Outdated News

The New York Times Co. is one of the biggest newspaper companies in our area. It is also the owner of many other newspapers, including the famous Boston Globe. Sadly, the Boston Globe may not last longer. Last night the New York Times Co. announced the closing of the Boston Globe’s printing press. The New York Times Co. was forced to do this because of their rising debt, which has also caused them to mortgage their office, and take a loan from a Mexican billionaire with an exorbitant 14% interest rate. Many seem to be upset about this, and it can be seen as a sign of an end to the age of newspapers.

Is it really that bad? Newspapers are nice, but they aren’t necessary in today’s world, and they obviously can not compete against other forms of media. Just because the newspaper companies are going down, doesn’t mean we won’t still receive news from both the internet and television. We should focus more on how to use the resources we have so that media can be efficient and informative, instead of wasting time and money on companies that are just not working in today’s world.

Surprisingly Objective

Before turning on the television to watch both Fox and CNN, I had expected to find some of the worst biases ever, with CNN being liberal and Fox conservative. Well, I just spent the last hour flipping between the two stations, and it really wasn’t that bad. They covered most of the same stories, and really didn’t have much of a difference. There were some stories, such as a Spanish judge trying to prosecute Bush for torture, that one station would cover and another wouldn’t. There was even a story on CNN that praised Bush for his preparation for a flu outbreak, while both of them discussed the Democratic Jon Edwards’ scandal.

There were two main differences that I could sense between the two stations. One was just the style of the two. Fox was much more relaxed, with the two anchors joking around and they seemed to have a friendlier attitude, while the CNN program was more formal. The other difference addresses the partisan backgrounds of the stations. It seemed to me that CNN was more optimistic towards the economy while Fox was not necessarily pessimistic they were definitely more wary.

Now, I know there are biases out there on these two networks, and you can see them with such programs as Rush Limbaugh, but the morning news that I watched was really just the news, with very little commentary. I wouldn’t say I prefer either partisan or objective news, it depends on what I’m in the mood for. If I want commentary I want it to be partisan, if I want just news I want it objective.

CBS Entertainment News at 11

I just finished watching the local CBS news at 11. For the entire program, only 2 of the stories were actual political stories. They began with the swine flu, if that can be deemed a political issue, and than after that they brushed over Senator Arlen Specter’s changeover to the Democrats.

For the rest of the program, they discussed a potentially dangerous strain of ringworm that you can contract from Raccoon feces, some small local events, the weather, sports, and than they finished it off with the a report on the new Wolverine movie. This news program was definitely more entertainment than political, but that doesn’t make it not news. People want to know what is going on in sports or in the movies, and who doesn’t like to know what the weather will be like for the next week? Perhaps these stories aren’t important, but they reach an audience that definitely has the right to be interested in entertainment news.

Hannity and Colmes

Hannity and Colmes used to be a show on Fox where a liberal, Colmes, and a conservative, Hannity, report the news and argue against each other along with many guest speakers. Unfortunately, the show is no longer on the air, making it difficult to watch in order to properly critique. From the sound of it, and watching a few videos on the internet, it was meant to be similar to the show Crossfire, except that it is not so much debates on political issues as commentaries on news with some strong debate.

Now, the show being on Fox immediately makes you expect that the show is going to be entirely biased towards the Republicans. Yet, in one video I found Colmes defends Jon Edwards by actually attacking McCain, something I would never expect to hear on the Fox network from a Fox employee. This actually makes me wonder, why is it that Colmes, who represented the liberals, is no longer on the air while Hannity still has a show? Perhaps his liberal views are the actual cause of his removal. Unfortunately, I can not truly critique the show as it is to difficult to find good videos and the show is no longer on the air.

Limbaugh's Commentary

The other day I was listening to Rush Limbaugh discuss the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Souter and Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrats. According to Limbaugh, Specter’s leaving the Republicans will make it easier for the Republicans to cause a filibuster when deciding who will replace Souter. Apparently, the only way for a filibuster to be broken is if someone from the minority voted for the nominee. Without Specter, the chances of someone going against their party have been lessened, since he is no longer part of the minority.

