Image via WikipediaWhen I first became aware of this issue I read some of the posts in question, particularly those discussing using Sarah Palin's baby boy as a tool against her. After about three pages I realized I was uneasy with this situation because these were supposed to be journalists; unbiased reporters that give us information so that we can make decisions. It really sounds a bit more like political activists talking about what they can do to get a particular person elected. In this case it was Obama, but FOR THE RECORD, I would be uncomfortable with it if it involved trying to get McCain elected.
The Daily Caller article on this issue (link in title above) lists reasons to be concerned about this issue. They quote one of the journolist contributors as posting:
"The single biggest thing journolist can do is to lay the analytical framework within the media elite necessary for an Obama debate win to be viewed as such by a sufficient portion of media elites that voters know it was a win."
Now, where have I heard that "elite" reference before? Oh yeah, Bernays in Propaganda. He referred to the "intelligent few" but I believe that amounts to the same thing.
The Daily Caller article presents information: who was involved, what was posted, the lists 'strict ban on political operatives and explicit partisan coordination', and information about the members' subsequent government appointments. The writer assumes that you know that this is wrong. That our media should be a check on our government and that this shows that it might not be a very effective check if things like this are happening.
Now, the Huffington Post writer tells you why you don't care. He very effectively presents to the reader that "those lunatics" who are concerned about this also believe a number of other ridiculous things. He outlines those issues in humorous language that do not represent the concerns accurately. After the first paragraph you say to yourself: "gosh, I sure am glad I'm not THAT stupid." Any opinion that conflicts with his views is "living in a parallel universe." He goes on to describe this universe in increasingly derogatory terms to prove his point. He does not even come close to describing accurately what opposing views really are.
He then spends considerable energy, in fact the rest of the article, demeaning Dennis Prager. I am not familiar with this individual, but he obviously takes an opposing view. His first example in which Prager makes a point/analogy to "confronting bullies." He goes on to say that he has "never witnessed or experienced the feelings in this analogy, and neither has anyone else." I believe I, and many other people have experienced these feelings and it will ironically play out in this instance. He will bully you into believing that if you hold an opposing view you are stupid, ignorant, racist, or whatever the word of the day is. If you belong to a group, let's say a Tea Party, then if you point out the facts to shine a light on the errors in his analysis there will be people in your group that don't like that because they might be bullied even more. That happens frequently in my universe and it happens in Chris Kelly's universe too, whether he admits it or not.
At one point he writes of Prager: "Aha, and zo, who ist zist boy you keep seeing in zist dream?" He doesn't come right out and call him a fascist, he let's his intelligent reader draw this conclusion all on their own. (See my post on free will for more information.)
Finally, during the last presidential election a few times I had my son listen to America Right for an hour and then America Left for an hour. I did this, in part, to show him the importance of getting both sides before making a decision. At one point he said to me, "When I listen to America Right I get information I can follow up on and check out. When I listen to America Left I get to listen to insults without very much information. I'm getting tired of hearing about Sarah Palin's wardrobe. Why don't they spend more time giving me information that I can use?"
In our current world, opposing views and the reporting of facts that should be considered are first ignored. If that does not work, they are deflected. If that does not work they are re-directed. If that does not work the person is mocked and/or marginalized. That is NOT freedom of the press, it is manipulation for the purposes of power and control. And that goes for ANYONE who does this.
THINK for yourself. Don't be bullied into believing that your world view is responsible for every single woe on the planet nor be convinced that an opposing world view is responsible for every single woe on the planet. Get the information and draw your own conclusions. But, please be aware that you now have to fight to retain the right to have access to all the information because if they can't bully you into ignoring Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh these voices will be eliminated. More on that later......
No comments:
Post a Comment