Interestingly, the one main argument in the blogs is not about the highlight of the reporting, but on whether US media can be linked to words like integrity and boldness. I made a couple of postings as "australian in new york". Rather than rephrasing whatever I had said, here's the posting that I would hope anyone cares to read will take it seriously:
dudes, lets all not argue about whether australia (or the rest of the world) envy US, or vice versa. if we all take a wider view of things, and we're all citizens of the world, we might just be able to start thinking along a similar line. each country has their strengths and weaknesses.
for example, i got 4 weeks of vacation in australia back then, and i got 4 weeks of vacation in US now as well. the only difference is, in australia, it's almost a birth-right to have 4 weeks, whereas in US, u have to earn it (or rather, get to a certain seniority). and if we compare ourselves to europe, phew - there's no comparison. does comparing countries based on one single (or a selected few) factor realistically reflect whether one country is superior than the others? absolutely not.
and i can safely say, there're australians (or europeans) who want to come to US to work, and yet there're equally as many americans who long for the more laid-back life style that allows one the luxury to enjoy life. afterall, there's no point work till u drop when u don't even have time to enjoy the fruits of ur work. the by-product is the increasing consumerism in US since shopping provides an obvious emotional relief.
but back to one of the original issues in this blog debates, of whether US media can be associated with words like accuracy, integrity and boldness, i do believe that during its glory days, it has. just look at washington post and the watergate. the only other news organization that i might have thought of capable of achieving that is probably BBC. these days, though, i do believe that the pressure to media to conform has become so immense, thanks to the almost macarthy-era-like labeling by the bush administration on any and all the dissenting voices (media included). and by jove, they've been so effective in silencing the opposing voices.
the onslaught of internet also means that there's an ever shrinking budget to provide quality news, since like i said before, most audience are just interested in those 5-minute headlines.
so, my second suggested action (and challenge to all that might care to listen/read) is, since u all are so familiar with the people's power of the internet, put forward ur views and concerns to the news organization (be it, NBC or ABC or CBS, u name it), let them know what u think. let them know that u believe what they present is inaccurate or too whimpy. and let them know that u'r all too ready to vote with ur feet (and run) if they don't improve. i would strongly argue that that would be one effective and constructive means to get things improved, rather than just bitching and moaning here in the blogs world.
that, and to vote to let the government know. to everyone, these are what we can do, TODAY. otherwise, folks like karl rove and john howard would be laughing their heads off, and continue what they've been doing, since us, the public can't even present a dominant voice for them to take us seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment