The Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Definitely Out to Conquer America Mainstream Media

In the course of reading our blog, I've noticed somewhat of a trend.  It seems as though everyone wants to rail against the "mainstream, elite, liberal, media."  I'm going to take this opportunity to climb up on my soapbox and give my opinion regarding a recent discussion we had in class that centered around this topic.  Said discussion was slightly heated and took up an entire class.  Maybe I'm crazy for starting it up again, but here it goes.

I think we need to take a minute and stop to consider why the mainstream media do what they do.  Obviously, 4-5 hours of election coverage must be interesting to someone.  In fact, it must be interesting to a whole lot of someones; otherwise they wouldn't do it.  CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the rest of the "liberal media" are all businesses.  They don't broadcast election results for 5 hours because they want to, they do it because it makes them money.  This means that a pretty substantial segment of the American population must be interested in it.  I think it is fundamentally wrong for us, or the government, to try to tell the media sources what to do and what not to do when it comes to election coverage.  If Wolf Blitzer wants to stand in the CNN Election Center for 3 days, then let him do it.  For us to try to mandate public affairs time, or to try to tell the media what to cover, is a blatant violation of the first amendment.  Free press means a free press.  It doesn't mean free except for an hour of public affairs time, or free except for these stories that you have to cover, it means free and nothing more.  It means that if the the media want to cover the most inconsequential stories, then let them do it.  I cite the quote from the front of our syllabus regarding Thomas Jefferson's feelings about the press: "...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter…"  Having any government control of the media is the same as having a "government without newspapers."  If a government is allowed to control any of the press, then we start down the slippery slope toward government run media; a slope that none of us want to go down.  The mainstream media aren't evil; they're just doing their job.  If you want news other than what they show, then go find it.  Trust me, you can get anything you want on the internet.


This, of course, leads to the issue of whether or not we are a public or a marketplace (an issue also discussed heavily in class).  Well, I contend we are both.  When it comes to what media stories we want to see, the media treat us as a marketplace, which is a good thing.  The media should be covering stories that a good portion of the American population want to see.  Meanwhile, while they are giving us the stories we want to see, the media are working in the background to fulfill the public / fourth branch of government role.  The media do indeed hold our leaders in check (I cite Watergate and Bill Clinton's woes).  The beauty of this is that when the media do need to cover these stories that serve the interests of the public, the public usually listens.  In these instances, the marketplace aspect of the media combines with the public aspect and the story that we as Americans need to see becomes the story we want to see.  It then becomes profitable for the media to be the fourth branch of government.  


The free press is the bedrock of our democracy.  To abridge that right, in any way, shape, or form would be fundamentally wrong and a violation of the Constitution.  It is easy for us, being in an academic atmosphere, to sit back and tell Americans that they need to follow more important news stories. However, this is wrong and we shouldn't do it!  Our country is called the land of the free for a reason.  If everyday Americans don't want to care about important international news stories, it is their choice.  It is not the job of the government to try to force public affairs broadcasting or to control the media.  The free media is a force for good.  It is an engine for capitalism like no other.  On top of generating profit and creating jobs for millions of Americans, the media provides products that citizens want to consume, while being constantly vigilant for corruption in government,


The mainstream media is not the enemy that we seem to like to make it out to be (especially Newt Gingrich).  Our open media is what makes our nation special; it is what separates us from authoritarian regimes in other countries.  For those that say the government needs to stick their hand in the media, I would direct you to the industries that government thought they needed to be involved with in the past. I would cite the Postal Service, Amtrak, and Social Security to name a few.  One thing these programs have in common: they're all going broke.  If the government can't even deliver my mail without somehow going into bankruptcy, I sure as heck don't want them tampering with the free press.

"I Don't Think That Would Work"

Bret Baier, Fox News Host, On Newt Gingrich’s Debate
Request: ‘I Don’t Think That Would Work’

Our average candidate typically desires ample media coverage and debate time not
only to promote their pleasantly positive promises and positions, but also to
bash the opponent’s “raison d’etre.” Interestingly, Gingrich announced that he “wouldn’t agree to a debate with President Barack Obama if a journalist was the moderator.” How can an iconic figure and potential presidential candidate pass down on his opportunity to violently beat
the incumbent president’s “failures and misfortunes?” Bret Baier, Fox News Host
and presidential debate moderator commented that Gingrich’s idea of would not
work and would be quite boring.
Why exactly would Gingrich’s hope- to not face Obama in a debate- be so unrealistic? There are two clear reasons. The first is quite simple; an election without debates would certainly lack a certain luster that an audience expects. Election debates are like snuff films for the elite,
powerful, and “educated.” They provide the opportunity for each candidate to
legally insult and destroy the persona of another until there is nothing left.
The second reason is more important than, yet not as entertaining as, the first.
Journalist moderated debates get these haughty political candidates off of
their well-practiced and “programmed responses.” In this sense, the journalists
at these debates act as watchdogs for the audience as they are able to ask
difficult and controversial questions, forcing the candidates to think for themselves
without the help of a teleprompter or professional speech writer. Additionally,
these journalist moderated debates provide a bit of “neutral”, real-time news
to shine through the muck of the wonderful “infotainment.”
So even if Newt Gingrich did become the Republican candidate (but we know he will
not) and rejected a public debate against Obama, he would be harassed and embarrassed
by Baier’s and others’ statement of “I don’t think that would work.”

Dumb jokes about Romney winning in Las Vegas

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/politics/romney-Nevada-analysis/index.html

So CNN is so funny. The best news team is so creative in making clever jokes about Romney taking all the cards.  Ok so it is not a surprise that Romney one Nevada considering he just got the Donald's endorsement(Sarcasm). It is well known that Newt controls the bible belt but that's about it, Romney pretty much has a firm grasp in all the other states. I mean come on did CNN really think people were surprised that Gingrich the self proposed future super conservative president of the moon didn't win a state with legal prostitution and gambling. Nevada seems like a libertarian's paradise its more surprising that Ron Paul didn't win most of the state. CNN then goes on to state the reasons why Newt didn't win which were pretty obvious. Ok CNN stop acting like this is a close race and just realize that Romney is going to win any way and Newt is going to lose. Stop focusing so much on the horse race and more on the policy.
All though this may seem like a huge attack on CNN and the way they report on the News I am more upset about the fact that they think they are hilarious by using obvious and dumb jokes its like watching a lame and boring Abbot and Costello routine. If you are going to report obvious news don't be lame about it this isn't open mike night at the chuckle bucket get those hard working producers with the rolled up sleeves to try harder.