Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Saturday Morning Rant

If you care about world events, this is the single most important web site you need to open up every single damn day:


It doesn’t matter to me whether someone is progressive, conservative, ultra-liberal, or whether they hug donkeys or kiss elephants on election day, so don’t take this as a partisan post. Everyone should vote their conscience, and while I don’t share the ideologies of some, I respect the ethics of the individual and the essence of democracy. However, it is almost impossible to make educated choices if truth in the media is so easy to skew. Every day of my life, I see, on the news, opinion presented as fact. Shouldn’t that be relegated to the op/ed columns? I see people’s words deliberately misquoted for the sake of a story, or to drive a point home. Is it just me, or is that grossly unethical?

I have about 500 examples I want to present, but for the sake of saving space and sparing your eyes, I’ll let it go. This isn’t just my opinion, this is a fact: bullshit yellow-stained journalism hurts /everyone/. Knowing half the facts /hurts everyone/. Making choices that shape the world based on misrepresentation and manipulation is just plain wrong.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 16th, 2006 07:12 pm (UTC)
I know, and working in the media on the much, much smaller scale of local news, people always think that we're trying to do this too, so the bad guys in the mass media are making us all look bad!

I've always felt, as an editor of a small paper, that I shouldn't even have an op-ed column because being forced to take a side on an issue makes people think that the whole paper is going to be biased in that direction.

(My least favorite thing btw is when people take an obvious distortion and pose it as a question at the bottom of the screen. "Does Hilary Clinton eat babies for breakfast?" Even though the answer is no, they've put the question out there and people will wonder -- gee, why is this even a question? There must be some truth to it...it was on the TV!")
Dec. 16th, 2006 07:14 pm (UTC)
I love Media Matter. David Brock is my hero. :)
Dec. 16th, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC)
I completely agree. That's why I get 95% of my news from NPR. Their sympathies may slant left, but they always have guests from varied backgrounds and parties, and they treat them all with respect, even the obvious wackos.
Dec. 16th, 2006 08:00 pm (UTC)
integrity & language
I miss the days when specific words had specific definitions. Remember that? Nowadays, it just seems like a free for all. Twist and turn things and allow them to mean whatever they need to as long as it promotes your regime.

Liberation = Occupation would be just one of the *many* examples...

Years ago, I decided to start calling it oppo-speak. Whatever the official line is, you have a good chance of forming a more accurate interpretation of it's real meaning if you turn it around to the opposite of what it "sounds" like. "Patriot Act" for example... Nice name for something that symbolically tore asunder parts of the Consitution.

Take something negative ~ give it a positive name. Eventually people will buy into it. Right?
Dec. 16th, 2006 10:25 pm (UTC)
Re: integrity & language
A concept thoroughly explored by Orwell in 1984, who called it "newspeak".
Dec. 16th, 2006 08:40 pm (UTC)
"I miss my donkey..."
Seriously, that is an excellent site. I get so sick of seeing things slant one way or the other entirely.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )