Sunday, February 1, 2009
FEMA, Bush & Obama
It would be nice to have an unbiased media, and then maybe we could get a GOOD government:
The Anchoress points to the disparity in media coverage over the ice storm that has blanketed Kentucky and led to over 40 deaths and the failures of FEMA there compared to the coverage of post-Katrina New Orleans. FEMA has been slow to respond and has had difficulty getting aid to those without power. Yup, it's hard to get aid to people in need after a natural disaster. This proves once again that the mainstream media is selective in its coverage, which is driven by its own agenda. What it wants to cover and hype for good or ill gets covered and hyped ad nauseam. And what it does not want to address, gets lost. This is an inconvenient story, with inconvenient victims, so you won’t see the high drama, the probing questions and harsh criticism we’ve seen before
I don't blame FEMA or Kentucky authorities unless it comes out that they somehow messed up their crisis response. It is danged hard to recover quickly from natural disasters and emergencies. But Bill Quick is correct to point the finger at how the media decides to spin a story. Think of the stories that would have been written if President Bush had been entertaining guests on steak that costs $100 a pound while millions were shivering without power in the midsection of the country. Yet it's left to conservative bloggers to make that connection or even wonder why the President would have such a tin ear as to serve such an expensive meal to his congressional guests a little over week after being sworn in. Add in his turning up the thermostat in the Oval Office and you have what would have been a full-blown front page contrast to the people freezing and dying in Kentucky that would have haunted Bush for the rest of his life. It's all in how the media decides to cover a story. For Bush, it would be a sign of his cold-hearted incompetence. But for The One, not so much.
(Me) (Blacktail Books)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
While I normally leave natural disasters out of normal conversation, you brought up something else that led me to leave words here. There is no slight intended for those who suffered from the affects of the winter weather and the freezing temps that ensued after them, or the lack of utilities that made it more problematic and dangerous either. But to get to the meat here, lets look at why it is not so well seen by the public (or should I say recognized?)
We have a media that is paid by who, and who feeds them stories?
If we wish to criticize more accurately those in charge of the media, we should start with those who own them. That being corporations (pet peeve of mine, unnumbered, but listed)that own and use media for the sake of money, rather than publication of (OMG) fact rather than half truths, or lack of any truth.
On to the other half of the story, the entity that feeds the media. look to your local governing officials for where the bulls**t starts, and follow the smell until you find it the most offensive, and you will see why it does not do the job it is supposed to.
If we had an unbiased media locally, it would only be a matter of time before it was compromised by a larger entity looking for a profit (see local newspapers and local buyouts).
I am somewhat jaded in my perspective here, as I did work for one, and was snubbed by one (another story altogether), so my opinion can be considered jaded.
To make it worth while, it might take some one who has no interest in needing more money (independent wealth beyond the dreams of avarice) with an axe to grind against the lack of honest reporting going on. This means a journey to days gone by where people actually get out and check on things in person, rather than have to research everything on the internet, by personal interviews, and yes, long periods of travel time to find credible evidence to support what stories are to be found.
It is almost asking too much of people who cannot conceive of such things, or is it?
The last place to lay any blame is the consumer. they are the ones who read what is published, and have to figure "It made it into the news paper, so it has to be true"
Again, finding out who what when why, and how are not things of the past, but will fade from view unless some one out there teaches the next generation to figure it out for them self rather than take some one else's word for it.
Sorry for the rant, but again, you did touch on a couple of pet peeves of mine.
Post a Comment