Fair and Balanced?
22 February 2007
by Timbre' Wolf, Staff Writer for AnaiRhoads.org
Who, exactly, is the "Associated Press" associated with? hmm...
Q. Is there any real need for "fair and balanced" reporting when one
of the "sides" refuses to play fair...EVER?
Q. Do we really need "balance" on issues where there is only one sane
conclusion.
Consider the issue of global climate change. The "fair and balanced"
media might be inclined to give equal time to...say...Oklahoma's
senator James Inhofe. Mr. Inhofe called the threat of catastrophic
global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American
people," and later went on to add that his statement "was not viewed
kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations."
The "environmental extremists," to which he refers, would be...let's
see...ALL REAL SCIENTISTS (US scientists, who have discovered -
through the course of scientific study - disturbing environmental
trends fingering global warming, have been threatened and silenced by
the Bush administration).
It is interesting to note that the Pentagon enlisted the best
scientists they could find and issued a report, in early 2004, which
stated that North America could be under ice as early as 2012. The
report has since mysteriously vanished from the Pentagon website.
I have even heard the argument that we've done enough to protect the
environment or that evolution will weed out the species that can't
handle our current polluted reality. It is not just a little ironic
that this is the only time evolution is ever invoked by proponents of
propagating pollution.
But if you're even vaguely familiar with chaos theory then you
understand that an introduced variable (lots and lots of CO2) into a
dynamical system (global weather) produces completely unpredictable
results. And if you know a little bit more about scientific thinking,
where our Mother Earth is concerned, then you know that most
theoretical scientists are mystified that the planet is not already
white with a thick layer of ice from pole to pole.
There are NOT two sides to this "issue." We had better come to terms
with this reality and stop giving "fair and balanced" editorial space
to what may well become the grimmest of realities.
Neither are there two sides to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, the Military
Commissions Act or the Patriot Act, the ineffectiveness of the war in
Iraq, the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs or the war on terror,
depleted uranium munitions being discharged in Iraq, and the list goes
on and on.
The Reverend Ellie Finlay wrote me: "Of course, the real
responsibility of the press is to be OBJECTIVE - not neutral. Big
difference."
I decided to look up these two words: Objective and Neutral.
Objective is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or
prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
And neutral means "not aligned with or supporting any side or position
in a controversy."
And from Jim Pryor, Associate Professor, Dept. of Philosophy at NYU we get:
"An argument is not the same thing as a quarrel. The goal of an
argument is not to attack your opponent, or to impress your audience.
The goal of an argument is to offer good reasons in support of your
conclusion, reasons that all parties to your dispute can accept."
"Nor is an argument just the denial of what the other person says.
Even if what your opponent says is wrong and you know it to be wrong,
to resolve your dispute you have to produce arguments. And you haven't
yet produced an argument against your opponent until you offer some
reasons that show him to be wrong."
"Nor is an argument just the denial of what the other person says." !!!!
The "modus operandi" of the Bush administration is to deny anything
which gets in their way of steam rolling over the constitution
(especially, but not limited to, the Bill of Rights), world
domination, the rights of detainees, the rights of prisoners of war
(Saddam Hussein), the rights of Americans to have pristine wilderness
areas sans oil drilling rigs, the right of Iraq to be free of US
depleted uranium, the rights of those in the GLBT community, women's
rights, etc.
Jim Lehrer, of PBS' News Hour, does not owe George W. Bush "equal
time" to offer viewers a "fair and balanced" program. The self
proclaimed "educator-in-chief," with his "honorary doctorate" from
Oklahoma's Ag school, only wants a platform to deny the legitimate
arguments against his administration. It is unfortunate that Mr.
Lehrer would lend his irrefutable credibility to Mr. Bush. I suppose
it's hard to turn down a high profile interview...I suppose it is...I
dunno
Bill Moyers recently addressed the National Convention for Media
Reform. There are too many brilliant bits to quote but Moyers suggests
that the Media needs to start telling the story, OUR STORY, and NOT
that of corporate NWO interest. If that doesn't happen then this
country has no where to go but down. A substantial percentage of the
"middle class," Mr. Moyers points out, has been so marginalized as to
be indistinguishable from the poor.
I will stave off my desire to ramble on about the recent efforts
(successful, btw) of Republicans to kill a congressional reform bill
which would drastically limit perks from corporate lobbyists - or any
of the other atrocities committed by our "representatives" in
Washington.
I will restrain my desire for lengthy redress to Nancy "the nurturer"
Pelosi and her denial of the American people's will to see Bush
stopped in his tracks (the only way, Ms. Pelosi, is to get him out of
office).
I will not quote statistics which show that neither the American
people nor the Iraqis any longer believe in US "liberation."
But I will admonish the "free press" regarding being "neutral" in the
name of "fair and balanced."
The press must embrace a renewed sense of true objectivity rather than
simply giving equal time to those who would attack reason with utterly
unsubstantiated denial.
More Articles...
| 
