"Digital Destiny"
Aug. 12th, 2004 11:59 pmI suggest everyone interested in "Fair and Balanced" news spend the $13.45 it costs to have their own DVD or VHS copy of Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism shipped to their home. There is of course an overty critical analysis of the Bush Administration. But most importantly is the practical explaination of basic media ethics and how they apply to the culture of politics in a country. Your right to know all sides of a story is part of your freedom of speech. When the agenda of one industry or one political voice saturates the media your freedom is impeded upon. For profit or political gain that is just the situation in the USA, and to a less documented degree, most other wealthy places in the world.
Is it really a shocking revelation that Fox News is an adjunct of the Republican Party? Or that talk radio is by and large only representing far right and neo-conservative views? How come that my entire lifetime the break-down of American democratic process has pretty much been a dinner time topic of conversation through-out the company I keep? Is this merely Canadian folklore or perhaps as your closest neighbours, privy to much of your media, we have some constructive criticism to give? Might I add that Macleans is the Canadian equivalent to Time Magazine.
Also touched upon toward the end of the film is tthe future of new media and the possible renaissence of pertinent local coverage through both activism and technology. I would argue that as far as the greater good is concerned the current fight for our technological rights to democratic mass media are more important than so called "wedge issues" like same-sex marriage. In fact we are participating in that very activism right now. Unfortunately that importance is largely unrealized. With just the right angle of doublethink weblogging could be popularly co-related with terrorism, given the need.
Is it really a shocking revelation that Fox News is an adjunct of the Republican Party? Or that talk radio is by and large only representing far right and neo-conservative views? How come that my entire lifetime the break-down of American democratic process has pretty much been a dinner time topic of conversation through-out the company I keep? Is this merely Canadian folklore or perhaps as your closest neighbours, privy to much of your media, we have some constructive criticism to give? Might I add that Macleans is the Canadian equivalent to Time Magazine.
Also touched upon toward the end of the film is tthe future of new media and the possible renaissence of pertinent local coverage through both activism and technology. I would argue that as far as the greater good is concerned the current fight for our technological rights to democratic mass media are more important than so called "wedge issues" like same-sex marriage. In fact we are participating in that very activism right now. Unfortunately that importance is largely unrealized. With just the right angle of doublethink weblogging could be popularly co-related with terrorism, given the need.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 05:53 am (UTC)We have whole forests worth of independent newspapers (another issue for you to comment on, perhaps - *wink*) as well. If we want "fair and balanced" we have the freedom to turn the channel (or turn it off) and pick up or log onto something that we feel is worth our attention. Our freedom of speech (actually I think you mean freedom of the press) is not restricted by Murdoch or even Clear Channel, it's simply made less convenient. We don't really have the right to convenience. Sometimes we have to think for ourselves or seek out the sources of info that we agree reflect our values as individuals.
Besides, even the article you quote admits to what is an open secret anyway: Canadians make a national pastime out of critiquing America (that's okay, we do it to Europe and vice versa). :)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 11:24 am (UTC)Re: Point taken
Date: 2004-08-13 02:01 pm (UTC)Re: Point taken
Date: 2004-08-13 02:26 pm (UTC)There are *so* many more important and more valid things to crticize him about than his pronunciation!
Re: Point taken
Date: 2004-08-13 03:48 pm (UTC)Alright then.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 06:29 am (UTC)