411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 45
Posted by Ryan Latimer on 05.28.2007
Let's step outside the box for a bit...
Joyous Memorial Monday, folks, and welcome to another edition of 411 Politics Fact or Fiction. I'm your host Ryan Latimer, and I'm the last individual to not be brainwashed by the recent Pirates of the Caribbean craze that has turned our nation into a bunch of bad drunken Johnny Depp impersonators. Will it help at all to mention I went to the theater on Saturday night to see Bug and the employees willingly dressed up like idiots?
I thought I'd try a little something different this edition, and it actually has nothing to do with Memorial Day. Had I been thinking ahead I would have planned it a little better and delivered something more appropriate for the occasion (if it were feasible), but I didn't, so you get this instead. I'm not sure if this has been done before or not, but even if it hasn't it's trying something new, and I'm all about that. If it bombs, blame creativity.
As opposed to the standard specific questions usually seen on FOF, what I've compiled are "general," open questions about politics that have the tendency to float around in conversation. My line of thinking is that doing so will not only serve as a breath of fresh air, but I'm hoping it will result in a more broad and "step outside the box" analysis from our writers. If anything, it may give our readers some quality ammunition to squash or support the argument when these questions inevitably come up again. And they will. I struggle with the stuff all the time, and to tell you the truth, I'm not always sure myself. Perhaps Marky Mark Radulich and Greg Allen can assist me. Last note: because I could go on all day on these topics, I'm stepping in the shadow and forgoing my usual Last Comment this week.
Have at it…
1) The media is biased. Outlets are more concerned with picking and presenting news Their Way as opposed to being objective and impersonal.
Mark Radulich: FACT - I'm not going to bother with liberal or conservative slants because that's pointless. It's more about the news being owned by corporations. Corporations have one goal: make money for their investors. The news makes money by being content in which to install expensive commercials. Period. Whether it's CNN or FOX, O'Reilly or Olbermann, it doesn't matter so long as people are turning in long enough to be convinced to buy the car, drugs or whatever is being advertised. It's the same thing with print media and radio. These outlets may have a political slant but that's secondary to the belief that whatever content they've chosen is a money maker so that's what gets produced. It's liberal or conservative slant is more a of a reflection of the content producer himself and less of media bias as a whole. As long as the show makes money, that's all the bosses care about.
As far as being objective and impersonal, years ago somebody figured out that to get Americans to turn into the news en masse, you had to put on shows that were attractive to mass audiences and not confusing or complex, thus car chases overtook intellectual presentations and analysis. This actually started with the vision of bodies being brought back from Vietnam, but that's a story for another day.
Greg Allen: FACT - But I still have to disagree with the reasons Mark calls it one. All news stations report news their advertisers hate them for. Do you think GM likes it when Fox or CNN reports their billion dollar losses? Of course not. That doesn't stop them from advertising on both channels. There is some truth to what Mark says about how the profit motive by media outlets drives content, but this shows up more in the way news is sensationalized (big graphics, loud sound effects) and reporting of things that some might call unnewsworthy (Paris Hilton, American Idol) than in actual altering of reporting on crucial issues from politically biased perspectives.
That said, there is just so much that happens on any given day that sifting through those stories and deciding what gets to make it to the airwaves or the newspapers and what doesn't inherently reveals a bias. Choosing to cover the dedication ceremony for the Reagan Library, for example, means not covering something else. That choice reveals priorities on the part of the media outlet.
Last, Fox News is conservatively biased as all hell, and that topic is not really a matter up for debate. When the leaders of the company issue internal memos saying "find anything saying terrorists are celebrating the Democrat's midterm win" (there are lots of other very revealing internal memos), you can be damned sure their priorities include skewing their viewers to the right.
1 for 1
2) There is a culture war happening in this country
Mark Radulich: FACT - of course there's a culture war. It's a war between those who don't want to be judged for any behavior and for those that believe restrictions on behavior is a good thing. People like to lay this conflict at the feet of solely the secular progressives because typically they are the ones who are for lowering standards of behavior and making arguments for normalization of all behavior, deviant or otherwise, but the far right is just as bad. The far right doesn't want to be judged for its radical behavior either.
The culture war goes beyond progressive vs. conservative and is really a battle between the selfless and mature vs. the selfish and immature. Selfish people care only about themselves to the exclusion of all else and they can be either liberal or conservative. Selfish people are the ones lowering the debate to the benefit of themselves without thinking about the consequences for others. Selfish people do all of this without wanting to be confronted because rationally they have no leg to stand on. That's the culture war in a nut shell and it's been going on since the necessity of having to tolerate your neighbor or family member was replaced by the well-meaning but utterly disastrous notion that the government is responsible for caring for individuals.
Greg Allen: FACT - I actually think about this one a lot. If there is a culture war in this country, I'd say it has to do with not so much the far right as the Christian Right (admittedly they overlap). A lot of the demographics of the Christian Right remain the same as they did decades ago: 47% of Americans still believe God created mankind in its present form less than 10,000 years ago, still, I think it's accurate to say these groups have been mobilized in the past three decades differently from the way they have further in the past. Then again, prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920's was led by a Christian political group. The difference now I think is that genuinely anti-religious factions are now set on persuading the political center, whereas in the past the debate was always between very strict Christians and more lenient Christians.
2 for 2
3) It really doesn't matter who we vote for, or if we vote at all. Politicians are pretty much all the same.
Mark Radulich: FICTION - Some are smarter and more thoughtful than others. Some are dutiful while others simply seek a kingdom to call their own. Some politicians are guided by their personal ethics while others only act in defense of their own elite position. The system balances things out making some politicians less or more effective than others but ultimately if you don't see the difference between Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi and how they affect Washington differently then you are not really paying attention.
Now, do all of these have personal foibles? Of course they do as they are human, afterall. But that doesn't mean that all politicians are the same just because they are all fallible. Those are two different issues.
Greg Allen: FICTION- Fiction, fiction a thousand times fiction. Is there anyone on this planet who thinks America would have invaded Iraq were Al Gore the President in 2003?
1 for 3
4) Having more than just 2 dominant political parties to choose from is one primary solution to our nation's plights.
Mark Radulich: FACT - If the Europeans do anything right, it's their electoral process. I like having lots of candidates to choose from with more than one decisive election to determine who should be the main leader. I think the run-off elections are a capital idea. I think people like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul should be viable options for American voters rather than having to choose between two lite brands or safe choices (John Kerry, I'm looking in your direction). If the CT election of 2006 is any indication, Joe Lieberman shows us that in today's political culture, there is room for independents in the electoral process. Now, establishing a viable third party than adequately threaten the big two will be a feat considering both are loathe to give up their dominance.
Greg Allen: FACT - From a Political Science perspective, our constitution is built in such a way that guarantees a two-party system. Were one to really want to see a multi-party system in America, you'd need a switch to a parliamentary system. Actually, I think that system would have a lot to offer the United States. (Imagine a few strategically placed democratic members in Bush's cabinet).
4 for 4
Hmm, maybe I should have got Ray Church to battle Mark, with no disrespect to Mr. Allen. Those two would have trouble ordering a cup of coffee at McDonalds, where they only have two types.
Still, interesting answers, and even though is was a clean sweep agreement, a few of them were for different reasons altogether. I thought it was worth it. If the readers liked it, I'll do more in the future.
STAY CURRENT