Who decides what news is?

There's always someone behind a story. Regardless of how hard one tries, it is impossible for anyone to totally remove them self from a report and make it totally objective. It is easier to more closely reach this impossibility when a subject is vanilla, but on subjects such as war, which Moyer confronts in his essay, it becomes exceedingly difficult. In the video, Moyer does not make a direct statement that the Iraq War is like the previous conflict in Vietnam, but he juxtaposes the two and the American public's reactions to both. He is trying to make a correlation. In my opinion, there has been less public outrage and demonstration concerning the Iraq War because of the times. During the Vietnam years, the fabric of our country was changing. There were movements on many fronts. This stimulated a sub-culture of "radicals" that took to the streets, confronting authority and acting out on their perceived trampled rights. As a country, we have settled in, it seems. As many changes have been made, we hit the 80's and 90's and put the proverbial car on cruise control. Many people simply got comfortable, and members of my generation were raised in a climate that has created a general sense of malaise towards any sort of cause. It took the candidacy of a black man to get us to vote. We needed a reason to roll out and exercise our most basic democratic right. Though I find the line drawn between Iraq and Vietnam to be quite thin indeed, I believe sheer laziness to be the causation for less public displays of opposition. People got comfy, and raised their kids that way.

Now, whether the media covers what does occur is another issue. The news is owned by someone. Its job is to report truth, but can it do this completely if a story conflicts with the ownerships interests? In the case of the Iraq War, the coverage of the push towards Baghdad was so rah-rah you'd have thought you were watching the liberation of Paris circa 1944. Why was no one discussing the potential pratfalls of this conflict? Even as someone who supported the war, I would have welcomed more opposing views. An important role of the media is not only to accurately report information, but to discuss its merits and downsides (commentary). One of the negatives of 9/11 was its affect on the media. Just like the public, the media jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and lost view of its duties. How can this be avoided? What caused it? I do not think the ownership of many of our major media outlets helped. One example is GE. They manufacture weapons for the government, but they also own NBC. Does this not seem like a slight conflict of interest? Would their coverage of the war change because of this? Interesting points to discuss.

In fact, there are only six entities that own all of our news. Does this seem right? All seem to be dominated by the presence of white males. Is this indicative of our countries racial composition? Not at all. Is it fair? Absolutely. No one has done anything wrong to gain these positions. They have played the game and become successful. Right or wrong do not come into this discussion. Is this a good thing? That can be broken down. The simple answer: NO. In a country where the majority/minority coin will be flipped by 2050, it seems that the news is still very centralized on only certain people and places. Though certain issues are not important to everyone, they are important to someone. Are we alienating people by not acknowledging them? I personally think stories on minority issues concern me just as much as anything else. If America is a quilt, they're a chunk and every bit as important as I am. Coverage of these different cultures would illuminate their struggles and successes, but most importantly, it would promote understanding. One of the lesser focused upon aspects of the media is to educate. This is a key area where they could certainly do some good.

Somewhat in the same vein, you have how the media portrayed the Civil Rights Movement. Even though they shot many of the stories from the point of view of the white law enforcement, and no doubt showed their bias in doing so, the images coming through people's TV screens did all the talking needed for many to understand the brutality of the struggle for equality. Seeing with their own eyes the fire hoses spraying women and children, and dogs viciously attacking people simply standing in the street helped many make up their minds around the country. It really did not matter what the broadcaster said, or the tone of the report. Images hold great power, and those were some of the most powerful.

It is time to use the media as a tool to promote knowledge of all the types of people we have in our country, and the place to start are the controlling interests. This is one of the biggest issues facing the media today. Who is pulling the strings?

Another way to look at it...

Here's another perspective on White Privilege. It's damn funny. If you're a minority, just wait for what he says about the future. Possible outcome.

This is socially tinted commentary carried via humor that says roughly the same thing that Tim Wise did.

"If you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole". Basically states that we have an advantage, and if we don't admit it, we're being ridiculous.

Like Prior, Chappelle, or Rock, this guy is every bit as illuminating. A distinct voice.

Funniest man alive...

Louis C.K.

We're all spoiled. Everyone's privileged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jETv3NURwLc

"New York to L.A. in five hours. That used to take 30 years". Know what this reminds me of? Anyone play "Oregon Trail" back in school? One of my kids always died of Typhoid.

The guy just made me laugh more in 4 minutes and 12 seconds than Dane Cook has in his entire career.

The government should subsidize his comedy. He should be in the stimulus package. It's more important than Pelosi's pet mice. What a joke. 30 million?

Louis makes me wonder though:

Do you think when a member of the "greatest generation's" car broke down trying to get their kids to school, an old timer born a couple decades after the Civil War would pop out of nowhere and say, "Not fast enough for ya? You're being drawn by a horseless carriage for crimminy sakes! Spoiled, the lot of ya!"?

Most probably. Things are speedier, but it's all relative.

"When you ran out of money, you said, 'I can't do any more things now'..."

I need to pay heed to that.

Must be chilly at the Gore household...

Ahhh, global warming.

Looks like the "inconvenient truth" may be more convenient than first surmised.

Yet another of the far-left liberals' causes looks to be somewhere in the middle:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html

Just another prime example that things tend to be grey, not black and white. Are we doing things that cause damage to the atmosphere? Yes. Are greenhouse gasses building up and becoming an issue? Yes. Is it human hubris to believe that we are the only cause for a slight change (yes, slight, in terms of the earth's lifetime to this point) in the earth's climate? HELL YES.

Then again, Al Gore invented the Internet...and slacks (OK, he never said that last one. He might as well, though. Ever hear the term "windbag"?).

I leave you with this video of a man who usually says it better than I can think it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f21LmwI8MPk

Though hilarious, very spot on Dennis.

It's almost like some people need a catastrophe to worry about in their lives. I have no problem cutting the water when I brush my teeth, making sure the lights are off when I leave the house or even carpooling, but when I look at these people acting like the sun is going to become a red giant and kill us all in the next 100 years because we use fossil fuels...well, I got some land to sell you in Oklahoma with an ocean view, you got me?

How about these issues instead:

1) Militant religious nuts trying to kill me because I eat Big Mac's and take girls on dates in short skirts

2) The world economy (yes, WORLD) so far in the dumps we let our government pass a stimulus package no one even read for enough money to give Bill Gates a nocturnal emission

3) Two wars in the Middle East that need closure (Roman style)

4) The muzzling of Hollywood stars pontificating on politics and world matters when they have less than a high school education (OK...this is a personal beef)

Some of the things the far left and far right do just amazes me. I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular (except maybe Gore).

Forgetful little nation, we are...

Isn't it amazing that the collective memory of our country can be so myopic?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

Last time I heard, this was all Bush's fault.

What administration did the article, and the notoriously liberal NY Times, state was pushing expansion of mortgage loans to poor people who had no business having loan payments?

The now golden Clinton administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YHTzi6nRUE

This makes me think that the Bush administraion will be remembered more fondly in a decade, especially after we realize the weight this stimulus package places on all of our shoulders.

Damn it. At least try and blame the current credit crisis on the Republican majority in the House and Senate at that time.

We see what we want to, don't we?