Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Study Chess As A Guide to Watching Media

By       Message Danny Schechter       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 1549
- Advertisement -
New York, New York August 16: When you play chess, you think ahead. What will your next move be, and how is it likely to be countered? Ultimately it is a game of strategy.

And so is politics where what's achieved today can be undone tomorrow. Some time it's the role of the courts to roll back laws and policies that are unconstitutional. That's what happened this week with The Bush Administration's warrantless wiretaps. Appeals are likely to be filed to undo what has just been undone.

As Casey Stengel once put it famously, "it ain't over till its over."

That's why Israel poured its troops into Lebanon just before the cease fire took effect They tried to change the growing perception that they had lost the war.

- Advertisement -
Back home, Joe Lieberman has set out to circumvent a decision by Connecticut's voters. There is no doubt that he had this Plan B in mind in the event of a primary loss. He also knew he could count on the Bush Administration to try to insure his re-election this fall. In the "favor bank" that is politics, he knew that they "owed him" for all his services rendered in backing the war and other Bushevik policies.

In the media, we have an army of pundits who are there to offer up endless "What-ifs." Speculation is their trade and craft and many are capable of turning around on a dime to revise their view points depending on which way the wind-and their party line leads them.

You have seen the game being played endlessly with some news name passionately defending a position one minute and then, just as passionately, abandoning the posture when the Administration changes its message points.

- Advertisement -
The term opportunism doesn't begin to do justice to the parade of motor mouths who often argue two sides of any and all issues. Sometimes, as in the case of Ann Coulter and some flak-catchers, the gambit is to define an extreme and even absurd position, not because it contributes to a discussion or honestly represents a legitimate viewpoint, but its very outrageousness sparks controversy and ink. That, in turn leads to more media invitations enhancing book sales and lecture fees.

On the right, ranting and raving as a way of pushing the envelope can be lucrative.

Increasingly what we see on the tube is not real discussion but an engineered performance where politicians only answer the questions they want and ignore the ones they don't. They are helped along in this charade by TV "journalists" who forget how to ask follow up questions or insure that all sides are represented with any type of fairness.

Impressions are cultivated but rarely is opinion informed. Its often in one ear and how another with little accountability to the public or alleged journalism standards. TIME coined a word for it: "electotainent."

The hard-core partisan operatives take this game one nasty step further linking some negative in the news to the person or issue they want to demonize. The idea of ethical debate has long disappeared as show biz techniques dominates news biz.

Here are two examples reported by Media Matters for America.

- Advertisement -
"On the August 17 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, executive producer Bernard McGuirk said that John Mark Karr, the man who reportedly admitted to killing 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey in 1996, "looks like Ned Lamont, actually." McGuirk then asked: "Is that who you want representing you, Connecticut?"

"McGuirk's remarks were just the latest attack against Lamont, the Democratic nominee for a Connecticut Senate seat. As the weblog Think Progress noted, on the August 16 edition of Fox News Live, former Weekly Standard deputy publisher David Bass said that a woman who caused a plane to be diverted after suffering a panic attack was "probably not a terrorist; could just be a Ned Lamont supporter."

Sometimes, when called on their sloppiness and lack of professionalism, TV hotshots will admit they blew it. My colleague Judy Newman was outraged by the "terror baiting" of Ned Lamont, the cable news "red meat" target of the week. A reader protest prompted a response and "apology" to Ned Lamont from Chuck Roberts:

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

News Dissector Danny Schechter is blogger in chief at Mediachannel.Org He is the author of PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity (Cosimo Books) available at Amazon.com. See Newsdisssector.org/store.htm.

Danny Schechter Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Israel Gives All Jews A Bad Name

Is There A Threat of Fascism in the USA?

Free Marketers Going After Occupy Wall Street --Danny Schechter

WHO OWNS OUR MEDIA AND WHY IT MATTERS

COG OR COA: WHY IS OBAMA MORPHING INTO BUSH 2?

WERE THE BANKS TOO BIG TO FAIL OR THE BANKERS TOO BIG TO JAIL?