Jackson Free Press

I'm sure I'm not alone in my frustration over Americans supporting headed-for-disaster officials and policies until it's damn near too late. You look at Bush's new sunk approval ratings—and how Republican women, white evangelicals, suburban men, southerners—are all turning on him, and for good reason. But, here's the frustrating part—those reasons were all there for the last five years, and more. It doesn't do any good now to jump and down and scream, "We told you so! We told you so!" What we Americans need to do is figure out a way to have serious discussion about why the truth is not getting through about these inept extremists we've been putting into office—and then we always end up reacting to them. And these people are bringing such extreme problems on us, and dividing good people along the way, that it is going to take years to dig out from it.

So, my question is, and it's a formidable but necessary one: What do we do? How do we reverse this trend of American reactiveness to one where the nation is proactive and can spot idiots before they're put into office? How can we hold the corporate media accountable for its role in spreading the lies and myths (often under the guise of objectivity) that have allowed us to sink to such a bad place? I'm serious; we've got to have this conversation. Let's roll up our sleeves. Anyone want to start?

Previous Comments

ID

171826

Comment

OK, come on you cowards, where are the ideas!?! It's been 30 minutes already. ;-) One thought I've had is whether we should start a movement toward having local media watchdog groups that not only blog and fuss in independent media, but hold public forums open for everyone: What's Wrong With the Media? One could invite representatives of the mainstream media to sit on those panels and answer questions about their coverage and why they won't cover certain things, or give equal (or more) time to viewpoints without equal facts to back them up. For instance, locally, if the Ledge won't hire its own ombudsman to, say, tell them what was wrong with people being sued alongside a mayoral candidate for defamation being allowed to even touch the stories about that mayoral candidate, then the public should do it ... publicly. Or, have a panel to now discuss how the Ledge covered the Iraqi War. They might say, uh, we just did what the NY Times did, but let's talk about that, too, then. HOW did they do such horrendous coverage that played into the hands of liars and, ultimately, got so many Mississippians killed in the war-that-will-never-end? Accountability, people, accountability. Thoughts?

Author

ladd

Date

2005-10-07T16:01:16-06:00

ID

171827

Comment

Actually, Donna...I think we're in a global process...but undoubtedly a national one, on the level of what C.G. Jung would call "the archetypal"...(unconscious forces fueling semi-conscious actions) and that level, right now, seems to involve the last death throes of the old patriarchal way of being. The patriarchal, power-over paradigm has had everything to do with matricide (killing off of "the mother", the divine feminine), killing off the natural world, killing off indigenous peoples and their ways of life that are rooted in healthy community and sustainability (insert any name of any "brown" people here you would like). That paradigm has had its time. It has claimed ownership to the way things are done and has asserted itself for 2,000 years, at the very least, and probably more. But, following the verifiable psychological laws of enantiodromia I think we ARE going to witness a moving back towards accountability, a moving back toward more sensible politics, a moving back toward something that at least replicates some semblance of reverence for life. Enantiodromia is a Greek term that suggests.... energy that swings to a particular far point or extreme MUST, by the very nature of energy itself, swing BACK to seek balance. And, what of the patriarchy? And, what of the warriors who are not allowed to embrace their full selves (which includes their feminine side), of actually having FEELINGS about what they are involved in? Three of Many

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-10-11T14:53:00-06:00

ID

171828

Comment

My inner therapist just gets all squishy when you start throwing Jung around. Donna, tall order. I agree with chronos in that each extreme has a natural backlash that tries to bring things back to center. I think we're walking the line of that extreme right now...and you can see the negative effects on the country. For years people have been happy living their comfortable lives. Its hard to get out of that practice. In short, we've gotten soft. We aren't as vigilent...and we are now, more than ever, willing to let a politician tell us what to do instead of the other way around. I do agree with the idea of holding the media accountable for what it reports...not only that, but holding public officers ACCOUNTABLE for what they do. I don't understand people's ability to stand back and be LIED to. Well, that was a rambling bit of nonsense. I don't know any answers. But, let me sit with it a bit and I'll get back to you. ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-10-11T15:09:57-06:00

ID

171829

Comment

Donna writes: So, my question is, and it's a formidable but necessary one: What do we do? How do we reverse this trend of American reactiveness to one where the nation is proactive and can spot idiots before they're put into office? How can we hold the corporate media accountable for its role in spreading the lies and myths (often under the guise of objectivity) that have allowed us to sink to such a bad place? I'm serious; we've got to have this conversation. Let's roll up our sleeves. One option that comes to mind: "If you see something, say something." Right-wing cranks have written letters to local media outlets for years. Liberals also need a database, and whenever we see biased or incomplete reporting, we send an email or make a phone call. A friend of mine, who was on trial earlier this year, was written up in a C-L article that used a term that I thought was biased. So I called the newsroom, convinced out the person I spoke to that the term was biased, and within an hour, it was fixed. Journalists in this country don't really have a right-wing bias, I don't think. Polls of journalists don't bear that out. But I think they have a fear of the right that they don't have of the left, primarily because of advertising concerns, and if they see enough emails from moderates and/or liberals whenever they screw up during that overcompensation process, that will affect the way they cover the news. I hope. Other than that? Pick up the JFP, and encourage your friends to do the same. Start a blog. Express your opinions. Own up to unpopular labels if you identify with them. It is reaching the point now where the only socially acceptable way to be opinionated is to be opinionated and right-wing. We can fix that by just opening our mouths. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-11T15:52:18-06:00

ID

171830

Comment

media, schmedia. y'all have any idea the influence instructors at Hinds have on students? I , being a, ahem, somewhat older student there, am often extremely uncomfortable (would put that in caps) but feel unable to say much.. but the conservative bent , YIKES. sorry. I will not even go into detail. That campus needs some serious help imho. Get over there!

Author

sunshine

Date

2005-10-12T18:57:22-06:00