Media Corruption

The following is an excerpt from my final unit paper, entitled "Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Thought".

"The thing I really dislike about the media is that it never says anything different. All that is reported is that which should be obvious. The death toll in Iraq is up? Well, of course it is. The longer we stay there, the more fed up people are likely to be with it. The really important things are generally talked about under the radar, and when they’re found out, more often than not they are covered up. Recently in class we watched a movie called “American Blackout” about the suspected voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Voices of reason were mangled until everyone turned against the speaker. If news stations were able to do something like that so easily, they’ve clearly had some practice. I wonder how much of what we’re getting from mainstream news is true. This is not only blatantly against the Constitution in that it takes away people’s right to say what they want and be heard, it takes away another right. It takes away the right of the people to make their own choices and think for themselves. You might be saying “Come on, it’s not that serious. I can still think for myself and nobody will arrest me”, but how much of your free thought is influenced by the same media that lies so much about important issues? Doesn’t everyone turn to the news for the latest information on government activity? Isn’t that where we get nearly all of our information about all things politics? The mainstream news is just the government’s subtle way of controlling thought. How long until we become like that world described in “A Wrinkle in Time”? Same actions. Same voice. Same thoughts."

The 2008 Election

When I started watching the election coverage, I was writing down a play-by-play sort of thing so that I would remember what happened. One of the things they talked about was how the choice of Sarah Palin actually lost McCain some votes, even though when she was first chosen it seemed to have given the campaign an advantage. I was not really surprised by that. Palin seemed like a good choice before anyone tried to get her to do or say anything conclusive, but after a short time it was clear she wasn't up to the job.

Something I noticed was that this election was a great example of how one candidate can lose even with the popular vote. The station I was watching had a running tally of the votes, and when I tuned in, McCain was ahead by a few hundred. Despite McCain's small lead in the popular vote, Obama was clearly leading at the time in electoral votes. As the night went on, he drew ahead in the popular vote as well. Even so, it was such a close race that when Obama was announced the winner, I didn't believe it at first. I knew that a lot of what the news stations were saying was an educated prediction about the outcomes in certain states, and I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously or not. When McCain gave his concession speech, then I believed that Obama had really won. Then I had to wait for Obama's victory speech. The wait probably wasn't very long, but it sure felt like half an hour.

When Obama gave his speech, I wanted to be there. Not just to see it in person (which would have been great in itself), but because the crowd there was exuding so much positive energy. They all believed that right then was the moment our country began a change for the better, and that unified them. At times, they spontaneously began chanting out "yes we can". I don't know how that could even happen in a crowd that big, it was like they were all on the same wavelength, and I wanted to be in on it. I hope that we can keep that unity in the future, because that's the sort of power that makes things happen. I know that about half of the country did not vote for Obama, and do not support him. My biggest concern is about those people. When people don't agree with what they are hearing, they can react badly. They can ignore it, refuse to help along any new ideas. Some of them might even react violently. Of course, they could also choose the path Obama talked about, and get involved in any new ideas. Getting involved is the best way to make sure your opinions are heard. But still, I know that we don't all agree on what is right. There's nothing that I could mention that everyone agrees on. Since the country is fairly evenly split with their opinions most of the time, I'm wondering how the majority will manage to compromise with the almost-equal-in-size minority. Will compromise even be possible in any of the major issues facing the country? A lot of them seem like they have to go either one way or another, and then what will happen to those who got their thoughts overruled?