Watch movies online for free
How to watch movies online for free
Like the authors, I have little use for TV news. I spend more time brushing my teeth in a given year than I do watching TV news.
Nonetheless, I have two big problems with this book. First, it has little new information to offer. Networks are owned by large corporations (I had no idea!), the primary objective of TV news programs is to make money (shocking!), someone in the newsroom is making considered decisions about what will be included — and what won’t — in each news broadcast, and their biases are a factor (say it ain’t so!!), TV news programs go to great lengths to make their anchors and sets slick and attractive (pass the smelling salts…I think I’m going to faint!!!).
But perhaps the most offensive aspect of the book is the authors’ bias. For example, when pointing out that politicians carefully control how they are photographed or videotaped by the news media (I know…more shocking allegations), the two examples cited are George Bush and Ronald Reagan. What…they couldn’t recall any examples of Bill Clinton doing this?
The example above is relatively mild when compared to the discussion on a study that was done that concluded Sunday morning talk shows have given “more opportunities to appear” to Republicans and conservatives than for those in other political categories. The book states that the study was conducted by “the nonprofit, Web-based Media Matters for America.” Media Matters’ own About Us page describes the organization as “a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” (Cited May 15, 2009.) So the authors saw fit to describe MMFA as Web-based and nonprofit, but didn’t deem it necessary to reveal that it is a “progressive” group that attempts to correct “convervative misinformation.” Is anyone really surprised that such a group would come to the conclusion that it did? Such brazen selectivity of the description of a source is unforgivable and contemptible.
While approaching TV news with eyes wide open is a necessity — and one that far too few individuals employ — the authors’ slanted essay, filled with the obvious, does little to advance the discussion. My two-star rating is very generous.