Information, Please.

HILLARY
Recently my sister and I got into a discussion about politics, and she suggested that I needed to listen to some "alternative media" since I sounded, in her mind, like a parrot of liberal pundits. Granted, in her mind alternative means Fox News, but I felt as if she had a point — I never watch Fox News. So, I started to. And, although it certainly didn’t change my mind on anything, it made me deeply aware of a major difference in the type of news that people are getting. If one only watches Fox News, or only watches MSNBC, they have to realize that they are only getting part of the story. After my experiment with Fox News, I started to find counter media for all information I got. When CNN started to report on the bombing in Gaza, I found that they were only giving one quick piece, so I went to Al Jezeera where I found that they were running the story from the Palestinian perspective for hours on end. I wonder why it is that we have so many different ways to report one story?

JACK
I guess we should state in front, that your sister is a conservative republican, and that you are a liberal democrat. Is that fair?

HILLARY
Actually I would say that my sister is a social liberal, but otherwise conservative republican and that I am a recently rejoined member of the democratic party, having spent a decade unaffiliated, and that I would call myself a progressive, rather than a liberal.

JACK
Ok, that’s fair enough. The important point is that you have two different perspectives. You could, in fact, reflect a great deal of the country. The fact that you have a dialogue is very encouraging and that you are at least engaging in a discussion and examining the other source of information. Unfortunately, there are very few new stories today that do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. It is not the first rule of journalism that has been abridged in today’s society. Theoretically, you should be able to read any newspaper in the United States and get the same story. When we broaden the source to television, the Internet, and other media, we really get a wide range. The event itself no longer has a reportorial, impartial accounting. When you go to such widely divergent sources as Fox News and, what some laughing call the liberal press (which is not) and the radical, which would be your Al-Jezeera, but in 2007 it is important that all of these are examined. But always keeping in mind that each one has its own ax to grind. The gag with Fox News is that they give you both sides of the story, first President Bush’s then Vice-President Cheney’s. I’m sure, that if you got the Israeli press that you will get the counter point to Al-Jezeera. So the real problem is: How do we get reality separated from fantasy so that we may arrive at our own conclusions?

HILLARY
First, I have to take issue with your characterization of Al-Jezeera as "radical". They are far from radical. It is like watching BBC or CNN or any other major news network. However, they are showing the Arab perspective. The go to Somaliland, which isn’t recognized as a sovereign nation by the world community, but has just celebrated 16 years of peaceful independence. I appreciate this perspective. My only issue is that, like our media, they focus non-stop on the issues that they know appeals to their viewers and skim the surface of the counterpoint. When I was watching the coverage of the bombing in Gaza, they were showing very horrific images and interviewing people on the ground in Gaza who were, in fact, suffering. The also showed images of a rocket attack in Israel, but it was very brief and with newscaster commentary, rather than on the ground interviews. And when it came to their pundits, the Palestinian Authority was offered a great deal more time that the Israeli cabinet member. It was the same as our media. It was the same type of one-sided reporting masked as ‘covering both sides’. It wasn’t radical, it was commercial.

JACK
The labels "radical," "commercial," "liberal," are really unimportant in this context. On one-side you get a medal for doing something that the other side considers an act of cowardice. The important thing is, how do we get our information — where is the truth? And is there such a thing as fair and balanced reporting. Each side sells their own point of view. This is why I applaud your effort to see the news as your sister sees it, but what emerges in importance that it becomes a huge job to view enough of the sources that a reasonably clear picture comes to the surface. I would suggest that your viewing be extended to the Internet and to the blog-sphere, which in effect is giving you millions of newspapers, and a huge diversity of opinion. In former days, we could content ourselves with reading the newspaper and watching Walter Cronkite on television. This is no longer the case.

HILLARY
I just want to add, that we are fortunate to have media watch dog agencies such as FAIR (Fair and Accuracy in Reporting) who are charged with keeping the media honest. We should support these organizations, and create more, as they have the infrastructure to watch and read everything, which gives us a fighting chance to know what is actually going on.

HomeSite Map

Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.