The Three Titans

FOX News. CNN. MSNBC. These are the three titans of the twenty-four hour cable news networks.

Really, they remind me much of the three nations that were always at war with one another in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania. In the novel, two of them are always at war with the third, and the allegiances seem to switch regularly and without warning.

But I hardly need to explain Nineteen Eighty-Four to anyone who aspires to obtain a degree in political science. To admit to not reading Nineteen Eighty-Four as someone interested in political science is almost like a Baptist preacher admitting that he actually hasn't even read part of the Bible.

But I digress. Anyway, it would seem to me that CNN would be the one that is being destroyed by the other two currently. As recently as a year or two ago, MSNBC would be the network placing a distant third behind the other two in ratings and influence, but CNN surely takes that dubious distinction now.

MSNBC took the clear number-two spot behind Fox because it was willing to position itself as the liberal counterbalance to the rightward slant of Fox News.

Realizing this, CNN has attempted recently to place itself as the unbiased, serious news source between the two warring factions. I do think that this is the only thing they can do—I mean, are they really going to out-liberal MSNBC, so to speak? That seems like it would be a tall task, and one that would make CNN redundant and irrelevant.

As just one piece of evidence displaying this tactic:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/11/09/promo.news.network.cnn

That's a pretty clear message. Fox News is listed on the elephant, while MSNBC is on the donkey. CNN is going to be the news network, not the cheerleader.

If this were true, then I would wholeheartedly support them as serving a useful purpose. But it simply isn't. They're still a bunch of leftists at heart, and they don't understand what appealing to the center actually means.

For instance, let me use their relatively new 8PM show, Parker Spitzer, as an example of this. CNN intends this to be a Crossfire-style debate amongst a conservative and a liberal. Now first of all, I don't believe that two opposing sides screaming at each other for an hour is the real meaning of a lack of bias or true neutrality. But I shall set aside that opinion for the time being.

In short, I think this show is unwatchable and awful, and it is a clear sign that CNN just doesn't get it. It actually reminds me a lot of Hannity & Colmes back in the day. Yeah, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes were supposedly equals (wink, wink), but everyone knew that Colmes was really just the foil/sidekick for Hannity, the show's dominant personality and star.

This dynamic seems to be in play for Parker Spitzer. It's Spitzer's show, and Parker is just along for the ride as an accessory, token conservative. I find it interesting that CNN picked these two personalities to man the primetime spot in this sort of format. Conservatives absolutely despised Eliot Spitzer as both the attorney general and governor of New York, and were certainly happy to see him crash and burn in a sex scandal.

And having someone who inspires that kind of hate for one side might be fine, if placed against a worthy adversary... but Kathleen Parker is just not that opponent. Those on the right don't like her either; they consider her something of a turncoat for her columns during the 2008 presidential election, with much of her writing spent bashing conservatives. If they must make another show like this (and I was personally not a fan of either Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes), then it needs to at least be done correctly.

Again, they just don't get it. I think there's a place for a third cable-news network that is more hard-news focused and less slanted than what we are faced with currently; but, until CNN has a better handle on how to shed their liberal binds and actually accomplish this great task, they will continue to languish in both ratings and influence.

Old Bumper Stickers

My father found this sticker while cleaning out our basement over the weekend.

I post this to make an observation. There is a group of people who base their vote entirely or almost entirely on a single issue that isn't either the economy or foreign policy. I will grant that those two realms of policy are by far the most important to the future of our Republic.

But there are many people out there who are single-issue voters, and I have to wonder if they are underrepresented by the media in their reporting. I know many people who absolutely use abortion as a litmus test when choosing a candidate, to name one example. Obviously, Second Amendment rights are an extremely important factor kin determining some votes. I know others who vote entirely on environmental issues.

Yet, beyond maybe a question in a debate between candidates, I never really see these issues covered by the media unless some disaster like a school shooting occurs.

Again, I understand. I really do. I think back to a chart we were shown in class a couple weeks ago about what issue the voters most cared about, and gun control and abortion were predictably absent. But on the other hand, it seems like the complete lack of coverage is unhealthy for our citizens. That's just my two cents.

