Thursday, February 2, 2012

Most Important Show - The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC

There are a lot of news shows. But Rachel Maddow accurately and unbiasedly analyses the news and current events, especially political, in the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. Many accuse her of being liberally biased. But this is simply untrue. Her show is accurate and fair, and she is articulate and intelligent. To learn the truth about the issues which confront us, and our politicians, (including the choice we and they must make about which politicians to support and how to decide the various controversial issues, her show is the most helpful on the air.

While I watch CNN, and like and generally trust CNN, that channel (which probably has the best reputation for being unbiased) engages in what I call "regression to the medium."

In reality, they don't want to alienate either guests or viewers, so they go to great pains to present both sides of every picture. But some times, that it biased away from the truth. Would we give Hitler equal time to espouse his propaganda as we would Winston Churchill talking about the need to oppose Hitler?

Also, she doesn't attack a politician for his/her views. She attacks them, deservedly so, when they have lied about their true feelings (as evidenced by the differences between their proclaimed positions and the way they really behave), or when they pretend to be experts on a position but have no experience or foundation to have an opinion at all.

She also points out when they are inconsistent in their statements about positions, which evidences: (i) a lack of veracity or commitment to the particular issue or position; (ii) a desire to sublimate one's true position, and hence one's integrity, to the desire to "get elected" even on false pretenses; and/or (iii) a candidates confusion and/or lack of understanding about an issue which is very important as that candidate may have to make decisions that relate to the same or similar issues, and even worse, the lack of understanding about a particular issue may be indicative of a greater lack of understanding or intelligence relating to broader yet critical fields, such as foreign policy and international relations in general.

Occasionally, the truthful reporting and analysis requires taking a side, the side of truth. A lie needs to be exposed as a lie. A liar needs to be shown as a liar. If a politician is untruthful or incompetent, it is not biased reporting to show that.

Reporting the news, and analyzing what occurs, is is only biased if one is selective in who one exposes as a liar, hypocrite, etc. Rachel Maddow doesn't do that. She "calls them as she sees them" and she has a remarkable ability to see with great clarity.

CNN, in their zeal to provide equal coverage, actually promotes arguments and causes which should be given "short shrift." It even says in the Bible [Old Testament in a prayer about sins we repent for in Yom Kippur] that it is a sin to show zeal for bad causes. It is not a sin to show zeal, support, or devotion for just causes. In fact, the Bible often tells us what many of those "Just Causes" are, and commands to act with zeal in supporting those causes, causes like giving charity to the poor.

Fox News is an abomination to the industry of news and journalism, and I used to listen and watch it for entertainment purposes only. I used to enjoy calling up and telling the host how wrong his position was, and my attacks were well thought out. I realized that even this was wrong, as such phone calls and listeners, even negative ones, still help the station earn revenue. They also cut you off before you are done, and do it silently so listeners think you are there listening silently as the Host tells you why you are wrong. The listeners mistake your silence for agreement, and don't understand that you were long ago disconnected, thus depriving you of a chance for rebuttal or to even indicate that you "respectfully disagree."

But when Rupert Murdoch (or his so called journalists) went so far to the left on some positions (I think they accused President Obama about his citizenship and not subtly implied that our President was either a Muslim terrorist or sympathizer with them) when in reality they hated him for a combination of reasons: (i) he was a Black American, and many simply could not overcome their racism; (ii) he stood for true freedom and equality for Gays and Women, and his mere existence as President stood as evidence that the country was moving for racial equality. Yet none of this was brought up by Fox, and instead, in a simplistic and moronic and dishonest (factually and intellectually story, they continued to question where President was really born in America and implied that he was really a terrorist sympathiser. They had no evidence, and their conclusions were not reasoned analysis but baseless innuendo and false paranoid statements which played to the fears of a public already preoccupied by 9/11 and already uncomfortable with a Black President. I decided enough was enough.

I used my resources and ascertained Murdoch's personal e-mail address and wrote him that I would never ever again watch any Fox Station, read any of his newspapers, or even watch any of his movies. I explained why, but I don't need to go into that here as it is pretty obvious - people holding themselves out to be independent fair journalists who either don't know the facts or intentionally disregard them, are biased such that they only report the facts (and lies) which support their positions, and spend their time promoting right-wing agendas, not reporting or analyzing the news in a fair, knowledgeable, and independent manner so the viewer can make his/her own intelligent decision. If I wanted to be told how to think or wanted to watch TV which covered only select facts and occurrences and lied and omitted many other facts and occurrences, with the sole motive of attempting to brain wash the viewer with meaningless propaganda, I would move to North Korea.

That was several years ago, and I have kept my word. I have never watched any of his stations or read his publications or seen his movies. I would also carry out my threat and complaint to his advertisers and boycott them as well, but since I don't read or watch his media outlets, I have no idea who his advertisers are.

I am not deluded to think that Murdoch cares about me or my actions. But it is like writing your congressman. Not only does every e-mail, letter and phone call count (especially cumulatively), we can not call ourselves "good, caring, and responsible citizens" if we do not take a stand. It is of no moment how much response we get from our efforts. It is not the reaction which measures our self worth. Our self worth is defined by our own actions and deeds. It is the fact that we acted on our conscious after spending some time to responsibly learn the facts in a fair, intelligent, and non-biased manner. One's self worth is not dependant on the actions of others. It is defined by our own actions and deeds.

Yet, less I be accused of bias, I actually defended (and still support) Rupert Murdoch and his son in the current scandal involving "Phone Hacking Click here." Given the passions and the publicity, he would make an easy target, albeit an unfair target. I don't think he or his son were personally responsible. lower level employees, such as Piers Morgan, are far more likely to have been directly involved.

So if I suffered from bias (specifically "Confirmation Bias" - Click Here to go to my Blog Post which explains Confirmation Bias It is short and well worth reading as it helps explain why all sorts of people do the things they do and reach the conclusions they do) it would be easy for me to use this scandal to attack and discredit him. In fact, defending him has proven controversial and subjected me to insults, verbal attacks and abuse.

But Rachel Maddow sticks to the real and relevant facts and accurately and intelligently analyzes those facts. She has so much journalistic integrity that she would attack her own mother, if her mother was a liar, hypocrite, or incompetent and was running for public office or was using a public image (such as being famous and using that fame to promote a bad cause or political candidate).

But stop reading this Blog, and instead watch her show. I warrant that if the entire electorate would watch her show, we would finally elect honest and competent politicians who would serve the people and get something done and resolve our problems. I also would bet anything that the average IQ and general intelligence and knowledge of the viewers of her show exceeds that of CNN and far exceeds that of Fox News. So be smart, be a good citizen, and "Turn On, Tune In, and Be Smart." I am falling asleep as I finish writing this, having been working for 24 hours sleep, so forgive me for failint to apply the finishing "touches" such as proof reading.

Click Here to E-Mail Me
Click Here to Go to the Main Page of My Entertainment Blog
Click Here to Go to the Main Page of My Main Google Blog

Click Here to Read a New Post I wrote which is my most significant work yet

No comments:

Post a Comment