Let me get us started with the last paragraph of this section:
"To move away from the bifurcating politics of liberal and conservative, left and right, would be an enormously positive change and would open up a new 'politics of solutions.' Right now, Washington responds to a problem or crisis in two ways. First, politicians try to make us afraid of the problem, and second, they look for somebody to blame for it. Then they watch to see whose political spin succeeded, either in the next poll or in the next election. But they seldom get around to actually solving the problem. The media make everything worse by assuming that every political issue has only two sides, instead of multiple angles for viewing and solving the problem. Addicted to conflict as their media methodology, they want always to pitch a fight between polarized views instead of convening a public discussion to find serious answers. The answer is to put values at the center of political discourse and, in every public debate, to ask what kind of country and people we really want to be. We would find new agreements across old political boundaries and new common ground among people who agree on values and are ready to challenge the special interests on all sides who are obstructing the solutions most Americans would support. Ideologies have failed us; values can unite us, especially around our most common democratic visions" (page 84).
1. What are your reactions to the Wallis' statement above?
2. Wallis challenges his readers towards a prophetic role in politics (speaking truth to the leaders and the public). What does prophetic leadership look like today?
3. Wallis includes the media in his critique of the political landscape. What do you make of the political biases of the media? Where do we find "prophetic truth" among the media?
Well, let's see if anybody but me responds...
Peace,
rc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I've been looking for a recent poll about the media bias of the major media outlets, but I have been unable to find it.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I came across Wikipedia's article on "Media Bias in the United States" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States). Just in case you thought this was something new, read on...
Before the rise of professional journalism in the early 1900s, newspapers reflected the opinions of the publisher. Frequently, an area would be served by competing newspapers taking differing—and often radical by today's standards—political views.[4]
Accusations of media bias have a long history:
In 1728 Benjamin Franklin, writing under the pseudonym "Busy-Body", wrote an article for the American Weekly Mercury advocating the printing of more paper money. He did not mention that his own printing company hoped to get the job of printing the money. It is an indication of the complexity of the issue of bias when it is noted that, even though he stood to profit by printing the money, Franklin also seems to have genuinely believed that printing more money would stimulate trade. As his biographer Walter Isaacson points out, Franklin was never averse to "doing well by doing good".[5]
In 1798, the Congress of the United States passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, or malicious writing" against the government, and made it a crime to voice any public opposition to any law or presidential act. This act was in effect until 1801.
In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln accused newspapers in the border states of bias in favor of the Southern cause, and ordered many newspapers closed.
In the 19th century, many American newspapers made no pretense to lack of bias, openly advocating one or another political party. Big cities would often have competing newspapers supporting various political parties. To some extent this was mitigated by a separation between news and editorial. News reporting was expected to be relatively neutral or at least factual, whereas editorial was openly the opinion of the publisher. Editorials might also be accompanied by an editorial cartoon, which would frequently lampoon the publisher's opponents.[6]
At the start of the 20th century many American newspapers engaged in yellow journalism to increase sales. William Randolph Hearst, publisher of several major-market newspapers, deliberately falsified stories of incidents, which may have contributed to the Spanish-American War.
In the years leading up to World War II, politicians who favored the United States entering the war on the German side accused the international media of pro-Jewish bias, and often asserted that newspapers opposing entry of the United States on the German side were controlled by Jews. They claimed that reports of German mistreatment of Jews were biased and without foundation. Hollywood was said to be a hotbed of Jewish bias, and pro-German politicians in the United States called for Charlie Chaplin’s film The Great Dictator to be banned, as an insult to a respected leader.[7]
During the civil rights movement in the 1960s, some White Southerners stated that television was biased against White Southerners and in favor of mixing of the races. In some cases, Southern television stations refused to air programs such as I Spy and Star Trek, because of their racially mixed casts.[8]
During the labor union movement and the civil rights movement, newspapers supporting liberal social reform were accused by conservative newspapers of communist bias.[9][10]
In November 1969, Spiro Agnew, then Vice President under Richard Nixon, made a landmark speech denouncing what he saw as media bias against the Vietnam War. He called those opposed to the war the "nattering nabobs of negativism."[11]
Oh, how I long for unbiased, unedited reporting...
A friend of mine worked in the marketing department of a major media company for a while. While I forget all of the details, I remember her frustration on how corporate values and marketing influenced every aspect of the company's public interaction.
ReplyDeleteThinking about that, I am reminded that Disney owns ABC, News Corporation owns Fox, Time Warner with AOL owns CNN and the WB, Viacomm owns MTV and the Comedy Central Channel, and General Electric owns NBC.
So where do I go for news? I'm still searching. I've been subscribing to the daily mail from sojourners, but that just scratches the surface.
Maybe I should just be wathcing the Onion News Network...
I was talking with a colleague recently about this book and about my frustration with the media. He suggested Evangelicals for Social Action (Wallis mentions them briefly in his book).
ReplyDeleteI've looked at their website: www.esa-online.org
Anybody have any experience with them?
As I mentioned earlier, I get the daily news emailed to me by Sojourners--www.sojo.net.