Am I the only one sick to death of the sensationalistic media? Apparently, actual reporting involves too much work, or the media believes the consumer (that’s us folks, we’re the ones buying their shit) would rather pollute the airwaves with Cindy Sheehan. And no, I didn’t hyperlink her name; she’s getting enough attention already.
What’s my problem with Cindy Sheehan? My problem resides more with the dimwits that choose to give her more media coverage than other stories, simply because the image of a woman standing outside Bush’s “ranch” attracts a lot of viewers. She’s polarizing, but in a completely masturbatory kind of way. Television directors know she’ll garner support from the left and inflame the right. They’ll be able to get dumbass talking heads like Carville and”¦well I was gonna say Novak but that problem has taken care of itself, but I digress. Political shows will squeeze hours of airtime out of this Sheehan event, and what will come of it? Nothing, unless you count more raw hatred arising between the opposing political parties as something beneficial.
Look, I sympathize with the fact that she lost her son, but what the hell does she expect from Bush? She doesn’t believe he’s been truthful with her or the American people, and she won’t ever believe that, even if he agrees to meet with her. She just wants to yell at him, and as much as I can appreciate that, it’s not really news. We’re never going to come back together as a nation until we stop letting the media and the political extremists manipulate us into choosing up sides like third-graders at a dodgeball game.
We need the media to be the fourth estate they were intended. Where are all the stories about “Able Danger”? Where were the in-depth news stories about the leaked Downing Street Memo? Where is an actual news story (nope, FoxNews doesn’t count) about the Air America scandal. I guess those stories can’t be combined with flashy music and catchy graphics.
When Jon Stewart made his infamous appearance on Crossfire and told Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala they were partisan hacks, I’m not sure that most people understood what Jon meant with that statement (Go here to watch a clip of that show). I’m pretty sure most people just assume a “hack” is someone who isn’t very good at what they do. Actually, the term probably comes from 18th century London, and was most likely coined in describing the writers that worked on Grub Street. These writers were notorious for printing whatever they were told to print, and they were usually told to print the most inflammatory stories that would guarantee high circulation. By definition a hack is “a writer for hire, paid to express others’ thoughts or opinions [emphasis mine] in felicitous verbiage, often in the form of political pamphlets.” Almost every news story you see is “hack.” The commentators don’t write what they are reading off the teleprompter, and we’ve seen numerous stories showing media personalities as having been hired by the current administration.
We need real news and we just aren’t getting it. We’re getting the subjects that sound entertaining when they’re argued by a lefty and a righty, and Cindy Sheehan is the latest subject the media has latched onto.
This post has been removed by the author.
How ironic that the comment I receive on this post falls right into the extremist right, whose only mission would be to rally the troops and further the distance between the two parties. Obviously, he missed the whole point of my post. Perhaps Mark should do some research and he would come to see that the “left wing media” is a complete fabrication. If we’re talking political affiliation of news media personalities the conservatives have the numbers and the louder voice. But as I stated in my post, I think the political affiliation is really beside the point. They don’t give a damn which side they support, they only care about what draws numbers, and they know that antagonistic, hate-filled broadcasts do that for both sides. People that really, really, hate Bill O’Reilly still watch him, and the same goes for Al Franken. So, their extreme points of view work on both sides for different reasons. Do I think that Cindy Sheehan is a liar? Not really. She’s just a mother that misses her little boy and wants someone to blame. The media, and by media I mean both sides, are encouraging her by putting her on the air. Both sides gain from this whole debacle, isn’t that obvious? The left gets to say “Look the president doesn’t give a damn about the little people,” and the right gets to say “Look at those crazy lefties, they’re so desperate they’ll manipulate that woman’s pain”. It’s just another way the media can gather ratings, and therefore sell advertising, and they don’t have to do any actual work or engage in constructive discourse.
Comments like Mark’s are worthless because they’re so naÃ¯ve and ill-informed…and his name was so promising.