Stephen Colbert blends irony and sarcasm in politics better than anyone I have ever had the pleasure of watching. He interviews authors, experts, scientists, politicians, and sometimes, ordinary citizens. As a parody on interviews done by network pundits, he oftentimes takes control of the interview and shapes it to fit any view he chooses. In my opinion, this is nothing short of hilarious and brilliant. I'm sure most of you have seen or heard of his speech at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, but if you haven't, I will embed it now because it is truly a must see!
Some people may say that Colbert has a cult following. In my opinion that is (to put it mildly) an over generalization. While it is true that some people follow him closely, I kinda doubt anyone would drink the Kool-Aid, so to speak.
Most of the time, I view politics as something to either laugh or cry about. The reason I adore Stephen Colbert is because for an all-too-short 30 minutes a night, he allows me to laugh.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Inglourious Basterds as a History Lesson
I saw this movie, yesterday, and I'll start by saying that is was awesome. However, I began to wonder how many people would think it was historically accurate... I feel ashamed to even admit that I could think such a thing but I have honestly met a few people who have no clue about any type of history that dates back to a time before their births.
So, the question I would like to pose it this: Does Quentin Tarantino have a moral responsibility to the moviegoers to make a film that tells the truth about history?
It may seem like a silly question, but I don't think it's far different than some of the questions we ask about the mass media's responsibilities.
With that being said (or rather asked), I do realize that Q.T. does not go around calling himself the "news" (although Huey Lewis's band did and no one asked to see their credentials), and that certain networks do, automatically making them seem more accountable, but you can still see the problems that can occur if people who have no knowledge of history go around thinking that what happened in the movie is what happened in actuality.
If one single person watched the movie and believed it, who would be to blame?
So, the question I would like to pose it this: Does Quentin Tarantino have a moral responsibility to the moviegoers to make a film that tells the truth about history?
It may seem like a silly question, but I don't think it's far different than some of the questions we ask about the mass media's responsibilities.
With that being said (or rather asked), I do realize that Q.T. does not go around calling himself the "news" (although Huey Lewis's band did and no one asked to see their credentials), and that certain networks do, automatically making them seem more accountable, but you can still see the problems that can occur if people who have no knowledge of history go around thinking that what happened in the movie is what happened in actuality.
If one single person watched the movie and believed it, who would be to blame?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Media: Serpent or Scapegoat?
There is a certain cynicism in regards to media political coverage. I am by no means a stranger to the feeling. Actually, I may even go beyond a mere cynic and fall into the category of masochist, for sometimes I enjoy watching certain "news" programs because I get to experience and array of emotions that remind me that I am alive and that I do...well...care. For instance when I hear something such as this, http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=8305794&referralPlaylistId=playlist ,I start by feeling sympathy because I'm sure it would be terrible to lose a parent. But then I start to question what kind of health care her father would get if he had NO health insurance. And then I get a bit annoyed with Fox because they only show things that promote their agenda. Where's the video that shows a woman whose father was saved because he had medicare? That would be a bit more "fair and balanced" in my humble opinion. After the annoyed feeling subsides, I start to ask myself why I even look at things I know will annoy me in the first place. Now comes the psychological self-examination stage of the process. Then, after I decide that looking inward is a hopeless endeavor, I start to feel a bit more complacent (which is where the accepting things I cannot change comes into play). I vow to never watch things that I know I will disagree with again. Then however many minutes later, I'm doing it all again.
What I was going to get at before my mind obviously went a bit off-course is this: Is the media at fault for any misinformation, spun information, or bias information? Or is it us, as the consumers that should take a bit of responsibility and search for the truth instead of just simply believing (or not) in things we want (or don't want) to believe in just because someone in a suit says it and because it fits into the comfort zone of our own beliefs? Is the media poisoning us with lies? Or are we poisoning ourselves because of our own lack of effort and simply blaming the media because it's the easier thing to do?
What I was going to get at before my mind obviously went a bit off-course is this: Is the media at fault for any misinformation, spun information, or bias information? Or is it us, as the consumers that should take a bit of responsibility and search for the truth instead of just simply believing (or not) in things we want (or don't want) to believe in just because someone in a suit says it and because it fits into the comfort zone of our own beliefs? Is the media poisoning us with lies? Or are we poisoning ourselves because of our own lack of effort and simply blaming the media because it's the easier thing to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
