Today I write because the compulsion is simply too great not to.
The horrible tragedy that befell our nation Saturday simply cannot be ignored. In a 24 hour news cycle of non-troversies and banal political banter, the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and the murder of 6 innocent bystanders is simply too horrific to let pass by, regardless of your political involvement or affiliation.
The question one has to ask in a situation like this is: why? Why did that young girl, recently elected to the student council, or those two 70 year-old churchgoing women have to lose their lives? What purpose did the gunman serve and why must six perfectly innocent people fall?
As for the deaths of the innocent victims, I'm afraid the only answer is that we live in a world full of imperfection. No one can truly say that their death was for some cosmic reason. Unfortunately, we live in a world where tragedy, suffering, and devastation can, and do, occur.
As for the gunman, Jared L. Loughner, and his purpose, we know a handful of things. First of all, the individual was mentally unstable (see the previous link). The question then becomes, why did he target Rep. Giffords? Aside from his rambling and incoherent political writings on government control and brainwashing, rumors are now circulating that his unhappiness with an answer to a forum question a few years ago lead him to loosely target the representative.
However, is one forum question enough to spark a tragedy like this? One cannot ignore the nature of our political rhetoric in these times; the vitriol, the hate, the violence, and the fear-mongering are simply so great that they've lead even rational individuals to see our government and our society in ways that were previously regarded as ramblings of the fringe. In an environment like this, with Tea Party Republicans and even some mainstream Republicans resorting to the most base of political tactics in order to win election, is it so far-fetched to believe that an individual like Loughner could be driven to violence if listening to and believing the rhetoric of a handful of over-the-top political pundits?
The answer historically is no. The murder of George Tiller, an abortion doctor in Kansas, revealed that Bill O'Reilly had targeted the doctor no less than 29 times since 2005. On a topic as contentious as abortion with such a robust history of violence, was O'Reilly directly responsible for the doctor's death? Certainly not. However, by keeping the figure in the public eye and combining that exposure with violent and hateful rhetoric, the pundit certainly did nothing to quell this sort of violence.
The attempted shooting at an Oakland Tides Foundation is another example, in which a shooter, in this case an avid listener of Glenn Beck, took his cues from the talk show host and acted on that language. Does Glenn Beck deserve credit for the shooting? Certainly not. However, the misrepresentation of the organization, hateful rhetoric, violent suggestions, to a wide viewership were certainly no hindrance to the violence on that day.
Returning to Loughner, the context of violence is also present. A Sarah Palin PAC pamphlet targeting Rep. Giffords with crosshairs and a Jesse Kelly campaign event in which attendees could shoot an M16 to "Get on Target" and "Remove Gabrielle Giffords" created a context of violence that, when provided for mentally disturbed individuals, certainly did nothing to prevent what happened this past Saturday.
Conservatives have scrambled to remove themselves from this discussion, but one cannot ignore the "2nd amendment solutions" and anti-government tilt of this past election season on the part of the Right. In an interview on Face the Nation, Senator John Kyl glossed briefly over the tragedy and then launched into a discussion of how we cannot rush to blame Republicans for the violence. I think they doth protest too much.
At the end of the day, the fact remains that while Republicans are not directly responsible for what occurred in Tuscon, it is simply irresponsible to throw around such revolutionary rhetoric when individuals like Jared Loughner are willing to take them to their logical conclusion. The beauty of this country lies in debate; we share our views and contest them without damage to each other or ourselves. That beauty is marred when a context of violence drives individuals to silence those they disagree with.
Embedding was disabled, however Bob Schieffer sums it up best in this Face the Nation monologue.
As someone with a public forum on which to post, I hope this post has rattled someone. I hope that my writings have shaken the discussion. Because frankly, without creating a conflict, how can we hope to discuss what can make our country a better place?
For Giffords, I write today to piss someone off as a demonstration of what makes our country great: moderated, intelligent, discussion.
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Root of the Problem
I stumbled across an article from Crooks and Liars on Current.com this morning that I found very poignant.
What's fact got to do with it?
Go ahead, read up.
