by Maria Fisher
mf283705@ohio.edu
I left Amy Goodman's talk today. I thought it was supposed to be about New Media & Journalism. But after I found out that it was about whether Barack Obama can "redeem" the White House and making fun of Donald Rumsfeld, I decided that sitting at home contemplating journalism with my chin in my hand would be more productive.
Her story about being arrested at the Republican National Convention was pretty scary. It seems like the police were unnecessarily violent there. Of course, what you won't read anywhere in the News (except Fox) is the truth about the violence of the protests Goodman was caught up in.
No, it doesn't seem like Goodman committed any violent act herself. She shouldn't have been arrested. And she definitely shouldn't have been brutalized. But why didn't she tell us the other part of the story today? Why didn't she tell us about the violence by the protesters, instead of just the police? I don't defend the police brutality, but I don't immediately mistrust them simply because they're an authority. Just like I don't immediately trust Amy Goodman because she's not one. Here's an excerpt from the Fox story about the anti-war march:
"Members of the Connecticut delegation said they were attacked by protesters when they got off their bus near the Xcel Center, KMSP-TV reported. Delegate Rob Simmons told the station that a group of protesters came toward his delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks and sprayed them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes."
Here's another one:
"At one point, people pushed a trash bin filled with trash and threw garbage in the streets and at cars. They also took down orange detour road signs. One of them used a screwdriver to puncture the back tire of a limousine waiting at an intersection and threw a wooden board at the vehicle, denting its side. Another hurled a glass bottle at a charter bus that had stopped at an intersection."
Interesting. Sounds like when my 7-year old cousin throws a hissy fit.
Also, regarding Goodman's speech and media bias: she posed the question to the audience "Can Barack Obama redeem the White House?" Let's unpack that statement, since a lot of my classmates seem to be confused about bias.
First of all, that question begs the question whether the White House needs 'redeeming.' Obviously Amy Goodman thinks so. But she said she was an advocate for free debate; for accountability and 'voices of dissent.' She said she was a journalist, only there to 'tell the story.' What kind of debate are you allowing when you ask me if President Obama can redeem the White House? What does it mean if I say no? Do you think she would have asked "Can President McCain redeem the White House?" if he had been elected? Do you think she would have ever said "Could Barack Obama destroy the White House?" And yet for a journalist, those two questions should be asked together, if asked at all. That's the only way not to commit a logical fallacy while also being supposedly "balanced."
Another thing I want to stress a little more in-depth is Goodman's continued song of praise for "debate" and independent media. She brought up global warming as a "critical issue" that we need to be hearing debate on, as an example. Do you think we are? What about the large group of scientists in the United States who don't think global warming is real? 2008 was the coldest year in China in 100 years. Have you heard about that? I guarantee you haven't. Actually, that lends us a good example.
Recently, journalist Harold Ambler wrote a column in the Huffington Post, an INDEPENDENT MEDIA source, by the way, calling global warming "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind."
His column was quickly whisked away from the front page, buried much deeper in the paper, and sported a sweet little apology from Ariana herself; she called posting the column an "error in judgment;" and said that while she 'welcomes debate,' global warming is not an issue 'up for debate anymore.'
There it is...an independent media source, those 'watchdogs' who are going to keep those evil CEO's (because they are all evil and they all cheat, by definition) accountable, according to Amy Goodman, telling US what's up for debate and what's not. I wonder what Amy Goodman would have to say about that.
Also - the messiah himself, President Obama, told his Congress not to listen to Rush Limbaugh if they "want to get stuff done." There's the spirit of debate! There's speaking out for those brave voices of dissent! "Don't listen to them!" Straight from the redeemer of the White House himself, folks. (Sorry, should 'redeemer' be capitalized?)
(By the way, this whole 'everyone in power is corrupt' business is a little weird, isn't it? Especially because you can't pick and choose who you call 'in power'... I'm still waiting for the media to really investigate this guy we have as President right now...wouldn't you say he's pretty powerful? So by Amy Goodman's definition, does that mean he's corrupt and needs 'media criticism'? If so, where is it?)
Lastly, I just want to bring up this glamorous idea of 'voices of dissent.' I can't get over the irony of this. Who do you think is in the minority right now at Ohio University, and in Athens - conservatives or liberals? Hint: it's conservatives. Do you want to talk about "speaking to power" and being a 'brave' voice of dissent? Talk about being a conservative at OU, where for a journalism symposium we host Amy Goodman and some chief of Obama's campaign or something...and that's it. Where more than three-fourths of our student body voted for Obama and were loud, rude and obnoxious about it to boot. Where newspaper editors in town call Christians "damn Christians." (I was there for that one).
If you want to talk about voicing dissent, both in Athens and in the mainstream media, you're talking about conservatives. You're talking about me. Just look at how my comment about left-wing bias was received in class the other day. Do you think you're voicing 'dissent' when you voice support for Obama? Wake up! You're not! You can pretend to have the monopoly on race relations and peace initiatives and the 'bleeding heart' status toward the poor, but I will NOT let you take away my dissent status.
Just as a little teaser to end with, here are some pretty yucky reasons why supporting Obama cannot be synonymous with voicing dissent. And note that a lot of these quotes are from newscasts, not pundit shows. Good times.
And a video, because videos make blog posts look cooler:
No comments:
Post a Comment