The TSA

A Washington Post editorial decrying the TSA pat-downs as unconstitutional

You know what? I am sick and tired of hearing about the TSA. This is a pretty clear example of the feeding frenzy concept. The media at large has latched onto a few isolated incidents and made it seem like everyone and their grandmothers are being violated on their way through security checkpoints. This is just simply not true. I don't like going through airline security, either--but this narrative is getting extremely tired very quickly. I think the media is latching on to this because everyone despises how ridiculous airline security has become in our post-9/11 world. It reminds me a lot of a third-rate comedian trying to rail on airline food. The major news networks need to give this one a rest. The fact that President Obama went and spoke on this matter is utterly absurd.

People like Rush Limbaugh think this is a media conspiracy to steer people away from the human pat-downs and towards the screening machines. I don't know if I buy that—and furthermore, I don't think I care.

I just want to stop hearing about this. I understand the tendency of the mass media to beat issues into the ground, and it's not like this is something that they haven't done before. However, I don't know how much more of this I can take.

Ten Conservative Songs and Thoughts on Music and Media

My second list is of ten of my favorite “conservative” songs. Frankly, it was harder to come up with ten conservative songs than ten liberal songs by a wide margin. For the purposes of this list, I will count a song as conservative if I deem it to espouse a conservative agenda or conservative values. Among other things, this could include cries against government intervention in the realm of economic policy, an affinity for the “tried-and-true” traditional view of values, a hawkish view on war and foreign policy, and concerns about individual liberty and freedom. Here it is:

“Taxman” by The Beatles

This one instantly came to mind when making this list. The Beatles certainly made some music that could have been on my liberal music list, but there's nothing more conservative than a song railing against a 95% marginal tax rate.

“Revolution” by The Beatles

This one might be a controversial selection... but I believe a close examination of the lyrics finds the piece to warn against revolutions and change merely for the sake of change.

“The Trees” by Rush

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

Rush is my favorite band of all time, by far. I'm including the link because this song is not as commonly played as some of the others. I'm just going to post the lyrics on this one without further comment, as the metaphor is pretty heavy-handed:

“The trouble with the maples,
And they're quite convinced they're right...
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled.
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads.

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
'The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light.'
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.”

“Something For Nothing” by Rush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk

“You can't have something for nothing,
You can't have freedom for free.
You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be.”

A very conservative view towards welfare. Whereas Bruce Hornsby blames the rich for keeping the poor down in “The Way It Is”, Rush says that it's the poor's own fault.

“Red Barchetta” by Rush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvQSkK8Z8U

Based on a short story in where the future is regulated by environmental nuts and safety nazis. The protagonist fights the laws by driving a really, really fast awesome car—the type that is considered too unsafe and too polluting in the future. Good tune.

“I Fought The Law” by The Bobby Fuller Four (among countless others)

“I fought the law, and the law won.” This is why you should respect authority figures.

“Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue” by Toby Keith

I'm listing this as a representative of every post-9/11 country song that advocated scorched-earth diplomacy on the people who attacked us.

“Justice will be served,
And the battle will rage.
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage.
You’ll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass,
It's the American way!”

“Janie's Got a Gun” by Aerosmith

As the saying goes, “God created men and women... Samuel Colt made them equal.” I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, but this song does advocate Second Amendment freedoms as a way for women to escape abuse.

“My City Was Gone” by the Pretenders

This song could have made either list. Obviously, the Pretenders meant for it to be an environmental anthem, but it could also be taken as conservative's hesitation to embrace government-sponsored change. Because Rush Limbaugh commandeered the tune for his show's theme song, I'm putting it here.

“Won't Get Fooled Again” by The Who

I need a tenth song. Obviously, I think the Who would probably bristle at this song's inclusion on this list, but it is a cynical look at revolution and societal change in general.

It's harder to point to “conservative” songs as having an effect on the general public. When songs advocate sticking with tried-and-true traditional values, well... it is difficult to give them credit for keeping things the same.

I should also note at this point that many of the songs on this list were made by artist who could very well have a lot of songs on the other list, as well. Also, there are many songs that can be twisted to fit an alternate agenda. Three songs immediately come to mind when I mention this: “Born in the U.S.A.” by Bruce Springsteen, “Fortunate Son” by Creedence Clearwater Revival, and “Pink Houses” by John Mellencamp. All three pieces are examples of songs that sound patriotic on the surface. “Fortunate Son” was heavily edited by Wrangler in an attempt to sell jeans. Ronald Reagan famously wanted to use “Born in the U.S.A.” in his 1984 presidential reelection campaign. “Pink Houses” was used by John McCain in the 2008 election until Mellencamp asked McCain's campaign to stop using the piece, stating that his personal views were at odds with McCain's and that the song was being taken out of context.