Okay, if you decided not to read then I'll give you the bullet points (in a bulleted list of course):
My problem, though, is with their proposed solutions. There really is no public accountability for news organizations, since any attempt to regulate them finds one lambasted in "1st amendment" arguments, there really is no natural, commercial way to regulate them, since the sensationalist, fear based reporting is what brings in the big bucks, and there is no natural psychological way to moderate them since, as C&L mentioned, the bias is built into us.
So I'm asking you guys, what can we do? As intelligent individuals, its not as difficult for us to question and re-shape our beliefs when presented with legitimate facts contrary to our already-held beliefs. But what about those mired a little deeper in the information quagmire with less tools to escape? Frankly, I think that improving self-esteem has already failed miserably, since it has created the most narcissistic generation of all time (extreme narcissists are even less likely to accept facts that contradict their subjective reality).
For my money, I think a cultural shift is required. The "information age" was supposed to bring about this utopia of enlightened minds but it has instead brought people's attention spans to their knees. According to recent studies (mentioned here for example) our attention span has actually regressed to the point that it resembles that of our primitive ancestors; analyzing every rustle and movement in search for predators. In order to counter-act the fast-paced news cycle, scanning of information, and deleterious effects of shallow conversation and thought, our culture must shift back from a rapid-fire information fueled one to a more pensive, more thoughtful, more deliberate one. That way people might instead analyze information more thoroughly as it comes to them, perhaps diffusing the hegemony of errant opinions based on flimsy facts in the first place.
Unfortunately, this one could be pretty hard to legislate.
But hell, what do you think? I believe we have enough intelligent people reading this blog to come up with a real solution. Just put your fingers on the keys and fire away.
What's fact got to do with it?
Go ahead, read up.
Okay, if you decided not to read then I'll give you the bullet points (in a bulleted list of course):
- In the age of information, one could reasonably believe that information and fact should undo erroneous beliefs
- However, new studies show that instead of undoing such beliefs, it actually strengthens them
- Furthermore, scientific studies show that fear and the perception of threat also prevents people from accepting fact as, well, fact
- C&L's solution then is to bring the hammer down on news corporations, since the bias that fuels this phenomenon is built into our psychology
- Another solution they present is to tap into findings showing that those with higher self-esteem are more comfortable changing their minds
My problem, though, is with their proposed solutions. There really is no public accountability for news organizations, since any attempt to regulate them finds one lambasted in "1st amendment" arguments, there really is no natural, commercial way to regulate them, since the sensationalist, fear based reporting is what brings in the big bucks, and there is no natural psychological way to moderate them since, as C&L mentioned, the bias is built into us.
So I'm asking you guys, what can we do? As intelligent individuals, its not as difficult for us to question and re-shape our beliefs when presented with legitimate facts contrary to our already-held beliefs. But what about those mired a little deeper in the information quagmire with less tools to escape? Frankly, I think that improving self-esteem has already failed miserably, since it has created the most narcissistic generation of all time (extreme narcissists are even less likely to accept facts that contradict their subjective reality).
For my money, I think a cultural shift is required. The "information age" was supposed to bring about this utopia of enlightened minds but it has instead brought people's attention spans to their knees. According to recent studies (mentioned here for example) our attention span has actually regressed to the point that it resembles that of our primitive ancestors; analyzing every rustle and movement in search for predators. In order to counter-act the fast-paced news cycle, scanning of information, and deleterious effects of shallow conversation and thought, our culture must shift back from a rapid-fire information fueled one to a more pensive, more thoughtful, more deliberate one. That way people might instead analyze information more thoroughly as it comes to them, perhaps diffusing the hegemony of errant opinions based on flimsy facts in the first place.
Unfortunately, this one could be pretty hard to legislate.
But hell, what do you think? I believe we have enough intelligent people reading this blog to come up with a real solution. Just put your fingers on the keys and fire away.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Constructive Profiling, A Rogue Strategy
Well done Ms. Palin, my head is spinning.
Now I hate picking on people and with my recent coverage of Sarah Palin, it feels like I am. But when someone consistently provides comments like this with blatant disregard for human decency (or perhaps her own political career), she deserves several posts.
In the video, Ms. Palin speaks of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claiming that it was "a fear of being politically incorrect that we did not...profile this guy." She also claims that there were "massive warning flags" including evidence of his contact with Al-Qaeda. This despite evidence that Hasan was self-radicalized, not an operative of Al-Qaeda, which would, through a conservative lens, make Fort Hood a terrorist attack.
