|
I've been thinking a lot about the word "News" as applied to what we watch on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX NEWs, and
so forth; or what we read in the LA Times, NY Post, Chicago Tribune, and other "newspapers" all over the country.
There has heretofore been an assumption that these "news" sources are objective relaters of events. Not that any
one of us has ever "believed everything" we've read. Our parents warned us against that. But we believed some
of it, and we learned to discern between "real news" (the above sources) and faux news, like that which we get from
"The Weekly World News."
Is anyone beginning to think that a report of a two-headed alien rapper sounds remotely objective...sort of logical?
Then it's a side effect of having gotten too much "news" recently.
In the recent political climate, and by that I mean the Bush era, "news" has grown to imply a thing that is
slanted, unstable, subjective. What's more, any "legitimate" news source with the name "Murdoch" attached
to it (Fox News, the New York Post) can be logged side by side with the hip-hop alien-these sources have skewed so far to
the right that they've become opinion pieces, places for the Right to rant.
So then where do we get our news? I, for one, have turned happily to "illegitimate" sources. Somehow, this
is where the "news" becomes balanced, and if I tie all the ends together, I can create an objective news service
all my own.
The number one giver of great "news" these days is Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Jon Stewart and his "news"
team parody and satirize their way to a real story. Somehow, now that the joke is on us, it's the jokesters who are getting
the facts across. Right after the war began in Iraq, "Senior Analyst" Stephen Colbert told Stewart that: "the
media's role should be the accurate and objective description of the hellacious ass-whomping we're handing the Iraqis."
On The Daily Show, this reads as satire. But the satire is so on the nose that one must laugh to keep from crying. On Fox
News, a "reporter" might utter these same words-and mean them sans irony. And Stewart doesn't just give the News
about the "news," he covered the war, and now its mess of an aftermath, with a parodical accuracy that stings with
more actual truth than anything else the media is dishing out. I admit it, I agree with Stewart because I'm a lefty, but
he opens up the debate and offers a new way of looking at this one-sided media problem, and that should excite people on both
the left and the right.
Because what's going on is horrible, and suddenly it's the people who our guts tell us to underestimate who are leveling
the playing field. It's the satirists, the comedians, and-oh shit-the Hollywood Movie Stars. It's the Dixie Chicks. Somehow,
in this current state of invention, of cow-towing, of erasure, it's the people who are typically not to be taken seriously
that we can take seriously. And it's those who we've all looked to in the past to give us "the news" that can be
written off. They're in the pockets of the government. Thomas Jefferson, who vowed to prefer a free press with no government
to a government with no free press, would be terribly disappointed.
Many will say: Why listen to rich, spoiled movie stars? How can they know anything? Well, they can know things the way
you and I can-they can pay attention. But they have an opportunity many do not: they can be invited on talk shows, they can
go to the Oscars, they can get their ideas in front of the media. Like Janeane Garofalo says in an interview with The Progressive:
There is a lot of the hate mail that says actors are
too wealthy to understand what's going on. The
actors live in Hollywood, all this kind of nonsense.
Do they realize how wealthy the Bush family is or
the Cheney family? The Ashcrofts? Bill O'Reilly?
Tom Brokaw? Do they realize that if you are talking
about the Administration now, Bush and Cheney in
particular, the life of privilege, wealth, and elitism
they have lived? If you are going to talk about
somebody not understanding the common man,
then look no further than the Beltway.
And she's right, which shouldn't necessarily make us all feel better. We pay a price when we have to turn to celebs to
be the equalizing voice. We are without legitimate representation. We cannot be taken seriously because those with the clout
and capital to speak out are not actually representing us in any real way-we cannot vote for them (well, perhaps someday we
can vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's hardly the point), and we cannot, no matter how tempting, refer to them as
legitimate news sources. Nor can we refer to The Onion, or The Daily Show as such. We can turn to The Nation and even The
New Yorker, but their legitimacy has been questioned by the very media that refuses to question the actions of this administration.
So suddenly fear tactics and censorship are acceptable acts of patriotism; dissent is out. Just ask Tim Robbins. When
answering questions posed by Matt Lauer on The Today Show, he was suddenly cut off by a swell of music, his mic was turned
off, and the screen faded to black. Just before Robbins was censored, he said: "We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi
people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet."
I could go on and on and on about how wrong, how backwards, how thoroughly un-American this occurrence of April 2003 was,
but I think I'd be preaching the obvious. The problem is clear, as is the irony in Robbins' words. Some of us may underestimate
the ability of Hollywood's stars to take a political lead, but they're scaring someone...someone with the power to shut them
up. It's not an optimal situation, but who's surprised? Take a look around. Politicians and government aren't helping us.
We have to protect our own First Amendment rights, and we have to somehow show, that regardless of our feelings about war
or Bush or whatever, we will not be silenced.
The New York Post published a list of "Saddam lovers" in a March issue. This is a list of people who have dared
to speak out against the war in Iraq and the choices of the Bush administration. This list clearly takes the warning, with
us or against us, to its least logical end. So I'm all about supporting these celebs and their right to say whatever they
please. I find some of them artistically appalling, but I support them, and I will put their names out there for anyone else
to support. Perhaps we can help strengthen our voice (after protesting and writing and painting and screaming and whatever
other means necessary) through the only way Bush understands. Consumerism. Here's the list:
Janeane Garofalo
Tim Robbins
Susan Sarandon
Sean Penn
The Dixie Chicks
Samuel L. Jackson
Alfre Woodard
Sheryl Crow
Laurence Fishburn
Limp Bizkit
Danny Glover
Martin Sheen
James Whitmore
Jackson Browne (he's also an alleged girlfriend-beater, so he might just cancel himself out)
|
