A Convert to the Church attempts to put his convoluted thoughts down on paper Er, ink...whatever...
Or, why Television sucks at politics
Published on April 28, 2004 By Jiggles In Politics

I was watching MSNBC just a few minutes ago and I noticed something that really pisses me off. They had Pat Buchannon (I know little about him, ergo, nothing wrong there) and some liberal guy whose name escapes me.

Anyways, they were on for three or four minutes, with about only one minute devoted to each subject. Now, what really concerns me is the lack of nuance in the debate. I knew ole Pat is a Republican, so I almost could anticipate his responses, and to show that the show is "fair," I knew that the lib. would take the contrary position. It was so mind-numbly predictiable (although Pat made an excellent point about Constitutional Law) that I have severe problems with watching the tele for news. This polemics in politics is so mind-numbly dumbassed that I almost refuse to pay attention to politics.

In other words, shame on the media for making politics into sound bites. The "experts" are usually little more than idealogues, touting their agendas openly, yet the media provides them as "unbiased and objective" observers. Sigh, it may be modern societies dependence on "experts" that really cranks my chain. It's not like I cannot think for myself, rather than listen to some nitwit telling me how to think, what to buy, or who to vote for. Sometimes, I wish I were American and vote for Bush, just to piss off Hollywood.

And I do not see the grip that big media has on our daily lives loosening. Now, no matter how much I would like to think that people can see past the media's illusions, sadly that is not the case. Everyone is blinded by it. Except yours truely, of course.

Although I have not studied Catholic Social Teaching regarding the Media, I do know who the patron saint is: St. Maximillion Kolbe, a matyr in WWII. I am interested in possibly pursuing a career in journalism (oh the irony) so studing the CTS may be of immense benefit. But anyways: Pray for us, St. Maximillion Kolbe, to use the media prudently and to use it to spread the truth and love of the Gospels, unto all the Earth.

This rant brought to you by Jiggtopia, the leading nation in exports of rants against society. Closely followed by Michael Moore, although Jiggtopia is much more popular and infinitely more attractive (like being better looking than Moore is any big accomplishment).

Comments
on Apr 28, 2004
I rarely comment on anything political but after reading this one I just couldn't help myself. This article is amusing and brought a grin to my face when I sorely needed one. Thanks for that.

To expect anything "in depth" , "fair", and "unbiased" from today's media is laughable at best.

Nowhere can you find such obvious bias and shallow thought as in the modern media. The days of neutral "reporting" disappeared many years ago.

Thanks for the laugh, I really needed it.
on Apr 28, 2004
I was serious...

Well, semi-serious. I am glad that you found it amusing, because I believe that humor teaches people many things, one of them the ability to laugh at all the foibles of life. If this blog can help even one person, I would consider it a success. Yet, if you happen to know anyone who is willing to pay me to maintain my genius articles, it would be much appreciated. (I wish there were emoticons I could add in this, they always seem to be able to bring greater nuance to netspeak)

on Apr 28, 2004
If you can't laugh at life, you're really screwed.

Well, ok, you're probably screwed either way.
on Apr 29, 2004
Television is never going to be in-depth, that is the nature of the medium.

on Apr 29, 2004
Never watch the news on a TV. I never do and I haven't missed a thing.

So much more can be found on the internet, it has a better range of opinions, and is a lot easier to access. TV news is just... a pointless failure.
on Apr 29, 2004
Television news is basically a compilation of what current matters can best be turned into entertainment, most frequently through vivid film footage. Politics is covered as though it were sports coverage with far more attention to the tension of the contest than the underlying ideas. There is almost no coverage of any ideas which cannot be turned into visuals.

However, this alone is not an attack on those that create newscasting. Rather, this is the nature of the medium of television. The occasional network news story that breaks the rules (because someone somewhere thought it was important enough to include) is extremely difficult to follow, and, if you were to be given a quiz on the material later on, you would find that your comprehension was surprisingly poor.
on Apr 30, 2004
Evidently, I was hoping for more dissent to my position. I guess when you are right, you are right. Entertainment = good. When entertainment bastardizes, trivializes, and misleads people = bad.
on May 01, 2004
What is there to dissent from?

The situation you are describing is, in my view, the most significant challenge to our democratic tradition. By what magic will a majority of voters arrive at wise decisions, when the vast majority are getting their information in this manner?

As Neil Postman put it in one of his books, most everyday citizens could have walked past the first fourteen presidents on the street and not recognized them, yet those people would have quickly recognized their leaders' ideas on paper. Today, few citizens could attribute a single coherent idea to to any of our leaders, yet our leaders' images are instantly recognizable. That is the result of visual, entertaining coverage of current affairs.

I suspect that when the history of this period of our country is written, the books will be remarking that, incredible as it seems, the nation's bounty of natural resources, high ideals, and superior industry were all squandered by a series of incredibly poor leaders that were chosen beginning soon after the advent of television.