"Profiling in the context of doing whatever we can to save American lives, I'm all for it then," she states with proud defiance, seemingly enticed by the idea of making "liberal heads...spin".
Now where do you start? How about here: 93% of Fox News viewers believe that Hasan was a trained terrorist and that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, which he and it were not. Palin's remarks perfectly walk the line provided by the evidently defunct political machine posing as a journalism bureau Fox News.
The warrant-less tap on his email would have been a gross invasion of civil liberties and while it might have saved the victims of Fort Hood, we cannot lose our humanity in order to save human lives. It has been clear since the attack on September 11th that Fox-Republicans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties and rights provided under the clearest articles of the constitution for the sake of catching this unknown and unseen enemy, "the terrorist." The finger pointing and disregard for the law coupled with rampant paranoia is borderline McCarthyist.
Radical is apparently a word for "not my" when juxtaposed with beliefs in the Fox-right camp. Though Hasan was a muslim, his rampage was fueled more by psychological unrest than with belief in someone other than Jesus. Of course, the ultimate irony is that while Ms. Palin condemns the mentally ill for having "radical" (read: non-Christian) beliefs, she herself just released "Going Rogue" which proclaims how much different she is from the typical Republican. Different? Rogue? Radical perhaps?
And finally, yes my head is spinning since you used the term profiling Sarah, but only because the treatment of Muslims in this country has been blatantly racist under the guise of constructive profiling the whole time. The idea that we should allow and accept undue profiling of Muslims in defense of Americans is, again, losing our humanity to save human lives.
I apologize for the rant since I know that all of us understand just how absurd her remarks are. Heck, all of us understand how absurd her presidential bid is. But when millions of Americans listen to her errant statements and accept them as fact, her comments need to be responded to.
Anyone else as mad as I am? Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.
Now I hate picking on people and with my recent coverage of Sarah Palin, it feels like I am. But when someone consistently provides comments like this with blatant disregard for human decency (or perhaps her own political career), she deserves several posts.
In the video, Ms. Palin speaks of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claiming that it was "a fear of being politically incorrect that we did not...profile this guy." She also claims that there were "massive warning flags" including evidence of his contact with Al-Qaeda. This despite evidence that Hasan was self-radicalized, not an operative of Al-Qaeda, which would, through a conservative lens, make Fort Hood a terrorist attack.
"Profiling in the context of doing whatever we can to save American lives, I'm all for it then," she states with proud defiance, seemingly enticed by the idea of making "liberal heads...spin".
Now where do you start? How about here: 93% of Fox News viewers believe that Hasan was a trained terrorist and that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, which he and it were not. Palin's remarks perfectly walk the line provided by the evidently defunct political machine posing as a journalism bureau Fox News.
The warrant-less tap on his email would have been a gross invasion of civil liberties and while it might have saved the victims of Fort Hood, we cannot lose our humanity in order to save human lives. It has been clear since the attack on September 11th that Fox-Republicans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties and rights provided under the clearest articles of the constitution for the sake of catching this unknown and unseen enemy, "the terrorist." The finger pointing and disregard for the law coupled with rampant paranoia is borderline McCarthyist.
Radical is apparently a word for "not my" when juxtaposed with beliefs in the Fox-right camp. Though Hasan was a muslim, his rampage was fueled more by psychological unrest than with belief in someone other than Jesus. Of course, the ultimate irony is that while Ms. Palin condemns the mentally ill for having "radical" (read: non-Christian) beliefs, she herself just released "Going Rogue" which proclaims how much different she is from the typical Republican. Different? Rogue? Radical perhaps?
And finally, yes my head is spinning since you used the term profiling Sarah, but only because the treatment of Muslims in this country has been blatantly racist under the guise of constructive profiling the whole time. The idea that we should allow and accept undue profiling of Muslims in defense of Americans is, again, losing our humanity to save human lives.
I apologize for the rant since I know that all of us understand just how absurd her remarks are. Heck, all of us understand how absurd her presidential bid is. But when millions of Americans listen to her errant statements and accept them as fact, her comments need to be responded to.
Anyone else as mad as I am? Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.