All three of these songs can be made to be patriotic on the surface, but a closer examination of the lyrics indicate that all three are in fact protests against the American system. In one sense, the personal beliefs of the artist become almost irrelevant, and independent actors in the media can use it to whatever ends they deem necessary.

Ten Liberal Songs and Thoughts on Music and Media

Recently, us bloggers were asked to expand upon the effects that music has upon politics. As such, I had decided to come up with a list of songs, both “liberal” and “conservative”.

My first list will be of ten of my favorite “liberal” songs. I will count a song as liberal if I deem it to espouse a liberal agenda or liberal values. Among other things, this could include cries against government intervention in the realm of morality, a general questioning of authority, a dovish view on war and foreign policy, concerns about equality, and an affinity for the common person. So here goes:

"The Way It Is" by Bruce Hornsby & the Range

Deals with class warfare, racial divisions, the oppression of the poor by the rich... So many progressive themes here, so little time.

"Rockin' In the Free World" by Neil Young

This song is about America's poor, cleverly crafted to sound like a patriotic anthem.

"War" by Edwin Starr

No war for any reason. Period. That's a winning theme among many on the left.

"Snake Oil" by Steve Earle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqk5of8LgLE

There's the link, since that one is a little less well-known than some of the others on this list. Anyway, Steve Earle is both an excellent artist and a hardcore progressive. This entire song compares Ronald Reagan to a snake oil salesman.

"Devil's Right Hand" by Steve Earle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5E8noEbn4

Another excellent song by Earle. This one pushes hard for more stringent controls on firearms.

"Bulls on Parade" by Rage Against the Machine

I could make this entire list Rage Against the Machine, as well. I'll try and limit myself. These guys only make political music, and they are very, very good at it. “Bulls on Parade” is an attack on the excesses of capitalism.

"Guerilla Radio" by Rage Against the Machine

The music video for this one makes it a protest against sweatshops.

"Testify" by Rage Against the Machine

Again, another political song made even more political by the music video for it. The video in this case protests the choice in the 2000 Presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore to be a false one.

"Imagine" & "Give Peace a Chance" by John Lennon

Frankly, I despise both these songs... but they are both excellent examples of liberal music. Both are anti-war anthems, and “Imagine” is even on the borderline of advocating some form of communism.

Overall, it is much easier to point to liberal music as being more influential than conservative music. This is mostly because of an overarching dynamic; that is, liberals generally want things to change, and conservatives like to see things stay the same. In addition, it seems that the people making the music seem to be on the leftist side of the spectrum more often than not. Therefore, there is a larger pool to choose from.

But at the end of the day, I believe that music is an indicator of popular opinions that have already been formed—it doesn't shape those ideas or values. To borrow the popular idiom: the dog wags the tail; the tail doesn't wag the dog. I will use the example of the Vietnam War. It is true that music from the era might have amplified the voices of the anti-war crowd, but I don't think it was instrumental in changing peoples' minds.

Christine O'Donnell

I'm sure many have seen this by now, but here it is anyway:


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


I think many in the media have unfairly attacked her for things that happened years ago... which is fine, except for the fact that they choose to apply this standard unevenly.

But the most first and important step to take when your opponents are burying you alive is to stop helping them dig your grave.  If you want to find a candidate who is effectively using new media to reach modern voters, well... it isn't her.  I understand that many of us would look bad if subjected to the intense ridicule that O'Donnell has received... but still--this is the big leagues here.  She needs to step her campaign up considerably.

A Look Back: The Florida Koran-Burning Controversy

I dredge this story back up to make a point...  Remember when this one was all that seemed to fill the airwaves?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-11/us/new.york.jones_1_quran-florida-pastor-jones?_s=PM:US

Florida pastor calls off Quran burning

 

September 11, 2010 | By the CNN Wire Staff

The pastor of a Florida church says his congregation has decided to call off the burning of the Quran that was to be held Saturday -- the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by the al Qaeda terror network.

"We will definitely not burn the Quran," the Rev. Terry Jones told NBC's "Today" on Saturday "Not today, not ever." The burning had been planned for 6 p.m.

Jones arrived in New York late Friday night and was working to set up a meeting with the imam in charge of the Islamic center planned near ground zero. The planned meeting, Jones had said, helped persuade him to halt the burning.

