| Slanting Viewpoints In the Media A recent New York Times article asked “Men: Are they worth it? Do we live better with men or without them?” This was considered an appropriate piece to be published in a major newspaper. Well, we do have freedom of speech in this country. Fine. But here’s a fun little game: Take the title of the article, and replace the word “men” with “blacks.” Still think it’s appropriate? Try replacing it with the word “gays.” And for the most fun of all, replace it with the word “women.” Remember now, freedom of speech. The fact is, such an article would never make it to print. You know what’s funny? According to network television, and the women who watch it, crude jokes about men are. NBC’s Katie Couric once asked a jilted bride if she “considered castration as an option?” I wonder what NOW’s reaction would be to a male host asking a similar question to a jilted groom. ABC’s Meredith Vieira asked baseball player Mike Piazza “who has the biggest wood on the team?” and “Who’s your favorite player to pat on the behind?” Harmless fun, perhaps? Well, imagine NOW’s reaction to a male reporter making similar inquires about women and their body parts. Ah, I’m sure they’d have a sense of humor about it. Over the next couple of weeks, watch TV and count how many news items feature the need for advances in breast cancer research and funding vs. the number of features on prostate cancer. The count how many sitcoms feature a “dumb guy” and a logical woman who has to do the thinking for him. The same goes for commercials. A commercial for a breath mint shows a woman and two men waiting for a job interview. The woman, who obviously has her act together, confidently pops a breath mint into her mouth. The two men shift uncomfortably, realizing they've neglected this rather routine social exercise, and will now have to expose their lack of preparedness by asking the woman to help them. Another shows us a "thick headed" guy, who's so insensitive that he doesn't realize his wife isn't amused by his guffawing at videotapes of his bachelor party, or why she doesn't want to join him. Yet another shows a grocery-shopping husband whose wife has given him a shopping list made up of printed photos of everything he's supposed to buy, implying that his trip is a rare occasion and that he doesn't have the wherewithal to make proper buying decisions on his own. These types of commercials promote stereotypes that would never be acceptable if the sexes were reversed. And it’s not just gender bias. The political bias is probably even more prevalent. Surveys of journalists across the nation all show that the overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democratic. Examine the positive spin towards Clinton during his presidency. The media constantly lauded Clinton for rescuing America from the 80’s “Decade of Greed” in which Presidents Reagan and Bush unleashed their hard-line conservatism over a helpless America. Forget the fact that they won their elections in overwhelming landslides. And it’s never mentioned that despite the supposed relief from this given by President Clinton, the 90’s actually saw more mergers and acquisitions than the 80’s, as well as a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. To this day the media complains about Reagan’s tax cuts, ignoring the fact that the cuts resulted in an increase in tax revenue. A favorite media story during the Clinton presidency was the homeless crisis. Despite the fact that the Census Bureau had put the number of homeless people at around 230,000 during his candidacy and early in his presidency, CNN reported on the three million homeless people in need of assistance. NBC reported five million. Why the huge discrepancy? Well, the “fine print” in these studies that provided these numbers defined the term homeless as “one who cannot afford their own home.” This included the millions of children who lived comfortably at home with their parents, and non-working spouses who relied on their spouse’s income. Truly the hidden homeless! The media didn’t think we needed to know about that fine print. All this despite consistent testimony among homeless shelter organizers blaming substance abuse as the primary cause of becoming and remaining homeless. Look at the media’s portrayal of the sexual harassment charges against conservative Clarence Thomas, compared to their defense of Clinton in what they dismissed as the trivial “zipper gate.” Thomas was accused of inappropriate remarks. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of improper touching and propositioning, was found guilty of perjury, and admitted to sexual relations with another woman outside of marriage (after first lying about it). And he was portrayed as a victim in a politically motivated scheme. And there’s no bias in that reporting? Clinton’s bold face lie on national television was justified by no less than Dan Rather, who declared Clinton is “an honest man,” adding that “I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.” Is that what you want to hear from one of the country’s most influential news reporters? When the investigation into the possible warnings prior to the 9/11 attacks revealed that the White House had information about potential airline hijackings (and had warned the FAA and the airlines), newspaper headlines read “Bush Knew”, rousing blatantly false suspicion that George Bush had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. This is fair and unbiased reporting? In a very frightening trend, today’s society looks towards the entertainment industry for moral and political guidance. This is a major problem, because a Hollywood address in no way qualifies someone to provide this guidance. Many people in the industry lack education, and they also take advantage of their position to spout their views in situations where they won’t be pressed to back them up with any reasoning. Hollywood stars are predominantly liberal, maybe because they have an axe to grind with the “establishment,” which they perpetually fear will stifle their creative expression. Whatever the reason, there’s not a lot of open thinking going on out there. Hollywood celebrities also did not hesitate to reprimand mainstream America and its lavish lifestyle for inciting the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, they used their status to beg those same Americans, who are nowhere near their financial stratosphere, to donate money to the 9/11 fund. Now that takes gall. No one lives a more extravagant lifestyle than these larger-than-life superstars. And nobody is more out of touch with reality. They selflessly bemoan tax cuts, thinking we won’t notice that they’ll still be able to afford their Porsches and Jacuzzis while the average American struggles to get by. People need to realize that these celebrities are living quite comfortably while they appeal for the generosity of others. They are the epitome of hypocrisy. (Next) |
| Agenda: |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |