It has been said throughout the centuries, that if you repeat something enough times, people will start to believe it. This happens in politics, ALL THE TIME!
It was one of Hitler's favorite tactics, called,"the big lie", and we saw it again recently when George W. Bush and Colin Powell (who testified in front of the U.N., and later on T.V. acknowledged his regrets) claimed that Iraq had WMD. As it has been unequivicably been proven, Hussien never had WMDs. But it was all over the media. Of course, no one acknowledged on the mainstream media that independant investigators for the U.N. concluded before the war that Saddam wasn't developing WMDs. Coincedentally, one of those investigators, committed suicide. If anyone still believes the WMD story, please research your findings!
Now the same network(s) are starting up the same stories about Iran. Believe me when I say this, that I have no liking for the things that take place in Iran. But what I dislike even more, is the stirring up of the hornets nest that is currently taking place in this country, this time against Iran. Particulary, the Fox News Network, who helped GW gain public support for the war in Iraq, now is starting to bash the same ol' war drums, this time on Iran.
And what I dislike the most, is to see people blindly follow what they have been told without question.
So my question to all of you is, does the news brainwash us or provide us with good journalism? I have seen a decline in journalism. Even in such prestigeous publications like the NY Times, I have seen reporters go from reporting the news to telling stories as if they are trying to write a best selling novel.
I believe that Fox is trying to brainwash us. Not that the other stations aren't doing it, but Fox in particular is laying it on heavy. Why? Is that really what journalism is about? Telling you what to think rather than letting you decide? And to think that their slogan is "fair and balanced." They are popular, because they tell you what you want to hear! People want to vent their anger on someone. And Fox does that for us.
If anyone is interested there is a website, who currently is being blacklisted by our government for exercising their constitutional rights, called MoveOn.org that has an interesting article about Fox. https://civ.moveon.org/donatec4/foxattacksiran.html/?rc=fox_attacks_iran_frontpage&r=2916
Time will tell. I knew well beforehand, that we were going to invade Iraq. How? Not because we had reasons, but because I studied the mainstream media and saw that they were beating the war drums. I would have been shocked if we didn't invade. Now I fear that innocent lives, including our brave soilders, are going to be killed, because the war drums of the media, are pounding again.
As our professor has stressed, get your information from more than one source. And please, don't always believe what you see or hear or read. Remember who your source is. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox and much more, has a history of trash journalism. When I lived in NYC, he purchased the New York Post, a respectable newspaper, created by Alexander Hamilton, yes, the A. Hamilton! It now is the equivalant to The National Enquire, shortly after his taking it over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
>As it has been unequivicably been proven, Hussien never had WMDs.
Be careful with your wording. The way this sentence is worded, it is wrong on two cases. First, nothing is ever proven "unequivocably." Possibilities exist that said weapons could still exist or that they were moved to another country, etc. The possibilities are very, very slim, but they still exist. Also, it isn't true to say he "never" had WMDs, because he certainly had them in the 1980s and early 1990s and used them against both Iranians and Iraqis. He did not have a weapons program or any significant stockpiles at the time of the invasion, but he did have them in earlier time periods.
I've never seen any valid scientific evidence to support the concept of "brainwashing," if by brainwashing we mean "forcing people to believe things they wouldn't otherwise believe." Most people who are "brainwashed" want to believe the things they come to believe, so they are willing participants in the process. If by "brainwashing" you mean attempting to influence public opinion through a repeated message, then yes, that is not only the hallmark of politics, but of all marketing and PR.
Finally, while there may have been times when journalism was better than it now, it isn't a linear trend. If you go back to the early days of American journalism, things would be as bad or worse than they are now. Also don't forget that wars have been started by yellow journalism (think of the Spanish-American War). I would wager you'd find some pretty crazy stuff if you went back and read the NY Post under Hamilton.
Professor, you do have a point as far as the wording and examples of past journalism. However, you failed to address the issue, especially when it deals with Fox.
I agree, I can get a bit emotional about issues, especially when it comes to Americans losing their freedoms, or fighting corporate wars, but the sentiment is there, and although I don't spend time proof reading my blogs, which I would do for research papers, etc., my hope is to stir up some thinking that many people have shut off. The magnitude and effects of this type of journalism I believe is far more dangerous than the yellow journalism back in the day.
Anyway, your points are well taken. I believe most people have posted things that aren't properly researched or worded.
>However, you failed to address the issue, especially when it deals with Fox.
The point of my responses on the blog is not to agree or disagree with political sentiments, but to respond to problems with logic and/or evidence.
>my hope is to stir up some thinking that many people have shut off.
That's fine and I not only have no problem with that, I encourage that.
>The magnitude and effects of this type of journalism I believe is far more dangerous than the yellow journalism back in the day.
Maybe, but you'd have to provide some evidence to support that contention.
>I believe most people have posted things that aren't properly researched or worded.
You are correct, and I try to respond to as many of those as possible.
At the time of the Iraq invasion, I put my faith in our country's leadership. Despite all the things in the media, there are certain pieces of information that the public is not privy to. The government can rightfully, and sometimes necessarily, withhold information from the public as a matter of national security. I do not have any proof for my next statement; however, I do believe that our leaders do hold, what they believe, to be the nation's best interests in mind. As a nation, we have woven and entangled web. Under scrutiny, none of it looks pretty.
It depends on what side of the fence you sit on. If you are a liberal, you will disagree with Fox News for the way they present the headlines. If you are conservative, you will disagree with the New York Times. Each side is just as bad as the other. They just appeal to different audiences.
>If you are conservative, you will disagree with the New York Times.
While it is clear that there are openly liberal media sources, there isn't much evidence to suggest the Times is one of them. For example, the Times was very pro-war in the beginning. So much so, that they later apologized for it once the war became unpopular.
Post a Comment