Of course, Limbaugh is a right wing Republican, and wants nothing but the best for his party. I don’t blame him for being biased, as there is no way for him to hide it. If anything, I felt that what he had to say was very interesting, and informative. He may not be right, which he even admits there is still a possibility that someone would break the filibuster. Honestly, I learned something from Limbaugh’s right wing biased program. Political commentaries can be interesting, so long as you understand their biases.

Informative and Entertaining

The night after I watched the ABC News at 6:30 (April 30, 2009) I also watched the very entertaining Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I was not surprised to see that they both covered the two major stories of the day, those being the Swine Flu and President Obama’s first 100 days in the presidency. Setting-wise, the Daily Show does a good job at replicating what it looks like on a news station, except in the Daily Show there is actually an audience.

Of course, there is an important difference between the shows, Daily Show is entertainment. You can see that everything said is a joke. The smaller issues also were not the same, considering that the Daily Show is meant as entertainment while the news should be just news. A show that is meant to entertain would not discuss such boring topics as traffic, or small town employment, and nobody wants to hear about the falling GDP on Comedy Central. Also a major difference was that Hugh Jackman, or Wolverine, was a guest on the show.

It is important to note however that the Daily Show really isn’t badat providing information. It isn’t the news, but if you do watch it you will learn somewhat of what is going on, more than you would if you didn’t watch the news. Also, the jokes are pretty funny and he can be quite critical of the media.

You Can't Escape it so Embrace it

During the Israeli operations in Gaza earlier this year I was speaking with a friend about how the newspapers have covered it. My friend thought that reading the European newspapers would give him an unbiased opinion compared to the American media. Of course, this is just not true. People think that media outlets like the BBC are completely unbiased because they are ran by the state, but they actually are. Instead, people are receiving biased news believing it to be unbiased. Just like the issue with Media Matters being biased, so are the international newspapers. Even if they may not be biased, there is no way to know if they are or not.

Instead, I told my friend a better idea. Why not read both the Israeli news and the Arab news? This way you get the story from both sides, with biases right out in the open. You can’t be tricked, you know straight up that Israeli news will support Israel while Arab news will support the Palestinians. Piece it all together yourself, and look through all the b.s. they provide. This is the way to avoid the bias and brainwashing of media in general. Be critical, but don’t be ignorant like they have been. Listen to both what the conservatives say, and the liberals.

I Don't Like Coffee

On Nico’s Media Blog, he discussed a post about bio-fuel being made from coffee that he found on “The Environmental Blog”. As Nico explains, this bio-fuel is safer for the environment and it is even a stable efficient fuel. It all sounds nice, but it isn’t all that simple, and Nico definitely fell for it. The writer of “The Environmental Blog” failed to address some important issues.

First of all, 16 billion pounds of coffee is a lot, but not enough especially if we plan on still drinking coffee. Secondly, it is too expensive of a process right now, don’t we want the price of gas to go down? Also, isn’t most coffee produced throughout most of the world made outside of the country, especially in South America? I can’t see this helping the American economy much at all, and it would only raise the price of living. Not to mention, I really don’t want to smell coffee every time I drive.

Its Just Fantasy

Hugh Hefner’s life is every man’s dream, three beautiful blondes and a ton of money. What better way to exploit this than make it into a show. “Girls Next Door” is an extremely entertaining show where cameras follow Hefner’s girlfriends as the go through their relaxed life, where they only do what they want to do. It really is entertaining, but mostly because those girls are extremely beautiful, and not to mention a few of their activities are interesting. Of course, you also see the usual dirt that goes on in these “reality” shows. The girls complain about each other, and the one, Holly, definitely comes off as a cocky, neurotic girlfriend.