Monday, November 16, 2009
So Much for Compromise
When Obama was elected, he did so on a platform of Hope. Hope for peace, hope for an end to societies ills, and, most optimistically, hope for bipartisanship in a country whose divide between the left and right is deepening every day.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if we all step off of our respective political soapboxes, we can probably find the best action for policy through compromise. Somehow through that daily gnashing of teeth, the Democrats and the Republicans (at some time I'm sure) have eeked out bipartisan agreements for the better of the country.
Not to pick on them, but Republicans obviously do not agree.
According to a recent NY Times article, Republicans are experiencing extensive party infighting that threatens to divide them into moderate and far-right camps. Even the candidates that the RNC recently elected (in what they purport is the most poignant referendum on the Obama agenda yet) are in danger of falling victim to the party's mechanics:
The next big question is, what effect will this have on the midterm elections next year? Democrats are, as a historical trend, poised to lose seats in the next election, but will this new found infighting between conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, and the RNC have an effect?
You know what to do. Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if we all step off of our respective political soapboxes, we can probably find the best action for policy through compromise. Somehow through that daily gnashing of teeth, the Democrats and the Republicans (at some time I'm sure) have eeked out bipartisan agreements for the better of the country.
Not to pick on them, but Republicans obviously do not agree.
According to a recent NY Times article, Republicans are experiencing extensive party infighting that threatens to divide them into moderate and far-right camps. Even the candidates that the RNC recently elected (in what they purport is the most poignant referendum on the Obama agenda yet) are in danger of falling victim to the party's mechanics:
Conservatives counter that Republicans have become Democrats’ enablers in bigger deficits and bigger government, and that the way to win is to sharpen the distinctions between the parties.And there you have it folks. Conservatives and Republicans. Now I know its politically reductionist to lump them into the same camp but for at least the past eight years they've both run under the same banner. Furthermore, if compromise is the best road to productive legislation, it appears that the right will have nothing of productivity.
The next big question is, what effect will this have on the midterm elections next year? Democrats are, as a historical trend, poised to lose seats in the next election, but will this new found infighting between conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, and the RNC have an effect?
You know what to do. Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.
Friday, November 13, 2009
GOP Infighting Caused by...FOX?
A recent MediaMatters post was quoted a-thusly:
In other words, in just the last 12 months, the balance of power within the conservative movement has completely swung in the direction of the right-wing press, which is stoking the flames of the GOP civil war. It's a partisan press corps that no longer documents internal Republican squabbling; it initiates the infighting.
That's right boys and girls. Fox News, the bastion of Republican all-that-is-good has become the harbinger of their demise. All hyperbole aside, Fox was largely responsible for ousting Scozzafava and allowing a Democrat to be elected in NY District 23 where Republicans had held office since the Civil War.
The article is a short read, depicting Fox's inability to get their men/women elected while at the same time destroying the chances of the men/women who have actually have a fighting chance! My thoughts: Glenn Beck's haircut is the one to blame.
Good news for all you egg fans, because they yoke's on the red states! Feel free to leave your comments at the desk. Unless they have to do with bashing that hilarious joke I just made.
Credit to John B for the lead.
Movie Stars and Politicians
Since most of us remember the 2008 election pretty well, I think it's safe to say that none of us have forgotten that darling in red, Sarah Palin.
Her new book is due to hit shelves soon and currently its highly anticipated debut has placed it at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list and the Amazon book pre-order list shortly before release. But even with all this mass hoopla, most of us have at least the brain to wonder why. Why would a woman who's manufactured appearance and mental incompetence wrecked a perfectly good political campaign be of such interest to the American public?
Furthermore, she's a quitter! We praise the heroes of the Iraq war who stayed and fought, not the New York Knicks (do they still play basketball or is it like a guest appearance at each game?). None of us have praised Iowa State's football team for their ability to give up the ghost before gaining any real progress have we? So why on Earth should anybody purchase a book by the defunct governor of Alaska whose reign there is currently pending an ethics investigation?
Simply put: she's relatable. She's dressed in shiny clothes, keeps a smile on her face, talks about her kids, and possesses an ignorance that's borderline intoxicating to the American public. When you turn on Troy you want Brad Pitt, not a moral lesson, at least if you belong to the American non-intellectual masses.
