LINK IN TITLE
As I am sure most people already know, Sarah Palin was recently hired to be a political analyst for Fox News. However, Palin is just one among many people who are currently blurring the supposedly unbiased media and politics. Former Fox Analyst Angela McGlowan is now running for the House. Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich are also Fox analysts. It has been rumored that CNBC's Larry Kudlow and CNN'S Lou Dobbs will announce political bids.
The candidates are obviously using TV as a way to get their name out there. In an age where some people are apparently so concerned with being able to comfortably drink a beer with the President, visibility is key. People are much more likely to vote for the familiar name and face they hear/see on their friendly nightly news than an unknown person. That would just be scary.
Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, says networks sign political figures to make it easier to book them, and to prevent other networks from booking them instead. He states that the rise of political figures working in the media is "a competitive issue".
I'm sure Griffin is right, but does it really seem right to interview your "political analysist". Doesn't it seem a bit like cheating?
At what point is it abusive for people with political dreams to use the media as their start? When has the line been crossed? What even defines the line?
4 comments:
It seems like we have been given another reason to distrust the media. If there was any doubt/controversy regarding the question of political "spin" in the media, the signing on of politicians in the various news networks settles it. Propaganda anyone?
"I'm sure Griffin is right, but does it really seem right to interview your "political analysist". Doesn't it seem a bit like cheating? At what point is it abusive for people with political dreams to use the media as their start? When has the line been crossed? What even defines the line?"
First, my answer to the title is yes.
When people interview their own analysts, it's in hopes that the analyst will agree with what the interviewer has already said. Most people like to debate with analysts they personally know so that it seems as if their view is the only view that matters.
I'm very skeptical towards the media anyways, so I'm sure you can fish out my answer for your second question.
The line's been crossed when people attempt to gain an unfair advantage in anything, regardless if it's cheap.
The line exists. What defines it are rules and regulations. Without them, we'd just be in another world of dog eat dog.
It seems like these political analysis programs are the "op-ed" of television, yet without the title to make it obvious to viewers. This is what gets me-in the newspaper, at least, readers know that they are narrowcasting themselves, and reassuring their own beliefs by reading columns by writers whose politics match their own. With TV, though, many viewers like to kid themselves into thinking that the political analysis by people such as Palin is objective, when it's clearly not.
In answer to your question, I think it becomes abusive when people with political aspirations pretend that their viewpoints are not political, but rather true and objective.
Post a Comment