There is a problem with this show, and a big one. I would never let my younger sister watch it. This show presents a false reality, that girls can get by in life due solely to their looks, I mean lets face it those girls have no real personality. They show younger girls that if they have big enough boobs and a skinny stomach that they don’t have to work, or even think, and can spend all day doing whatever they want. Now, I know that people need to think for themselves and in no way do I think the government or anyone should censor this show. I also don’t think girls shouldn’t be allowed to watch it, but not when there young, and not without being taught that this show is a fantasy. The guys know it, so should the girls. In the end, it all comes down to parents.

Yaz

If you haven’t seen the recent Yaz birth control commercials, the ones where they spend the whole commercial listing all the negative benefits of Yaz, than you haven’t watched enough television. These commercials are a joke, or at least they are to the viewer. Why is it that they are making commercials that seem to list only negative aspects of their product? Because the FDA “asked” them to after they released a commercial that made Yaz seem to be to perfect.



Now if you actually watch the commercial, it really isn’t that bad. First of all, it’s an advertisement, so of course the company is going to want to make their product seem like it’s the best. That’s what a competitive market does. The commercial does what is required in that it states the possibility of negative health effects. Honestly, it isn’t that much different from any other birth control commercial. Should the one where the girl leaves the group of boring swimmers to become a free-willed beauty have been taken down to?

The whole situation is ridiculous, if you ask me this is the political conservatives trying to bring down the birth control industry by controlling what commercials they can make.

Good Night and Good Luck

An exciting, and interesting movie that everyone should check out is “Good Night and Good Luck”, directed by George Clooney. In this movie based on a true story, a famous reporter, Edward Murrow, takes on the legendary McCarthy and his campaign against communists. Eventually, Murrow’s bold, and dangerous, actions lead to the downfall of McCarthy, but angers the owner of the television station. This causes Murrow’s program to lose much of its advertising and has him switched to a non-primetime slot.

This shows the viewer the truth of media, that it’s a business ran by politics. Murrow’s campaign was a success, it brought down McCarthy and it received many callers during the program. Why did he lose his advertising than? Because, big businesses did not want to support a person that could possibly connect them to less popular political stances, such as communism. Murrow was a risk, he took on McCarthy successfully, but what other stances would he take? Could the advertisers risk such a thing happening again, just this time without success? No, they preferred to remove support, causing his show, a true public service show, to almost become cancelled.

To me, this sounds a lot like the Michael Phelps situation. He lost his advertisers because they didn’t want to be seen supporting a pothead, despite his success and his smoking having little to do with their products.

Justifiably Angry Feminists

I just read a post from the feminist blog called Feministing, and found that I almost completely agree with the writer. In the post, she discusses how she heard a man and a woman publically discussing another woman’s sexual promiscuity and calling her a slut. The post addresses the topic of the double standards that have been a societal problem for generations. Men can do whatever they want, but if a woman does the same thing she is deemed a slut. Like the writer, I see no excuse for this.

A PERSON should not be humiliated or hated for their sexual desires. We are all human, we all have sexual desires. I am actually abstinent, yet I have difficulty keeping it sometimes, and I never judge others for their sexual actions. I may not agree with them, but it’s their own decision which only should affect them.

Usually extreme feminists can get on my nerves, but the bloggers at Feministing don’t. The post I wrote about, and others that I read all speak wisely, even if some of it could be considered extreme. A person could learn from such blogs, and become more open-minded.

Marijuana Media

G4TV’s target audience is supposed to be “geeks”, in the beginning of the stations history all its shows were dedicated to video games, computers and other advanced technology that a non-geek could never understand. Since than, it has changed a lot and became more mainstream with shows like Cops and movies. Recently though, they did a whole lineup dedicated to marijuana smoking. This special included a discussion on legalization, the stoner classic Half Baked, and the television premiere of Super High Me. Those two movies have actually been playing almost non-stop for the last two weeks. On the same day, a smoking holiday called on 4/20, Comedy Central played several Cheech and Chong movies. Now these stations are meant for entertainment solely, and perhaps they recognize that a large amount of their audience may be potheads.