In a recent NPR story, Palin was noted as having a particularly sour view on Katie Couric's journalism.
Palin also writes harshly of CBS anchor Katie Couric, whom she describes as "badgering" and biased. Palin's series of interviews with Couric were widely regarded as disastrous, leaving the impression of an ill-informed candidate who was unsuited for the job.
Funny since it seems like the only real scrutiny she received in the mass media was from Katie Couric.
Update: And who better to ask about the media's treatment of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean than Meghan McCain and Bill O'Reilly. Thanks again Fox. Folks, enjoy the hilarity.
Did Meghan McCain, in defense of women, just call them too scared and frightened to enter politics?
Celebrity or legit politician? We all know the answer to that. Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.
Celebrity or legit politician? We all know the answer to that. Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Well if I Can't Trust Fox Who Can I Trust?
Let's face it, if we're completely honest with ourselves, it's ridiculous to consider Fox News, CNN, or even MSNBC as credible news sources since each have sponsorship details that require embellishing some facts if not with lies then with sensationalist rhetoric to attract viewers.
So with this in mind, who can you trust? Cable news networks dominate the airwaves and trying to find non-biased news sources yields results that are both slim and esoteric. Let's face it, MoveOn.org ain't exactly filled with open-minded individuals...
Through my experience, however, I feel that I've found a handful of resources for finding the (mostly) unvarnished truth behind what goes on in our world today.
NPR: Radio and Podcasts
Ask anyone who's been looking for a reliable and unbiased news source for a while and they'll inevitably recommend National Public Radio to you. Their ability to report the facts without embellishment is as impressive as it is rare in a world dominated by blatantly biased journalism.
The first place to start would be the NPR website which I've posted in the Links section on the homepage. From there you can find the same daily stories that you get from other news outlets but without all the fluff.
The next place to go would be NPR's podcasts. Just search NPR in the iTunes library and you'll find a bevy of shows on both general news and more specific topics. One of my personal favorites is "It's all Politics" which features a poignant appraisal of the supposedly earth-shattering gubernatorial elections that took place recently.
Finally, if you have an iPhone, NPR makes it very easy for you with their app. Download it from the App Store and say hello to integrated radio stations, up to the minute updates on daily news, and audio from the stories as they are reported on the radio.
Mediamatters.org: Fact Checkers and Heartbreakers
Remember when John Kerry saved several of his military colleagues from certain death and was awarded the purple heart for his courage? Neither does anyone else because in today's politics, "Swiftboating" or lying/distorting the facts frequently enough that the distortion becomes truth has replaced real debate in our political discourse. That's where MediaMatters comes in: they are a staff of qualified and often award winning journalists who analyze the news and point out distortions and falsifications.
Many of my favorite items have come from this site because let's face it, when you're sitting in front of the TV watching CNN, you want to accept everything they say as truth. Lately, however, the introduction of right-wing (or left-wing for that matter) political analysts billed as unbiased experts has so far distorted honest journalism that we need an entity like MediaMatters to keep things straight.
You: The Final Word
At the end of the day, here's the bottom line: you are the one accepting what's given to you on news networks and so it's up to you to examine what you're hearing to find out if there's any truth in it.
The process is simple: if the anchor makes a comment about a bill or an event, look for editorial comments. Often times it's subtle: using words such as "deadly" or "decisive", over-the-top adjectives that overemphasize the importance of an event or, in some cases, underemphasize it. Sometimes its even bigger: Fox News recently displayed doctored video footage of a Republican Tea Party to exaggerate its turnout. Look at news with an incredulous eye and I think you'll be surprised at what you find.
No human being is capable of viewing something without their perspective coming in to play, but journalists should be able to report facts without fiction. Have you seen poor journalistic practices lately? Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.
Fox News Video Doctoring with a little Jon Stewart
My dearest father sent me this little gem:
Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg
Watch to the end of the Jon Stewart video, CLEAR to the end. Also feel free to watch the boring, more serious analysis of Fox's video doctoring techniques.
Update: Hannity 'fesses up! Sort of...
Hannity admits in the video that they aired the footage from a 9/12 rally but claims it was an "inadvertent mistake". How do you swap tapes from yesterday with tapes from over a year ago?