I have said time and time again that CNN is awful and most intelligent people agree. So what is it that keeps us watching it? Apparently their business model works if even I cannot change my web browser start up page. I guess it’s because they have a worldwide network and are the first to report if something bad happens.
One thing I’ve noticed however, is the lack of information and debate in their top stories. The story I’m referring to now is the FBI raid on a congressman’s office. Apparently it’s causing a stir but from reading their articles, they never mention exactly why the office was raided. It goes something like this.
‘Congressman so and so’s office was raided. Republicans and Democrats don’t like it. Bush ordered the documents sealed. Congressman so and so was also mad.’
Why exactly was it raided and if it’s causing such a stir why don’t they tell us why?
As for lack of debate, this appears to be a nationwide problem. Everyone is either on the left and right and they aren’t going to budge. The extent of the debate goes like this.
Left: The invasion of Iraq is bad because they just want oil.
Right: No “we” don’t, it’s about giving Iraqi’s freedom and to protect us from weapons of mass destruction.
On the Right, I think most people simply don’t want to go against the “team” which is their country. They’ve lived in America their entire lives and speaking against the country’s action just seems wrong.
The Left is anti-war folk who would be against any war. They are the ones who want to save the planet, destroy corporations, even though they use the corporations products and services daily.
What America needs is not your right or left propaganda and media which refuses to even consider the others point of view. A great show would be two intelligent people who take a position opposite to their own point of view and try to defend it while conceding to points made by the other side. But no, debate in America has simply come down to “the other side is wrong” mentality.
DateLine London is a great segment on BBC World, which you might like. I certainly watch it whenever I can.
Four journalists from four different countries debate the current events.
People from e.g. Pakistan or Egypt often have better/different views on their own part of the world. The American jounalists also talk different from when they are in their own media because they have to comment on things that aren’t necesarily very flattering to their country. Very interesting.
Debate takes a significant amount of work, and as a listener, you have to follow all of the sides (which gets exponentially more difficult the higher number of parties are involved), evaluate the arguments, and then make a decision. Unfortunately, politicians have discovered this and have exploited it to their advantage.
Because of that, any politician who offers complex solutions to complex problems, instead of simple, easily-repeatable solutions (which have no real hope of working) to the complex problems have a huge uphill battle. They have to convince folks that this is a problem, that it’s significantly complex that simple solutions can’t work, and that their complex solution is the best. However, the others only have to say something like “Out of Iraq now” to get their message across. Much easier.
Comments are closed.