Yet, even in other forms of media, pot has managed to wedge itself in there. News specials have been done on multiple networks where they have debated both medical and recreational usage of marijuana. President Obama has made statements saying that dispensaries in California should not be the targets of federal attacks. In an online forum where questions for Obama were voted upon, issues of marijuana received a substantial (3.5 million) vote.

With the media spotlight on marijuana it feels as if some form of legalization is going to occur. In New Jersey, a bill has already been approved by the house, and has received support of the governor. As stated earlier, Obama wants to end DEA raids. Everywhere you go, people are talking about it, and if enough people are pressuring the government to address it something may happen.

Environmentalists...

I happen to be a somewhat conservative person, and when discussing the environment I usually dismiss the issue as unimportant. Its not that it isn’t important so much as not as big an issue as the liberals make it out to be. However, I do believe that if there is something we can do to make the world a better place, even a little bit, and so long as it does not get in the way of people’s individual rights or waste taxpayers money, I see no reason why we shouldn’t do it.

On the environmentalist blog, Unearthed, I actually found a post by Trip Van Noppen to be very informative and interesting. Reading his article I learned that Black Carbon is a dangerous problem that is affecting people in the present, not the distant future. I also learned that there are those in power throughout the world that are trying to change things. All in all, the post was very interesting, but I disagree that politicians should be making any decisions on it. First of all, while any death is unfortunate, 1.6 million deaths a year possibly caused by black carbon just is not enough considering the population of the world. Also, if carbon dioxide is the main issue, why should we waste millions of dollars stopping black carbon so that we can just spend more trying to stop carbon dioxide emissions? Environmentalists should stop trying to waste our money on what they see as problems. If they want to fix it they can do it themselves, but don’t force others to change according to your beliefs.

Media Matters for Liberal Hypocrites

According to their website, “Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Sounds nice, doesn’t it? I mean who wants to be misinformed, and who wants their news to be biased? There is just one huge issue, “correcting conservative misinformation”, not correcting misinformation.

Media Matters, and many other groups, attack the conservative media, and scream over the fact that they are biased, yet they are just as biased. It is hypocrisy at its finest, or perhaps at its worst. Organizations like Media Matters are even more insidious than the biased media, because people come to these organizations expecting to learn to avoid biases. Instead, at Media Matters you learn that the conservatives are lying and brainwashing us, and I don’t deny that they do, but aren’t the liberals doing the same thing?

I don’t mind having biased media, but I do mind when people are being mislead to think only one side does it.

Huffington Doesn't Just Huff

The Huffington Post is one of the most well known and successful political blogs today. This blog has become so popular, that one of their “reporters” was actually at a Presidential press conference. Looking at the Huffington Post, one can see many well written articles, and they seem to really know what their talking about. Links are provided throughout their posts, showing that they are not just making everything up. Also, the posts by their many writers are all interesting, and while all are political they address many different issues.

I have only two issues with this blog. First of all it is obviously extremely liberal. Not a single post there does not scream LIBERAL. At the same time, it’s a blog, and you when you go to a blog you expect it to be biased. There isn’t any brain-washing, you aren’t misled, you know right than and there these are the opinions of liberal writers. My other minor problem was that there were a few, and really only a few, posts that were definitely more entertainment than news. One post was about Jon Edwards’ affair, while another was about Miss California’s breast implants. Still, all around I think it is a good blog, run well and with plenty of interesting information.

General Motors of the Government of the United States of America

On the front page of the New York Times today was an article covering the story of American car companies and how they have been handling the current economic crisis. In the article we learn that President Obama has allowed Chrysler to become bankrupt, and that they have been bought by foreign car maker Fiat. According to the article, G.M. is a much bigger political issue than Chrysler, and that Obama has plans to force G.M. to make certain decisions. At the moment there is even a proposal from G.M. to the White House, but it has not been approved yet. Later on in the article one learns that there is even a plan to set government representatives on the G.M. board.

