The Feminist Francophile

I originally wrote this as a response to a friend's note, but I thought it was noteworthy in and of itself. So, I'm reposting it.

I clicked on Lawrence’s link and read the article. What the researches found was that there is an ideological divide between two of the three networks: Fox and MSNBC. CNN being the other one, was seen as in the middle. Now in terms of negative treatment of the candidates, I would agree that the last month or two there has been more negative treatment towards McCain than Obama in the media. But the reason for that is not bias- it’s sensationalism. Obama’s campaign has been streamlined and controlled. They stayed on message, on point, there were limited gaffes. McCain and Palin was treated different not necessarily because they were Republican but because they gave the media fodder. When one day, you wake up and the Republican nominee is using the tag line of his opponent, that’s going to gather some interest. Calling someone a socialist when they obviously don’t know what a socialist is. Racial undertones at rallies, negativity. Need I go on? The media, excluding MSNBC and Fox, is looking for the next big whatever to feed its rating. On the other hand, MSNBC and Fox have a strategy, a set narrative, of which to follow.

BTW, just because Fox is ahead in the ratings, that does not mean that people watch them because they are the most fair and balanced. More people buy Tide over Gain- does that mean that Tide freshens your cloths better? Not necessarily. In a pure sense, it basically boils down to advertising.

You know, everybody rings their hands of Fox news: “Fair and Balance? Why, that’s snide”. Yeah okay, they’re not fair and balanced. But you know what CNN use to have a slogan “You can depend on CNN”. Guess what? I watch it. No you can’t. So what’s the difference?

If you watch the news networks, and I believe that this is the judge, which news program would have covered the Iraq War differently if it a Democratic president was in office? I believe only one would have and that is Fox. Therefore, that is an activist stance.
As for the others, the bias of the media is not liberal; it is lazy. And it’s sensationalist. But not liberal. There is no active strategy, which is employed on Fox, which is advocating for conservative and right causes. But they are part of an overall thirty year strategy of putting together a way to reconsolidate power.

BTW, well within their rights. I do not have a problem with that because I don’t consider them news. I consider them an active, political arm. Moreover, when they say that they are “Fair and Balanced”, do I believe that is false advertising? Absolutely. However, when did we start worrying about that? If the presidential election commercials are not held to that standard, then why should news organizations? We have lost accountability. And just because they are, why whine about it? Why not create a television organization that is not liberal, but credible. Why not create something that has the same passion that Roger Ailes brings to his cause. And, I admire what they’ve done because they have shown the way to a new media paradigm; that this type of programming can be successful and profitable. I do not think the answer to it is to set up Al Gore’s network and fight it with liberal strategy. A: because liberals are shitty and will not be able to accomplish it. Liberals feel shame. Shame does not work.

So back to the coverage of the election: It is not about how things were covered during the election, it is about what should be done differently on a 24-hour basis. Fox did not come out of the gate and earn its conservative street-cred. Of course, Roger Ailes being at the head of it helps. But they earned it over time by presenting a narrative.

However, I do not think that narrative is helping, just like I do not think MSNBC’s narrative is helping. I think it helps make them popular but it does not help the country. I think there is a responsibility in the media to help. But someone can create a paradigm of a media organization that is geared towards no bullshit and do it actively. And stop pretending that we don’t know what is going on. And stop pretending that it is a right-left question. I don’t buy that the world is divided into bi-chromatic thought like that.

There is so much out there; I don't know where to start.
So, I'll start with Fox News and their "wonderful anchor" Megyn Kelly.
Ms. Kelly decides to ask the ultimate question: What if?

Do you think that, you know, her saying that she loves America, that she loves this country, is going to do it for those who questioned her patriotism? Because she said something -- what she said was, and I wrote it down, was, "The world as it is just won't do." If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, that you have been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country. Did she give her critics any fodder with that comment?

I must say I am amazed by Fox. Instead of actually reporting news, they like to make news by making random shit up. Yes, Kelly, by switching out words you do ultimately change the meaning. Duh! I like Stephen Colbert's take on the situation: "When I look through Obama's speeches and I change the word 'hope' to 'sodomy,' I really get steamed."

I ask myself, Am I really that shocked? Sort of. Especially from Megyn Kelly. She's a lawyer, alleged anyway (I wanna see that degree, missy!). I've been in law school for one week, and they drill in your head how important one word is. So the answer to Megyn's question is no. You would not have the same conversation unless it is with yourself. Because you are the only one that initiated it.
It's just like the Obama/Biden thing where Fox is changing the letters to show it's close to Osama bin-Laden. You've lost all credibility when you have to stoop to this level, like the people that believe if you fold the $20 bill a set way it shows 9/11.

Anyway... moving on!


Short Clips:
John Hagee thinks that Stay at Home Dads are going to hell. Yeah, John, who the fuck isn't?





Also, Cosmo=Women haters. I love it when a conversation about why people do bad things focus on other people rather than the person doing the bad deed. Stay Classy, Cosmo- And keep making women feel inadequate.




On to the BIG news:
I had the insane pleasure to wake up this morning to the news of John McCain's VP choice. Obviously, I am not a fan of John McCain. Surprisingly though, I did have some respect for him when he was running for Prez about 8 years ago. How times and perceptions have changed. As soon as I heard the VP choice, I was infuriated. Sarah Palin. Are you kidding me!?! This just screams "PLOY"! The reason for that is the campaign realizes that there are some [STILL!]upset Clinton supporters who might vote for McCain. If you are a Clinton how you can go over to the McCain side will always flabbergast me. It's like saying, "I don't have Quiche Lorraine here. So instead of going for the regular spinach quiche, I'm going to get the chicken fried steak." They're not compatible! The Palin nomination screams ploy- not bold or scary as the media has it. Why? Because the role of the VP is traditionally (Thanks, Dick!) suppose to be the "Lady in waiting". Yes they are there for advice, but they are there in case something happens to the President.


Well let's follow the crumbs. Obama picks Biden. Qualified, has been around forever. Supports women (BIG PLUS). Palin-hmmm. Previously a mayor of a town of 2000-8000 people (I've heard both numbers) and is now governor of one of the least dense states in the Union. So, if you take the equation that the VP is there for when something happens to the President (and if McCain wins, the odds are not in his favor) then we have Ms. Little league hockey as the president. How does the McCain camp have the balls to pull of such a stunt?! He's been gettin' (Okey slang) on Obama's case for being "inexperience" even though as a State Senator Obama had more people in his constituency then Palin did as a Mayor.


So, to me, the McCain campaign looked at the Hilary supporters and thought "if we just have a woman, any woman, and we got something." Hilary was not about putting a vagina in the White House; it was about putting a vagina in the White House who believed and fought for what her supports also believed and fought for. Palin is nothing but a younger female version of McCain with less experience than Barack. Now, McCain, I'd like to see you pull out the inexperience card again.
Shame on you McCain for thinking that some of us are stupid enough to fall for your pathetic and desperate trick.

BTW, Obama's speech? Kick Ass! To echo Michelle Obama:
For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country