Jake Ralston
09-21-2011, 09:19 AM
Good read. However, only a staggering 8 comments below. Had the article been titled "Snooky from Jersey Shore Gets Owned" it would probably have more like 10,000 comments with people complaining about what is chosen for news these days. Schmucks.
Fox News commentator and host Bill O'Reilly is no stranger to controversy or pomposity, but this time some think he's outdone even himself. According to the Huffington Post, O'Reilly, who comedian Stephen Colbert refers to as "Papa Bear," had this to say of his position: "I have more power than anybody other than the president, in the sense that I can get things changed, quickly," he said. "I don't have to go through the legislative process; I don't have to do any of that. I can just bring it to the people, and say, look, this has gotta be dealt with."
Arguably, O'Reilly, who answers to Rupert Murdoch as well as a host of other supervisors, is a bit drunk on himself, but his statement should leave one to question whether there is something to it. Is the news media more powerful than the president? And if it is, what can or should be done about it?
In truth, Papa Bear could be right. Consider this: The GOP front-runners for the 2012 election have been selected solely by the news media. Congressman Ron Paul came in second place in the Ames Straw Poll, won the New Hampshire Straw Poll by a mile and this past weekend won the California Republican Straw Poll. Yet none of the major outlets has given Paul credibility as a viable candidate. They have so disregarded Paul that they provoked the ire of comedian Jon Stewart.
But Paul isn't an anomaly. The news media has even gone so far as to determine who is allowed on the stage for debates, regardless of whether or not they have the unofficial requisite resume to be elected. Take for examples former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer.
Most Americans have never heard of either candidate, but having served as the CEOs of their respective states, their exclusion is inexplicable. Johnson appeared in the first Republican debate and has been excluded ever since despite polling better than Jon Huntsman. Roemer, who also polls as well as Huntsman and Herman Cain, has never been invited to the show. Neither Huntsman nor Cain have missed a debate since announcing their doomed candidacies.
Given that the media (and not the people) holds the key to who does and who does not have a credible shot at securing the nomination and ultimately the presidency of the United States, and given that the news media decides for us, what is and is not important to hear about, and the manner in which we will hear it, it's understandable, and even plausible that O'Reilly's statement while at first seems absurd, is more true than we would like to believe.
I don't know exactly what to do about it because I believe in the freedom of press, but there is a sense in which that very freedom may be depriving us of the freedom of truly electing a government of the people and by the people. Generally in an article of this nature, I like to offer a solution to the problems I present.
It's sort of my "thing." But I must admit, on this one I am stumped. So maybe this time, it will have to be enough, to simply point out that a problem exists, in the hopes that someone smarter than me will catch on to the horrific truth herein, and then take the ball and run with it. O'Reilly is right, and that makes me very sad.
http://news.yahoo.com/news-media-personalities-more-powerful-president-164200402.html
Fox News commentator and host Bill O'Reilly is no stranger to controversy or pomposity, but this time some think he's outdone even himself. According to the Huffington Post, O'Reilly, who comedian Stephen Colbert refers to as "Papa Bear," had this to say of his position: "I have more power than anybody other than the president, in the sense that I can get things changed, quickly," he said. "I don't have to go through the legislative process; I don't have to do any of that. I can just bring it to the people, and say, look, this has gotta be dealt with."
Arguably, O'Reilly, who answers to Rupert Murdoch as well as a host of other supervisors, is a bit drunk on himself, but his statement should leave one to question whether there is something to it. Is the news media more powerful than the president? And if it is, what can or should be done about it?
In truth, Papa Bear could be right. Consider this: The GOP front-runners for the 2012 election have been selected solely by the news media. Congressman Ron Paul came in second place in the Ames Straw Poll, won the New Hampshire Straw Poll by a mile and this past weekend won the California Republican Straw Poll. Yet none of the major outlets has given Paul credibility as a viable candidate. They have so disregarded Paul that they provoked the ire of comedian Jon Stewart.
But Paul isn't an anomaly. The news media has even gone so far as to determine who is allowed on the stage for debates, regardless of whether or not they have the unofficial requisite resume to be elected. Take for examples former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer.
Most Americans have never heard of either candidate, but having served as the CEOs of their respective states, their exclusion is inexplicable. Johnson appeared in the first Republican debate and has been excluded ever since despite polling better than Jon Huntsman. Roemer, who also polls as well as Huntsman and Herman Cain, has never been invited to the show. Neither Huntsman nor Cain have missed a debate since announcing their doomed candidacies.
Given that the media (and not the people) holds the key to who does and who does not have a credible shot at securing the nomination and ultimately the presidency of the United States, and given that the news media decides for us, what is and is not important to hear about, and the manner in which we will hear it, it's understandable, and even plausible that O'Reilly's statement while at first seems absurd, is more true than we would like to believe.
I don't know exactly what to do about it because I believe in the freedom of press, but there is a sense in which that very freedom may be depriving us of the freedom of truly electing a government of the people and by the people. Generally in an article of this nature, I like to offer a solution to the problems I present.
It's sort of my "thing." But I must admit, on this one I am stumped. So maybe this time, it will have to be enough, to simply point out that a problem exists, in the hopes that someone smarter than me will catch on to the horrific truth herein, and then take the ball and run with it. O'Reilly is right, and that makes me very sad.
http://news.yahoo.com/news-media-personalities-more-powerful-president-164200402.html