Advertisement

Earlier Friday, Jones gave mixed messages about whether he intends to carry out his plans, which have sparked international controversy and protests in the Muslim world. U.S. military leaders said the event would imperil the lives of troops abroad.

President Obama said Friday that the idea that "we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for."

He said he hopes Jones "prays on it" and refrains from doing it. The government has to send a "very clear message" that burning the Quran would endanger U.S. troops and serve as a major recruiting tool for al Qaeda, Obama added.

So, just to review: did the event in question actually even happen?  No.  Did it matter?  Not in the least.

It's easier to comment on something like this in hindsight.  This was an example of "pack journalism" at its very finest.  The crazy thing about this story is that so many of us seemed to realize how utterly worthless this story was as a news item at the time.  After all, Jones was just some crazy guy who ran a church of 50 people.  Crazy people do crazy things all the time.

And yet, the story was on the 24-hour cable channels, over the airwaves, and set upon the printed page non-stop.  Why?  Because the advancement in media has begotten a massive increase in the amount of space that has to be filled by something.

It was never clear to me just who was driving the train in this case.  But the promise of conflict was obviously too good to pass up for today's mass media.  It's isn't like nothing important was happening in the world.  I mean, the House of Representatives was in session at the time, for example.  I couldn't tell you a single thing that they passed...

...but I can tell you where Dove Outreach Center is on a map.

It seems that we are forever doomed to argue over the inconsequential for all eternity.  One can only wonder what worthless event it will be on tomorrow, or the day after that.

Rick Sanchez & CNN's Bias

File this one away under the "Blatant Hypocrisy" file:

Former CNN Anchor Rick Sanchez Issues Statement Apologizing for 'Bigot' Rant

Fired CNN anchor Rick Sanchez apologized to Jon Stewart and anyone else he offended for what he called "inartful comments" given in a radio interview last week that he said should "never have been made."

“I am very much opposed to hate and intolerance, in any form, and I have frequently spoken out against prejudice,” Sanchez said in the statement released by a South Florida publicist Wednesday.

“Despite what my tired and mangled words may have implied, they were never intended to suggest any sort of narrow-mindedness and should never have been made.”

Sanchez, 52, was fired by CNN last week following comments he made in a radio interview in which he called late-night funnyman Jon Stewart a “bigot” and said Jewish people were not an oppressed minority, telling the radio host that they were in charge of most media outlets.

In Wednesday's statement, the TV host, who was born in Cuba and raised outside Miami, said that he had had a “very good conversation” with Jon Stewart in which he had apologized for his “inartful comments.”

“I sincerely extend this apology to anyone else whom I may have offended,” Sanchez added.

I actually don't have any problems with CNN's actual firing of Sanchez.  The lack of slack given to this nation's most visible people can sometimes be unfortunate, but to actually make that sort of comment in this day and age on that network constitutes terminable stupidity.  I might actually disagree with the firing on principle, but I cannot argue with the joy of watching a ideological enemy fall on his own sword.  Obviously, Sanchez and his like-minded brethren would be banging the drum to fire a FOXNews anchor who had made similar comments.

But the mention of Rick Sanchez and the charge of racism got me to think that I had seen this before.  After a bit of thinking back, I quickly found this story.  Almost one year ago to the day:

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091013061953.aspx

 

CNN Anchor Fails to Retract His False Smear of Rush Limbaugh as Slavery-Admiring Racist 

On Monday, CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez reported as fact that radio host Rush Limbaugh had uttered a “racist diatribe” on the “merits” of slavery. “He once declared that had ‘Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark,’ said Limbaugh,” Sanchez told his audience.

But Sanchez cited no source for the quote other than a vague caption of “Rush Limbaugh on the Radio” in the accompanying on-screen graphic, and Limbaugh had on his show that day already explicitly denied he ever said it before Sanchez ever went on the air.

But on Tuesday’s show, Sanchez did not retract his use of the quote or provide any evidence that Limbaugh said it. Instead, he briefly summarized Limbaugh’s denial — claiming “we want to be fair to Rush” — before suggesting that whether or not CNN got its facts right is irrelevant: “Obviously, that does not take away the fact that there are other quotes which have been attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which many people in the African-American community and many other minority communities do find offensive.”

