Blogging Molly

Tocquville will henceforth be known as 'T'.

T is for touchy. T is for truth.

That's the short of it.

The long of it is, yeah, T has some really valid points. It's not just cynicism on my part or his part--it's reality.

Was he right in 1831? Yes. Consider the fact that the US then and now doesn't trust its populace to vote for the president on its own. The electoral college was established originally because our founders didn't really trust the people to be informed enough to make their own choice.

Back then, it was practicality. Now, I don't know what it is that allows a person with fewer popular votes to reach the White House. Make a difference! Your vote counts! Well, not really.

And if you really do want to see your vote have a chance to select a winner, you'd better pick one of two similar white men who have the funding to mount a campaign. T says that "...to place [one]self in contrast with so huge a body, [on]e is instantly overwhelmed by the sense of [one]'s own insignificance and weakness," which is precisely how'd you feel if you voted for Ralph Nader.

Free to make a choice? Sure. It won't really count in the end. Insignificane? Weakness? You bet.

As far as the mass media aspect, not only do the media dictate the discussion--as we've seen in McChesney, they are known for ignoring labor issues etc.--but they also dictate the discussion among those whose actually consume them. In other words, the words "mass media" are misleading. I would argue that at least half our class doesn't read a newspaper, and we're coming from a relatively privileged sector of the class.

It's hard not to agree with T in the context of the current administration.

If you're not with us, you're against us. Oh really? Makes sense. UN doesn't want US agression? Meh.

... represses not only all contest, but all controversy...

Is that why when the media reported Bush's rhetoric before the invasion of Iraq as straight news, without much discussion, people went along with it?

The reliance on official sources...

...allows official sources to brainwash the public...

and people can only change their minds when it's too late

So W fits T to a t. At one point, 76% of people supported the war. Saddam. 9/11. They're linked, I swear.

It's a democracy, sure, but you can't really have any tangible power--just ask the original 24% or the current 57% who don't want this war...

"Despotism would degrade men without tormenting them."

T is for Torment. Torment is when you can't vote because you're black in Florida. Torment is when you think you have a say but you're not listened to.

It's degrading that people on both sides will continue to be tormented by clone candidates under the veil of democracy.

Ask Ralph Nader.

Now, in the end, would you rather be able to vote in a flawed system, or live somewhere where you'd might step on a mine on the way to the first democratic elections in 50 years? T is a bit over-the-Top. But it can seem that there's no hope. America has it right in theory, maybe not in practice. Al Gore was a tool anyway. Obviously, I can still dream and try to make change without feeling like it's an impossibility. My Thoughts aren't controlled; I'm typing this, right?

Am I offended as an American? No. Do I trust my country not to have to cut the president's and first lady's head off at the guillotine because the people don't have cake to eat?

YES. And if all else fails, you can always post antiwar lyrics at the bottom of a faceless weblog.

T is for Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.

Virtually Classless---Examples of Structural Bias in the Meeeeedia

In The Problem of the Media Robert McChesney identifies three areas of inherent bias in the news media:

1--The reliance on official sources

2--The lack of context and contextualization (ie, the "big picture")

3--The covert corporate bias--dig here, not there, dig this, not that.

McChesney writes that journalists cover every thing a politician or official source says and does and makes that the news. Sending writers to quote leaders originally kept the newspapers from taking flak from the readership and it "is a crucial factor in explaining why the coverage of the U.S. presidency has grown dramatically...reporters are assigned to the White House and they file stories regularly, regardless of what is taking place" (69).

An example here is a speech in which W reiterated his stance that the US will stay in Iraq for some time to come. This is not and shouldn't have been treated as breaking news, since it's obvious based on every speech he's made in months that the US will stay there. Even the article goes on to discuss the image problem facing Bush. Reading between the lines, the article is more about Bush making a speech than the content of the speech. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082401454.html

The fact is, the news is that Bush spoke, not really what he had to say. This, McChesney would argue, is part of the problem--the news covers leaders' meetings, speeches, lunches and dinners, without really discerning which actually directly impacts the country and its residents. Politicians, like everyone, talk a lot--but that doesn't mean everything they say is "news."

As far as his argument on the lack of contextualization, there are exceptions; however it seems that too often the larger picture is accomplished only through columns like this http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/16assess.html?hp&ex=1126929600&en=a4c523ffedd97d22&ei=5094&partner=homepage, and not through regular news articles. McChesney takes issue with the fact that you have to go to a story called "news analysis" to see the "big picture."

The corporate bias cannot be fully explored in a link or two, but this Business Week smattering concerns four major corporations and their losses in Katrina without a single mention of the common man's losses, or damage done to neighborhoods, or school systems. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8CK83TO4.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

Still, I would have to disagree with much of what McChesney says in this argument, because America is a corporate nation, newspapers are owned by companies, and the average person will identify and understand an article on Wal-Mart than one on a local issue of welfare across the country. That said, his book does not discuss the issue of Enron/Kenneth Lay etc., and even he would have to admit that coverage of companies like Halliburton has been largely critical. I suppose he hates the idea that the only time corporations are dealt with in the news is when they make news for being in trouble.

the real post...i'm still smarter though

Tonight's top ten list (though it might be fewer than ten if I get tired)...

What we actually know about Hurricane Katrina

1. It happened! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/27/national/main798725.shtml

In the above story, CBS/AP also report that New Orleans still had 20% of its residents within the city limits when she came. Whoops.

2. Thousands of people probably died, but likely not tens of thousands. Hard to treat that as good news, isn't it? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09cnd-storm.html?hp&ex=1126324800&en=fa6ffd5834d3800e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

3. Everyone in the freakin' world knew that New Orleans was a ticking timebomb, including my meterologist friends, the Tragically Hip, New Orleans' own newspaper, and countless little kids who grew up hearing tales about how unsafe the city was in the case of a hurricane before bedtime.

Except Bush. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html

4. There was a mandatory evacuation ordered before the hurricane's landfall. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1761538,00.html

5. Kathy was down from level five to four when it hit land. http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/?ArID=146824&SecID=33

6. FEMA does offer a comprehensive plan for those in the path of a hurricane: http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/hurricaf.shtm

7. Unfortunately, in a city where almost a third of the people live(d) below the poverty line, access to the internet and its endless information on preparedness seems as elusive as W when things are going wrong. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9163091/

8. Things were horrible in Miss. and Alabama too, you know. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/29/hurricane.katrina/

9. This is the biggest Red Cross project in recorded history. http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_30.html

10. Fair or not, the media HAVE kept Bush under scrutiny. He has yet to give a national address concerning his plan. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html

Obie, did you really think I was gonna hang myself for littering?

I'm smarter than you

Dun Dun Dun....the media lied to us. ahahahahahahah. they lied about the hurricane. was there even a hurricane? who knows--it's all one giant lie. i've never ever seen New Orleans, so how can I trust that the media are showing New Orleans and not somewhere else?