Steven Rosson

Over the years I’ve noticed a popular misconception among many people: that the news is somehow a service provided to the public, and that there is some obligation for it to be objective. There are arguments and bickering over which network castrates news the most and which can actually be trusted.

For anyone who holds this belief, I offer this news flash: the news is a TV show! like The Late Show, Planet Earth, and Family Guy, it exists for one reason and one reason only: to increase ratings and make money for the network’s stockholders. They don’t have to be unbiased, they don’t have to be objective, and they don’t have to tell you a thing. They can practice selective coverage to their hearts’ content.

The current Writers Guild of America strike has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream media because these news providers are owned by the very companies that WGA is striking against – selective coverage if I’ve ever seen it.

Even more amazing, however, is CNN’s one-sided coverage regarding a Senate bill that would have granted immunity to telecom companies that helped the government illegally spy on American citizens. CNN reported today that “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed the bill because there were more than a dozen amendments planned, and not enough time left on the legislative calendar to manage them.” CNN also completely failed to mention that this was due only to the threat of Senator Chris Dodd’s filibuster: you have to go to Wired News for that. This is actual serious news that major media outlets should not ignore!

If you browse through sites like Digg and Reddit on a daily basis, you’ll find out all kinds of really interesting user-submitted news that you would probably never have heard about anywhere else. But mainstream news isn’t real: stop trusting it!

Digg it!

When James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in 1789, he could not have fathomed the horrors we would face in the 21st century. The Founding Fathers worried not about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, or the Axis of Evil, but rather about the implications of having a federal government with unchecked and absolute power over its citizenry. With this in mind, our country’s 1st Congress put in place the freedoms to which we cling today. But just two hundred years later these ideals are crumbling in the face of the cleverly named Patriot Act, the illegal arrest and torture of military detainees, the TSA’s secret “no-fly” lists, abuse of material witness statutes, and – my personal favorite – warrantless spying on American citizens. Our Congress and leaders no longer listen to the people, and the only “serious and mounting threat to our country” in sight is our faltering democracy and dwindling civil liberties.

During the American Revolution these ideals were worth fighting and dying for. But while our troops continue to fight and die on a daily basis, our war has changed its venue and its biggest casualty has suddenly become the values we once fought to the death to preserve. Our Founding Fathers would be disappointed, for we have taken the things they held most sacred and desecrated them in ways that no terrorist ever could. We also spent close to $500 billion and killed over 600,000 civilians in the process: that is 25 times the financial damage and 200 times the human casualties of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And all in the name of national security.

“National security” is one of the most arbitrary phrase used today. It is most frequently interspersed throughout President Bush’s usual rigmarole on illegal immigration and nuclear weapons, and the lengths we will go to preserve it have, to this day, met no ends. What does this phrase even mean? Does national security entail eliminating any and all threats to our existence, or physically securing our borders against foreign invaders, or perhaps even creating cute little baby-Americas throughout the Middle East? Even if national security could be defined, it would still probably be impossible to attain.

The fact that we as a nation are willing to sacrifice our own values to fight for something we do not understand, and with no true objective in mind, is mind-boggling. Upholding the principles that made our country great is not about being a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian: it is about being an American. At what point do we put a stop to this political hogwash and reclaim the freedoms we once fought to protect?

Digg it!

People who visit the Yahoo! Political Dashboard likely do so under the assumption that Yahoo will present them with an objective look at the candidates and their numbers. Candidates such as Chris Dodd, Tom Tancredo, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, however, apparently lack the importance to merit listings on the dashboard’s front page. Instead, users must click the hard-to-see “Other Candidates” link to see their data – even when sorting by other columns. (Example: Click the “money raised” column for the Republican candidates. The sort displays Huckabee as the 6th candidate with $2 million, although clicking the “other candidates” link reveals that Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter all have at least the same amount.)

Could it be possible that by failing to conspicuously display candidates’ data Yahoo may be attempting to influence public perceptions of the election? If Yahoo really wants to provide its users with such “key political indicators”, wouldn’t an accurate list of all the candidates in one place be a good starting point?

Digg it!

The media and users of popular websites like YouTube, Digg, and Reddit gave quite a bit of press to Congressmen and Presidential-hopefuls Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich over the past few weeks. The pair continue to gain popularity with their level-headed and sensible views, something that is about as common in American politics as a three-dollar bill. I do not agree with everything they say, but both deserve a tremendous amount of respect for having the fortitude to say it. Their candidacy puts an interesting twist in the 2008 Presidential elections and may afford Americans a rare opportunity to choose a President based on values rather than empty campaign rhetoric about nuclear weapons and national conversations. Many see elections as a choice between the lesser of several evils: a mere question of who would mess things up the least. In 2008, however, those who value honesty and candor may face a different question: Paul or Kucinich?

Some of their most notable and commonly discussed views among web users are those on the war in Iraq, drug policy, and civil liberties. Paul and Kucinich are the only members of Congress who voted against the Iraq war and all associated funding bills. Kucinich even went as far to promise an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President. Both also recognize the failure of drug prohibition and support drug decriminalization or legalization. They differ on immigration reform, however, where Ron Paul takes a tough stance in support of increased border security and against automatic citizenship for American-born children of illegal immigrants. Kucinich’s idea of granting amnesty to and legalizing undocumented aliens, on the other hand, appeals to me about as much as banging my head against the wall. Kucinich did, however, create some impressive ripples at a recent speech in Reno: “… I want you to know that I’m actually preparing [Articles of Impeachment for the President of the United States] for submission to the House… This is a moment when we’re called upon to reclaim our country. You give me your vote, I’ll give you back your country.” Fighting words if I ever heard them. Kucinich also gave a fantastic response to a question at the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas last month addressing the PATRIOT Act, civil liberties, and impeachment: this only a week after he introduced Articles of Impeachment Against Vice President Cheney (YouTube video) on the House floor.

Speaking of taking back our country, a friend of mine recently asked the question of what a President like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich could possibly do to improve the status quo in the face of a Congress that is so corrupt and difficult to navigate. He linked me to a mind-blowing Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi: Four Amendments and a Funeral: A month inside the house of horrors that is Congress. If you are unfamiliar with the House Rules Committee and its egregious power to decide which amendments will come to a vote of Congress and which will die before ever seeing the floor, I highly recommend you read about what Taibbi calls “the free world’s outstanding bureaucratic abomination.” The system effectively turns what should be a great democratic institution into a zoo of self-serving politicians. Faced with this realization, I find myself continuing to ponder my friend’s question: could President Paul or President Kucinich really accomplish anything? What will it ultimately take to bring about change in America, and can we ever truly take back our country?

Digg it!