Sean Stine unit 2 10/26/10 Mediacracy Before I say anything I think it is important you know where I am coming from.

Most of my political views are democratic. I will try to be generally unbiased but I will speak my mind. I will be as truthful as I can, unlike some who claim to be ,Fair and Balanced, and do the opposite. I will make statements, and they will be bold. Take them with a grain of salt, as you should everything you see and hear. George Saunders is not happy and neither am I. The Braindead Megaphone conveys a message that our media at large is an inadept omnipresent source of the gossipy trivial and conceptualgeneral, trash. The media should provide us with a simulacra of the world so that we can accurately judge reality. Sadly, it has changed from telling us the truth and started telling us as much truth it can, while still making money (Saunders 245). There is a big problem with this and Saunders states it quite elegantly: The shortfall between the imagined and real, multiplied by the violence of ones intent, equals the evil one will do (244). I feel like John Stewart should read this essay passage aloud on The Daily Show. He's been hyping his Rally to Restore Sanity. It stands for just that, sanity. Through extensive viewing of his left bias show and his right critiquing I can totally understand where both John Stuart and George Saunders are coming from. We live in a world overrun by the stupid, mundane and pointless. Overrun via the media. This media jargon and rhetoric is our main source of information about the world. I think of myself as a typical American. I don't have time to extensively check over thing I see and hear. And I don't even see and hear everything so how am I to know to check it. This is why we believe the media. For most of us it is the only thing there. There is nothing else to check, debate or justify what we've heard, or we just don't have time to do it ourselves. What we've heard may be stretched so that it takes

up time, shrunk to get to other things, may be bias, may be rushed or may just be wrong. This is why I like john Stewart. He may argue from one generally bias perspective but at least hes up front about it. He tells you where he is coming from and does it with logic and wit, not at an angry fist pounding shout. John Stewart always provides the third perspective as well. We have two parties. He provides the democrats' perspective and through it I get the republicans' but what I value is the third, the realist's perspective. I don't need to be tied down to one point of view. I don't need to have a perfect allegiance to one side or the other. This is what the media has done, convinced us to polarize. They do it for more ratings. Outrageous disingenuous polarizing stories get more ratings than the true intelligent, more sophisticated stories that may actually be important. It's sad but us realists have to realize it. Stewart is charming, easy to watch and easy to understand but not always, only from eleven thirty to twelve. How is this so? He has a whole team of writers who help him be what he is. They spend a day sorting through the news, separating the truth from the drivel. They write it, revise it and in doing so take a step back and take a look at the bigger picture. What we are left with is entertainment that's actually informative. Why can't the media at large do this you may ask? Simply put they don't have the same time to revise and they need to stretch it to be hours and hours long every day. I'm not happy. You would think with the workforce of a full news station at least one could pump out watchable TV without spouting BS. And if they can't they should condense the news. Do like Stewart does, weed out the BS and give us the facts. Sadly, the fact is that money rules everything around us. The media needs more news so they can have more advertising and make more money. It's a sound business plan but not a very ethical one and it has mammoth implications. What we need, as a democratic society, is the facts. We live in a country where, in principal, the people rule. Studies have shown that people working in groups make better decisions than individuals. So we as a nation, every four years, elect our own leader. We use the collective intelligence of the entire nation and (why we don't use the popular vote I don't know) choose our leader. A leader that

represents, for at least most of us, our ideals. It is a sound idea but ask yourself this: What if the collective intelligence was wrong? What if our main source of information was wrong? What if the ideals we hold dear had been perverted over the years, over the years of hearing the bias, ignorant, polarizing and reactionary voices of the general media? What we are left with is a country that thinks it know the truth. It wouldn't be so bad if we knew where our faults where, where our perceptions of reality differ from the real thing. We may even be stubborn, steadfast in our current ideals and perceptions, the only ones we've heard and known of for years. How can a country possibly lead itself in a world it doesn't even know? Who is to blame? I'll tell you, the media. Let's take Fox News for example. They are, to a realist, a right biased news station who literally finds issues, usually petty, and blows them out of proportion. They do free advertising for the republicans basically every hour of the day. Keep in mind if you switch Fox New's party to democrat you get MSNBC. In this way they take a story, that may be unimportant and broadcast it to every single viewer. Now the only thing being talked about is this story. Those people that hear the story take a side. Usually its the side of the broadcasters because of the way the story is told, with bias. Some act on it. They call their congressman, picket, some even rally, like the Tea Party Republicans. Let's take a look at what's happening here. The media has taken something that's not news or not very good news at that, portrays it as news, sees people act on that news which they again report on, seeming to strengthen their original story. Its like a snake eating it's own tail that's somehow getting bigger and bigger. It makes no sense. They then reap the benefits of the story as the people call the government to action. This relationship between the media and the government works in both directions, they use each other. Saunders sums it up,When the government wants to mislead, it turns to the media. (Saunders 247) It's flabbergasting to think anyone, even the government or the media can have such a huge affect on our good citizens. They literally force us to think and do as they wish by making us want to do them. Let's take building a mosque at ground zero for example. It's understandable for someone not to

want a mosque there. If I lost a loved one that day I might even be on their side. But I didn't and even if I did there would be a constitution apposing us. It is our right as Americans to have freedom of religion. It stands at the base of our Constitution in our forefather's hearts and our nation's pride Why would someone dispute it, even at ground zero? Fox News bickered about it for days. Last time I checked Republicans didn't stand for reform, especially when it came to our constitution. What Fox does stand for is fear mongering and ratings. So they they made claims. There was money coming from the middle east, that the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, was a terrorist and was receiving foreign aid. They went on and on and we listened and listened. People by the masses picketed. Saunders states,The forces that come for our decency, humor, and freedom will be extolling, in beautiful smooth voices, the virtue of decency, humor and freedom(Saunders 248). The media is the good looking, humorous, virtues of decency and they are coming for our freedoms already, our freedom of religion, our rights. What is happening here is the news is no longer just reporting the news, they are creating it. John McCain once said, I used to think they(Fox News) worked for us but the longer I work here the more I realize it's the other way around. This massive subversive influence on us is hard to escape. All the time we hear it and all the time it changes the way we think. One can realize but that's not enough. It takes everyone. We all have a part in correcting this tragedy. I am not asking for a massive upheaval against the media. Just that whenever you see or hear something take it with a grain of salt and try to understand how it fits into the big picture. Few things in this world are absolute fact and less are successfully conveyed by the media. The most important thing to do is to talk to people. Tell them what has become of their media. As you can see our very democracy is at stake, our very way of life. We should fight this modern media and we should be hailed as freedom fighters.

Works Cited Saunders, George. The Braindead Megaphone. Other Words a Writer's Reader. Ed David Fleming. Dubuque: Kendal Hunt, 2009. 239-48. Print.

Ideally we would have a transparent government, one that would willfully release pictures taken in Guantanamo Bay. The government sadly isn't so

John Stuart rally war is seen in pg 13 democracy to work news concrolling govm It is hypocritical to even talk about the media's affect on me since I was brought up with it. Story says collectively not diong much stuart is being loud companies as people who can donate any amount of money to elect communism , maybe full disclosure take with grain of salt ,as you should everything how is it darfur is never on tv media not reporting but making the news John Mcain