might have something to do with it. Also, we have a grown-up generation of idealists who haven't earned the kind of acclaim for
important journalism but they recall the Viet Nam protest era and now, stoked by the evangelistic icons: Woodward, Lennon & Bernstein, they are giving it their last shot to try to save the world, bring down the evil Neo governmentalists and breathe life into a Beatle's Imagined sophistry.
They see themselves following a higher calling than that of objective journalism.
They believe they must HELP to elect the magic ONE and with that accomplished, their mission in life will have been fulfilled. And any lapses in judgment or detours from professionalism on their part will be forgiven. (After all, how badly can they be screwing the pooch, they'd reckon, when the management still gives them a paycheck every other week?)
But what if they are wrong? (For the sake of argument let's say this Q. is rhetorical.) What if actively helping to elect the magic ONE was not the right thing to do?
What should they have done differently and why? What was the unspoken responsibility THEY KNEW NO ONE ELSE IN OUR SOCIETY WOULD ASSUME if they didn't do it? The media was expected to stand guard at the door and watch out for anyone trying to get into the White House without the right credentials. And if anyone or anything looked suspicious they were supposed to investigate whatever it was and report to us what they discovered.
But in the case of the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama have they done that? Not responsibly. They have indulged their own self interests and partisan political beliefs. They have sat back and lapped up the money pouring over them. And life has been so good and so tilted in their direction that they don't even pretend to care about their journalistic standards or the awesome responsibility they were once entrusted with but have allowed to go only haphazardly tended.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of a healthy, vigorous, impartial and skeptical media to our freedoms in general and to our election process in particular. The media is our ONLY consumer protection against bad government. If they don't vigorously hunt down and investigate story leads, a handsome, skillful, ambitious and intelligent liar might be as much in control of the electoral process as a used car salesman leading a naive young buyer to a "Good Deal."
The media is supposed to be our servant. And one of the functions it performs in the electoral process is to provide us a form of consumer protection. We are used to Consumer Protection in America. It allows us to make emotion-based buying decisions without much worry.
When you see the cute dog on TV begging for Beggin Strips you needn't worry whether the snacks were safe and nutritious, the Government has assured you it is. You can simply go and buy it if you have the money and the urge. That is one level of consumer protection.
But if the government inadvertently lets a bad batch through you can get a refund of the purchase price at the store. In our supply/demand competitive, capitalist marketplace a manufacturer has to provide a good product and good service to stay in business. That's another level of consumer protection. You can stop feeding it to Rex if he doesn't like it or it makes him ill. That is another level of consumer protection.
So, think about it. If the media does not aggressively, vigorously, check out the questionable areas of a candidate's history who will do it? And if no one does it, what would our recourse be?
You say that if the candidate is honest like Obama then we can take him at his word.
That goes against human nature. If a candidate wants the job there is not much he or she might not say or not say in order to get the job if he knows that no one will check his story too deeply...or at all.
Our media has abandoned their responsibility to us.
They are supposed to investigate what might be clues of problems in our presidential candidates. They are our only defense against ill-suited, sub-standard or mal-intended actors gaining access to the greatest seat of power in the world.
And while we are partying and fawning over the candidate and not paying too close attention, the media has joined us in the fawning and we feel good because they are on OUR side. But like in the Kevin Costner/Whitney Houston film, The Bodyguard, the bodyguard isn't paid to be one of the gang. In that capacity he does no one any good and is an embarrassment to his profession and a danger to himself and his client.
We are the media's client. The major tv networks, national magazines and newspapers are on the good times bandwagon with us for Obama and because they do it and because we allow it, they are failing to vet the candidates properly.
They certainly haven't done a good job here, have they?
Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright: Former Muslim | Infidels Are Cool
After this election I hope to see a thorough investigation of the role the media plays in our society and after the investigation I hope there will be an INDUSTRY WIDE change to institute new regulations for self governance so that this dangerous breach and this shameful dereliction of duty by the American media is never allowed to happen again.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