The writers do a decent job at presenting information, although much of it is quite difficult to understand unless you are a businessman or have been following from the beginning. While no political bias is truly shown, there is a sense of pessimism, especially near the end where they discuss how it will be difficult for the car companies to compete with foreign companies even if the plans work. This pessimism is understandable considering the state of the economy, yet shouldn’t the news just provide the news not the opinions.

Terror is the Product You Push

One of my favorite songs ever is Vietnow by Rage Against the Machine. For those who do not know, Rage Against the Machine is a left-wing political rap-rock band, known for championing such causes as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, and the rights of Mexican immigrants. They are huge supporters of the cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Leonard Peltier, both of whom they claim are political prisoners. Personally, I do not agree with almost any of their politics, yet there are a few songs of theirs that are amazing and I can sympathize with them on. Vietnow is one of those songs.

Just listening to the song, almost all you can hear is the anger and the most common line, “Fear is your only God on the radio”. Right there, we see that Zack de la Rocha, the singer of Rage and a true poet, is sending an important message on media. Looking at the lyrics, one can see that this song is all about the media. The entire song is how the radio, or media in general, has bred fear in us, and we have allowed it to control us, with lines like “Terror is tha product ya push,” and “sheep tremble an here come tha votes”.

I may not agree with them about their politics, but isn’t there something to learn from this song? During the elections, how many people voted based on their fears? Whether it is a fear of economic issues, war, terrorists, or your own government, a primary factor in people’s political activity is based upon this fear. How else are they taught fear, but from the media. Today, if you turn the news on you’ll hear about swine flu and the economy, or you’ll hear about the war in Iraq. We live in fear, and we act on fear, all because of the media.

The only way to escape the fear caused by media is to know that they are breeding fear. There is no way you can “shut down tha devil sound”, but you can at least know what it is.

Democratic Torture

A huge topic of being discussed in media lately has been that of the Bush administrations usage of torture, and whether or not he should be charged for it. International law, and perhaps even moral law, forbids the usage of any form of torture in order to gain confessions or intelligence. Yet, when there is war a lot more is at stake. The line between what is right and what is wrong become blurred, when you are dealing with national security.

In an editorial by Serge Schmemann of the New York Times, the policies of Israel towards torture are discussed. According to the editorial, Israel used to practice torture, but 12 years ago the Supreme Court of Israel had decided that it was unconstitutional. He explains that everyone knows its wrong, but they will do it if they believe the end justifies the means. In the end, he states his opinion that “whatever security benefits may have been gained by torture were far outweighed by the damage done to a nation that betrays its own values.”

Schmemann is correct in saying that torture is wrong, and it is most definitely not something that can go hand in hand with democracy, or any free system. While I agree with him that it is damaging, yet only because it damages the rest of the world’s views of America. Until torture is used on American citizens, it can not drastically harm our nation.

Some News on the News

On April 29, I watched the 6:30 News on ABC. I must admit that I was surprised to find that it was actually quite informative. While much of the 20 minute program, approximately 10 went to commercials, was spent on less important stories, they still did address some big stories.

Of course, the first 7 minutes were dedicated solely to the recent swine flu outbreak. After this they covered the falling GDP of America, President Obama’s first 100 days, and how the economic crisis has drastically lowered traffic. They ended it all with a story about a town out in the Midwest that has a surplus of jobs due to an oil well that was recently found.

These stories were definitely not ordered in importance, and the amount of time spent covering them according to importance either. They brought in experts, and showed clips of politicians when presenting the swine flu story, and they dedicated the most time, almost half the program, to it. While it is important, and we should know that there could be an epidemic soon is it really more important than President Obama’s first 100 days, which only received a quick 3 part summary? What about the falling GDP? Only one person had died in America from the swine flu, it can’t be that big of a deal. Also, the stories about the Midwestern town and traffic were most definitely there only for entertainment, they weren’t true news and nothing was there to report on.