So, just to recap: Sanchez relayed some falsified quotes about Rush Limbaugh back when Limbaugh was trying to buy the St. Louis Rams.  When called on it, Sanchez issued a non-apology, saying that the overall point was still true, even if the actual quote was not.  Sanchez fanned the flames that eventually cost Limbaugh a chance to go ahead with his purchase.  Jon Stewart was not harmed in any way by Sanchez's remarks.

And yet CNN fires him over this? Ridiculous. CNN and Rick Sanchez should both be ashamed of themselves.

advertisement

A Look Back: The Suicide of Tyler Clementi & Privacy in the Internet Age

Another argument America had back in late September was over the tragic case of Tyler Clementi:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/victim-secret-dorm-sex-tape-commits-suicide/story?id=11758716

A Rutgers University freshman posted a goodbye message on his Facebook page before jumping to his death after his roommate secretly filmed him during a "sexual encounter" in his dorm room and posted it live on the Internet.

Items belonging to 18-year-old Rutgers student Tyler Clementi were found by the George Washington Bridge last week, according to authorities. Clementi's freshman ID card and driver's license were in the wallet.
Clementi's post on his Facebook page, dated Sept. 22 at 8:42 p.m. read, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
Clementi's body has not been recovered, but police have pulled an unidentified male body from the Hudson River just north of the bridge.

...

Two students, Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, have been charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy after allegedly placing a camera in Clementi's room and livestreaming the recording online on Sept. 19, according to a written statement by New Jersey's Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan.

A Twitter page that appears to have been operated by Ravi but has since been taken offline shows messages in which the accused student takes credit for the alleged videotaping of Clementi.
On Sept. 19, Ravi appears to tweet, "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."
Ravi faces two additional counts of invasion of privacy for allegedly attempting to use the camera to view and transmit another sexual encounter involving the same student just two days later, said Kaplan.

This story could be presented in several different frameworks.  It could be viewed as a commentary about the acceptance of homosexuals among some sections of American society.  It could be viewed as another fight over hate-crimes legislation.  There's a lot going on here, for sure.

But I choose to view the main point to this story as how privacy has changed in the internet age.  This is the most important theme in this story as it relates to this class.  I saw this story today:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39552862/ns/today-today_people

Karen Owen took kiss-and-tell to a whole new level when she combined her Duke University-honed academic acumen with her extracurricular wild side to create an elaborate sex list ranking the college men she bedded.

But now the recent Duke grad finds herself red-faced over attention she never bargained for: Her tongue-in-cheek “unofficial senior thesis” on sex with Duke athletes spread from the three friends she originally e-mailed to the whole 14,000-strong student body and, eventually, to websites the whole world can see.
“It’s funny because we know the people on it,” one Duke University student told NBC for a TODAY report on Owen’s now-infamous sex list.

...

Owen’s sex ranking is nothing if not precise. She took a list of 13 men she slept with, drawing mainly from Duke’s lacrosse team — the same team that was embroiled in a sex scandal of its own in 2006 — and created a bar graph ranking their sexual prowess. She left little to the imagination in creating a 42-slide PowerPoint presentation, detailing sex in the university library during finals week, sex in cars and, most of all, sex while inebriated.
“In my blackout state, still managed to crawl into bed with a Duke athlete,” Owen commented on one escapade.

In my opinion, these two stories are connected.  Now, I obviously understand that none of the Duke athletes mentioned in Owen's "report" are likely to go and commit suicide.  There are some stark and understandable cultural differences.

But nevertheless, there's a common theme: gone are the days when a small group of newspaper owners and publishers have the power to bury stories like these.  In the internet age, anyone has the power and the platform to completely ruin someone's privacy.  As much as we like to blame the media for having it out for a person, and as often as that point is true, the bottom line is that ordinary people are often to blame for the irrelevant details of the private lives of private citizens becoming public knowledge.

As the famous quote goes: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Words Mean Things: an Introduction and Historical Perspective

First of all, let me extend a warm welcome to anyone reading this.  My name is Caleb Stone, and this a blog that is going to attempt to cover the mass media and its overarching and all-encompassing effect on politics.

As I've stated in the title of this first post, words are powerful, and they mean things.  This might be so obvious that the mere thought immediately makes anyone who hears it glaze over, but it is an absolutely crucial concept.  The way things are worded can also tell you much about certain viewpoints or biases a person might have.  The ability to sense bias and turn a critical eye to whatever you are told is perhaps one of the most important skills that an American citizen should have.  It is also important to understand that whoever is reporting something has an agenda.  To further this agenda, you will see stories emphasized or downplayed depending upon the bias of the source.  What becomes the Wall Street Journal's front page story can be buried in page 12 of The New York Times.

To get back to the issue of bias--I usually take a critical view towards the modern media; hence, this blog is entitled "Into the Wasteland".  I nearly called it "Wading Through the Sewers".  I often envision today's journalistic environment as a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic wasteland where there are no rules except what you can enforce through your own might. Journalistic standards have gone by the wayside in many ways.

However, this is not to say that I wish to go back to the old systems of disseminating information.  In fact, if were not such a cynic, I could have called this blog something to the effect of "An Exciting, New Frontier".  Admittedly, our current way of getting news is better than the old method.  In days of yore, the mass media was too much of an oligarchy--rule by a privileged few.  In the waning years of the 19th century, power was concentrated in the hands of a few infamous newspaper owners, with William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer being some famous examples.  These two men were the fathers of so-called "Yellow Journalism", which is a term used to describe a pattern of journalism that focuses on the sensational (or uses outright lies) to support a particular agenda.  Because of Hearst and Pulitzer's unquenchable thirst to sell newspapers, this nation was dragged into the Spanish-American War back in 1898.  Many of the reasons they used to support the war were later proven to be outright fabrications.  This problem continued on into the age of television--while I believe that bold-faced lies became more rare as an actual tactic in reporting, you still had an oligarchy of sorts.  Men with names like Murrow, Cronkite, and Brokaw were unquestionably good journalists, but their viewpoint was reliably old, male, white, and liberal.  In the age of network television, it was easy to enforce this dynamic because people had no alternatives.

This is no longer the case.  In 1998, Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, an internet publication, was the first person to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  The story was one that Newsweek had, yet declined to publish.  But Drudge broke the news, and started one of the most famous firestorms in recent American politics.  Another example of this new hierarchy is the now famous "Rathergate" incident.  In 2004, bloggers were able to expose that a memo that supposedly proved George W. Bush was AWOL as a national guardsman in the early 1970s was a complete fraud.  Although CBS tried to push these documents upon the public to further their agenda, the collaborative efforts of many on the internet forced them to apologize and fire Old Media icon Dan Rather.

But as the great economist Thomas Sowell famously stated, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."  In this case, the sheer number of news sources has led to a complete breakdown in standards and ethics, as well as a general inability to decide as a consumer what sections of the massive amount of information being disseminated is actually relevant and important.  There is also a major tendency in modern times to gravitate only towards news sources that fit into one's own biases. Because there are now options that conform to every imaginable taste, falling into this bad habit has become extremely simple for all of us--myself at times included.

You might ask yourself (assuming you have made it this far without keeling over, of course) if there is a point to all of this.  I would be remiss if I did not assure that there is.  I do have three points that I feel would make us better citizens:

1. Everyone is free and open about their point of view.  We can argue about whether objectivity in journalism ever existed--but in any case, I now believe it to be an antiquated relic.  We must move from a fantasy world where we rely upon the "objective" opinions of purportedly fair journalists, and instead admit that we are now consumers in a marketplace of competing biases.
2. Sensationalism is shunned.  This is a pipe dream, of course--enjoying the sensational over the substantive is undoubtedly human nature.  But if all of us decided that we would shy away from this form of news reporting, it would fall by the wayside.  News organizations should not always be searching for the next crisis.
3. Historical context is always given.  As it has been intelligently pointed out by some students in this class, the utter lack of historical perspective seen in reporting today is appalling.  Everything always is happening for the first time, and everything is the biggest crisis EVER.  It becomes very frustrating.

For the purposes of this blog, I imagine that bias and agendas might be a constant topic of discussion, but I'll post what I think about anything I find politically relevant.  I am also interested in campaigns and elections, so I imagine that will also be discussed as the semester unfolds.

So there you have it!  I hope you all have a wonderful time writing about Mass Media and Politics this semester, and I wish you all the best.

One final note: in the interest of disclosing my own bias, I actually decided to take the quick, down-and-dirty test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/.  My results are below.  Please post your results if you decide to take the test, or if you've done it in the past.  It is hardly the most accurate indicator of political leanings, but it might give a general picture of what you actually think.

-Caleb Stone