I’ve given up on the idea we can actually have an independent
and unbiased news and entertainment industry where facts are checked before
stories are released, where news, rather than opinion, is reported and polling
serves no useful purpose for 98% of the stories.
Everywhere I turn there is some accusation of President
Trump's behavior, mental competence, executive orders, or comb over. There
has sprung up a whole industry dedicated to resisting, inciting violence, or
advocating for political overthrow of the administration. In fact, some of the more frantic and
extremist of the public figures have actually solicited assassination. This got me to thinking, which is better for
the country, a complacent and complicit media or an openly hostile one?
The more I consider the two options, I think I prefer a
hostile media. It does serve as a check
to the execution of power, although they do so at great risk to their
credibility when they move from simple reporting to the full-fledged hysteria
we see in so many reports these days.
As we’ve seen in previous administrations, when the media is
viewed as little more than a public information arm of the President, the top
administrative officials are allowed to target individuals, and exploit the powers of the
state, with very little risk, in their attempt to destroy political opposition.
The biggest problem I see is described in Aesop’s fable: The boy who cried wolf. When the press and entertainment segments choose
to identify with only one party, and their reporting reaches hysterical pitch
on even the most routine of presidential actions, then when it is really
something to get excited about, the average citizen will yawn and turn on “Dancing
with the Stars.”
No comments:
Post a Comment