Rich Bond, former Republican Party Chair admitted that they created the myth of the "liberal biased media" in an attempt to, as they say in sports, "work the ref". Basically, create an over-dramatic objection to the other side and the unfair difference in treatment of both sides, in hopes that you will get concessions from the referee. In this analogy, the "ref" is the public. This strategic development, worked on tirelessly by the political right-wing in America created the false impression that the media was a cheer-leading team for the political left. This created the justification of the creation of Fox News, a Conservative version of the "liberal media" for supposed balance. The problem is this. Who is the liberal media? MSNBC? They are new, and only took on the Liberal mantle recently. Is CNN part of the liberal media? Hardly. CNN is like Fox light. And who is the "Mainstream Media"? The largest Media group in the United States, and second larges in the world is News Corp, FOX's parent company. FOX is as big as, if not bigger than any of the "Big Three"; ABC, CBS and NBC. And even if these are called "liberally biased", no one can ever seem to reference specific examples of actual bias, not until recent years that is. Whereas looking for conservative bias in the media, one can name dozens of names from Fox, CNN and New Radio as well as citing numerous examples from stories and quotes. Not to mention the obvious direct conflict of interests between the founders and top people at FOX whom have all had long careers in Politics directly, specifically in Republican administrations. Roger Ailes, President of FOX and director of programming, notorious for sending out daily memos telling everyone what to report and how to report it, including what words to use (eg "job creators" instead of "rich") was media consultant for 3 Republican Presidential administrations as well as many other Republican offices. You can't get more blatant than that.
The first thing a cult does is convince you that everyone else is lying to you, thus implying that they are the only ones that can be trusted. And it works. FOX does this. No other media outlet in the world constantly claims to be the only media outlet that can be trusted. Incidentally, who's more likely to be the liar, the guy who's constantly saying "trust me, everyone is lying to you except for me" or "everyone else"? It should be obvious. And one can take a step further as well. Ask, who stands to gain, and what from these conflicting sides? Look at the climate change debate. It is either a complete mystery why this is so controversial, or it is obvious. In the former, we have it as it is presented by conservatives. The "left" along with 98% of the scientific community invented a false crisis in order to... well, yea, it's unclear their motives. The implication is that there is something evil and pernicious about trying to take care of the environment. This makes little sense. As for if it were a fair and balanced debate, it would still be weird that we are having it. If the people proposing that climate change is happening and it's man made or at least affected by man (forgetting for the moment the weight of the scientific evidence on the matter) are right, then we should do something, and quick. If they are wrong, then what? It would be evil and wrong to start recycling more, and lowering carbon emissions for "no reason"? That doesn't make much sense does it? And what of the motivation to deceive the world into thinking climate change exists if it doesn't? So there's the other side, if they're right and we do nothing, it doesn't matter. But if they are wrong and we do nothing, the consequences are disastrous on a global scale. And their motivation to deceive? Oh yea, FOX, Republican politicians, and 2% of the scientific community just happen to be bank rolled by businesses that are making record profits because they don't have to be concerned about the environment, and if they did have to do something about it they would be cutting into their profits. That makes more sense. This is how they (the right-wing media) approach every argument: Ginned up outrage at the insinuation that the people bankrolling them (the right-wing) are trying to intentionally deceive people for their own profits, followed by the accusation that the conspiracy is actually on the other side, with either an unknown or inexplicable motive.
I just heard a rant from an average FOX watcher. He was complaining about how he and his family had been treated unfairly by the tax code. As a working class family he thought he had an unfair portion of the tax burden. I agreed with him. But then he instantly went into defense mode of the rich. Complaining about the "anarchists" in the "Occupy" movement, and the "Liberal-Media" how they wanted to "tax the rich" and how they were responsible for him being taxed, because he was the "rich" they were talking about. And then he explained how the "media" had brain-washed an entire nation. To that I agreed as well. But I was thinking how FOX had brainwashed him into thinking that the people who were making the same complaint as him, "unfairness of the tax code" were actually the ones responsible for the unfairness somehow. Even though neither the media, nor the protests are writing the tax-code, especially retroactively. It would be like saying the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s was somehow responsible for slavery and racism over the last few centuries, or that the women's suffrage movement of the early 1900s was the real cause the misogyny in human culture over the history of civilization. It's amazing to me, that someone can be so programmed to complain about how they have been treated unfair, and then simultaneously blame the others who are also complaining, while defending those that caused, and benefited from that unfairness as though they were the real victims.
Blaming the victim is one feat. Getting the victim to blame themselves, now that's truley impressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment