A little history to begin:
Back even with abolition before the Civil War, the American media has had an agenda, keeping slavery legal (much like pro-baby-killing is with the modern media). The “alternative” media served its purpose then, too … generating articles and literature designed to stop slavery. It worked then. That’s part of the power of freedom of speech.
After the Civil War, the media turned more liberal … at least in some ways. The media has always taken upon itself theresponsibility of pushing certain agendas and policies. It is the nature of having to choose what to report and how that manipulates what people think. This is the “bully pulpit” of the media.
This liberal leaning was exacerbated in the 50′s when many people in the entertainment industry were openly suspected of being communists and even traitors. Years later, even though many of them were actually giving information to the Soviet Union, the damage was done, the media was decidedly anti-conservative and Republican.
So while the media has gone through cycles of being more or less objective, it cannot by nature BE objective.
With that in mind, the complaints of a skewed media can never be solved or addressed. Humans have opinions and agendas, and those in certain power positions take it upon themselves to slant information.
The problem with slanted media is when truth or facts are suppressed and an honest exchange of ideas is openly discouraged. This is oppressive and harms a “free press”. Over the last twenty years, this has become the norm for the “mainstream” media. Let’s quickly look at the progression.
1988. Fairly liberal media then. Regan was continually mocked and criticized despite winning in landslides. His VP, George Bush, runs for president at the end of a successful two terms for Republicans. His only copetition is Dukakis. Well, a story breaks about how Dukakis pardoned a criminal, a murderer, who went on to kill again. Bush, Sr., wins in another landslide, much to the chagrin of the liberal media.
Once Bill Clinton comes along, the liberal media leared their lesson. IF they want a Democratic candidate to win … which they do … then they can’t report certain things … or if they do, report them in a way that makes the Democratic candidate look like a victim. Which is what they did with Clinton. Stories about his abuses of power while in Arkansas were glossed over and the “scandal” that broke considering his adultery was skewed as if he were some sort of victim … along with poor Hillary.
Not that ’92 was that simple, but you get the idea. Conservatives then felt completely disenfranchised by an already hostile liberal media. In the opinion of conservatives, the media failed to properly scrutinize him. Hence, talk radio emerged as a political force for conservatives … which really pisses liberals off because they don’t actually believe in equal expression of ideas. But freedom of speech wins out, and Boortz and Limbaugh and Hannity and others paved the way for a conservative revolution that won both House and Senate in ’94 for Republicans.
Conservatives adopted terms like “mainstream” and “alternative” media, and what used to be obscure voices and stations on the AM dial actually influenced politics and how people thought.
Part 2 tomorrow.
Peace.
[...] Bully Media and its Consequences part 1 His VP, George Bush, runs for president at the end of a successful two terms for Republicans. His only copetition is Dukakis. Well, a story breaks about how Dukakis pardoned a criminal, a murderer, who went on to kill again. Bush, Sr. … [...]