the wall talker

2 Comments:

At 7:21 AM,  MRK said...

Alright....first of all, I'd like to apologise I haven't made comments to your blog since last time....well obviously. It's way more fun reading your blog and commenting than making additions to my own blog. Let alone is that a compliment to "the wall talker" blog, but also a testament to my own reluctance to sit down and actually compose in my own blog.

Therefore I hope you don't mind me continuing being an active spectator, since I do find it rather enjoyable but also I'm usually the only one and that makes me feel special (pretty pink with sugar on top...):)
.....consider me a slightly mumbling or babbling wall or cubicle-side.

If can hold myself to the fire(ouch! - it's a mild case of purgatory), there will be added more comments to the past blog-entries.


Now Jon Stewart....what can I say, I like the guy. And Tucker Carlson.....what can I say, I dis-like the guy.

I remember reading that the presidential debates and the conventions (RNC and DNC) had about an even spread on the different networks carrying them, but as everything else there was a lead (small as it was) to FOX-news.
I've always wondered why FOX News is so popular, and why the FCC haven't censored the tagline "Fair and Balanced". I mean that line is not only provative, but also immoral and obscene. Then instead of showing the tag-line, Fox News should have an HQ picture of Janet Jacksons exposed breast. That would really say everything needed to be said....sorta like "Fox News...we will do anything to cause a scene" or "Fox News - ...using the lowest common denominator to get attention".

You may be wondering why I am aiming the artillery at Fox News, but as often said the attentive viewer will already know that my little rant is all about the tranformation of the media. From having an agenda of atleast some sort of objectivity and passion to show the world as it is - to let's copy Fox....
I think Tucker Carlsson is evidence of that trend. He's trademark maybe the bow-tie, but few will know that the lining of his underwear doesn't say Calvin Klein but "property of Bill 'O Reilly".

I know subjectity is fun, just like Fahrenheit 9/11, it's fun and you're not in doubt that it is highly subjective and that's the strength of such a film. It has one view, and you may like it or not, but it doesn't respresent itself as the highest of high truths(that role Michael Moore takes on for himself). The real nuisance is subjectivity sold as objectivity. It's seen in documentaries where they present the rather objective facts and then come to a dubious conclusion. The same can be said about Fox News, the same can be said about programmes such as Crossfire. Programs that sham people into believing that what they see is real and to some extent the undeniable truth.
erh....what I mean is, I tend to agree with Jon Stewart, it's reason it's called spin-alley.

did I say mumbling or babbling......I meant to say rambling....hmm I wonder if I left something out, I do tend to make small leaps when I write,

 

At 3:20 PM,  Solomon Wall said...

Ah, no apologies necessary whatsoever, MRK. Stop by and comment whenever the urge strikes or merely read in silent reverence if you like. Toss your shoes off and help yourself 'cause my blog is your blog. And thanks, I'm flattered that you get a kick out of what I do tend to go on and on about in this thing.
"Fox News - ...using the lowest common denominator to get attention". That one gets my vote. Priceless.
As far as its popularity, I get the sense that there is a wave "lowest common denominator" sweeping the nation making media like Fox News and Crossfire the perfect feeding troughs for slanted bias (as opposed to the Daily Show which bills itself as satirical political teasing, primarily for entertainment, not at all subject to the same responsibilities of what purports to be an impartial informative news source). And we live in the era of "spin" where anyone with the agenda and requisite verbal skills can fashion whatever socio-political reality that comforts their own personal sensibilities. Shows like "Crossfire" are just a competition forum of "who can do that better?".
It kind of reminds me of an issue I had with the premise of debate in college. The whole, "construct an argument for this side of an issue... okay, now construct an equally compelling argument for the other side" aspect. What if I inherently don't see the other side as equally compelling. Is that a failure on my part to understand the purpose of debate? Or, rather is it a success of the debate process that I was able to thoroughly examine both sides of said issue and thus, realize that they, indeed are not equally founded in their own justification? Some debate instructors would tell you the point is to be able to triumphantly argue a point that you, yourself may not be able to truly reason as correct. I say, let's not focus on honing the infinite ability to argue, shape, or spin a "truth" towards whatever competitive polarizing end we may arbitrarily assign. Let's instead focus on honing an infinite ability to discover, explore and present all facets of a truth towards an end of understanding and, thus, better respecting different opinions, what they all have to offer, as well as what they all indeed have potential to erode. Neither agenda's pursuit is ever truly finished, but only one endeavors to make genuine progress within a diversely-minded society.
I want to eat some cookies now. Bye, bye.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

About Me

Name: Solomon Wall

View my complete profile