Authoritative discourse immediately creates images of commentators on networks such as Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. The show anchors basically exist for the purpose of impressing their opinions upon viewers while creating conflict and tension; begging the question "Who governs discourse?" As far as I can tell, when guests are asked onto shows such as Bill O'Reilly, it's assumed that O'Reilly will sway the discussion, even going as far as to accuse his guest of being "unpatriotic" if they happen to disagree with some level of U.S. foreign policy or "emotional" if they seem to be affected by his derogatory comments. In this way he has the authority over the guests. What exactly makes him an expert in regards to politics? His prominence on a network seems to warrant some sense of authority. Ultimately, I'd like to think that Fox News has the authority; however, when it comes to media oftentimes attention, drama and ratings come first. Then again the viewers also hold authority when deciding whether or not to watch the program or change the channel.
In regards to O'Reilly and "political" commentary, the network or cable television itself chooses to organize and distribute this one sided form of discourse, and because of the fact that it is bias and lacking opposing arguments, the program and its ideals can be considered dangerous. I would have to ask if discourse exists at all in this situation?
By applying labels to the individuals expressing a desire to participate in some form of discourse, the individual applying the labels gains some sense of control. Whether or not that control actually exists varies depending on a neutral bystander.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I couldn't agree with you more.
Both you and Tyler have been awfully tough on the news media, but you raise an interesting point- who does bestow the authority to news makers? Might it be, in fact, their viewers?
Post a Comment