The image of Francis Schaeffer in yesterday's (and now today's) post requires additional comment. I took that photo in the 1980's during a large anti-abortion rally in St. Paul, MN. Dr. Schaeffer had been in treatment at Rochester's Mayo Clinic and had been invited up to the Cities to be one of the keynote speakers for the event. He had been an outspoken critic of the Roe v. Wade decision as a symbol of the culture's continuing devaluing of life. The rally was organized by an interdenominational coalition and took place in a park with baseball diamonds across the street from an abortion clinic. There were 5,000 people present, with speakers from a range of faiths including Jewish rabbis.In his book and ten-hour film series titled How Should We Then Live, Schaeffer gave some attention to the power of the media to manipulate. What I found particularly fascinating was that the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the city's primary news vehicle, did not even mention this event. At the same time, the following day's paper included a front page story on the actions of eight protestors in Boston against nuclear warheads.
How strange, I thought. Silence. It's a form of shunning.
The newspapers have a right to ignore a story under their nose. But the people in response have an obligation to understand that what is happening in the world today, the things of real significance, have to be ferreted out by other means.
With the advent of the internet, the power brokers in network TV and news media have seen an erosion of power. And in many circles a loss of respect. It's about time.
1 comment:
>>>>>>>>>>>What I found particularly fascinating was that the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the city's primary news vehicle, did not even mention this event. At the same time, the following day's paper included a front page story on the actions of eight protestors in Boston against nuclear warheads.
An anti-abortion rally would generally be considered a "conservative" mainstream religious event, and an anti-nuke rally would generally be considered a "liberal" (or even "radical") event (especially since it took place in Boston, eh?).
... Which really does bring into sharp outline the difference in values between conservatives and liberals in the US of A.
I'd venture to bet $5 (US) that though the St. Paul Pioneer Press didn't send a reporter to cover the anti-abortion rally you went to, the newspaper did/does provide free advertising space for church-related and other religious activities, but did/does NO such thing for anti-nuke rallies.
A parallel situation, though on a much bigger scale, is the exhaustive day-in-day-out coverage the mainstream media gave the impeachment of Bill Clinton -- the blue dress, the cigar, the explicit Starr report (which the media would have termed "pornography", had it been written by a liberal, but this was written by a conservative), etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum -- compared with the non-coverage of Dennis Kucinich's reading in the House of his 35 Articles of Impeachment against George Bush -- for aggressive warfare, war crimes, war profiteering, wire-tapping without a warrant, torture of suspects, holding of suspects indefinitely without charges or trial, plus numerous other violations of the US Constitution and international treaties, all meticulously documented.
*Yawn* is about we've heard about that, except on the blogs.
In THIS situation, the mainstream media seems to be reflecting right-wing conservative values, i.e., an obsession into peeping into other people's bedrooms -- and is certainly not reflecting liberal values, i.e., world peace, and economic, social, and legal justice for all people, worldwide.
It certainly is no wonder the mainstream media has lost respect over the past 28 years. They are the same bunch who Teflonized Reagan, too.
Post a Comment