h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It hasn't opened in NZ yet - first screenings are over the next few weeks at the Film Festivals, and one of the big theatres chains is going to general release it at the end of the month.

Mr Bradbury comments on his feelings about MM's use of his title, here. It is a 25 minute interview, and the question is asked 13 minutes in:

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/index.shtml

SC

Hope this makes it through! It clarifies the whole thing.

Just caught up on the backlog --- where to start?

First off, there IS no "liberal media". It is a myth and a lie, perpetrated by the conservatives in this country. Clear Channel Communications (the people who bring you Rush Limbaugh, in syndication) control an ungodly amount (43% ?) of some local radio and TV programming, are very conservative. If you want to know the bias, follow the money.

Who pays the bills for the major broadcast news outlets? Disney owns ABCTv and the ABC radio stations. They are not liberals, far from it. General Electric owns NBCTv, and they are certainly not liberals (and members in good standing of the "old boys' network" of defense contractors, by another one of their corporate entities). Viacom owns CBSTv, and they are the people who have backed a lot of the "family values" censorship crap after the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl this year.

A number of prominent newspapers in this country are owned by Rupert Murdock, and you all know better than most where he stands.

The news content is not liberal. Mostly pro war and pro Bush. And they were the ones who spent so much time hounding Clinton during his administration on things they couldn't prove (Whitewater) and went totally hog wild with what they could (Monica!). Not saying he didn't deserve some of that junk, but the American taxpayers paid a pretty penny for trials on that mostly biased witch-hunt.

I listen to Public Broadcasting Service, and the National Public Radio stations for my news, which are all funded mostly by public donations, and with a very little amount of government money.

SC

"People are always talking about how liberal the media is here in America"

Wha-a-a-at?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'liberal', but my ignorant impression of American TV news is that it is entirely US-focussed - that it simply does not take any notice whatsoever of events outside the US unless the US is directly involved, and that it is very mainstream in what it will and will not report. In addition, as Space Cadette says, (longtime no see, honey), that it is very biased in favour of the right wing.

Compare this with our very own BBC who are being burned at the stake for over-asiduously questioning our government on the legality of the war in the Gulf. And I *loathe* the BBC...

With print media my very ignorant (again) impression is that it will debate, or at least report, issues such as abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, and so on, but that it does so at a fairly facile level. It seems to me to be less willing to report and much less willing to debate issues such as social inequality, social medicine, disenfranchisement, illiteracy, and other issues of social injustice.

All of the above are on the agenda for various UK broadsheets, and are most certainly on the agenda for serious UK magazines.

This is based entirely on US News channels in Europe, on the impressions of fellow non-Americans who have travelled there, and on European editions of American print-media which may give an artificially good impression, because they are much more internationally focussed than the home editions.

B

Let me rephrase:

People here in Memphis, TN - a very conservative town - are always griping to me that the media is "too liberal". I don't agree with them. But I hear that constantly. Of course, I live on the buckle of the so-called bible belt.

JEllen

Ah!

I have never been entirely sure of the precise geographical location of the Bible Belt.

B
(Who also lives in a town where 'left-wing' is a swear word)

>>And I *loathe* the BBC...<<

You are aware of the URL of this page?

Yep.

B

Why do you loathe the BBC? Obviously it has it's flaws, but compared to the other channels I think it's fantastic.

How long have you got?

I have been through this so many times before and don't really see the point of doing so again. Since you ask, and on the assumption that this won't divert the thread from a much more important debate, the list includes: cultural arrogance, complacency and smugness; an ill-deserved reputation for freedom of speech while actually applying strict censorship; an inability to represent minorities; an unwillingness to take risks, a devotion to brand above almost all other considerations including ethical and moral considerations; a lack of imagination, a lack of the courage of its convitions; parochialism and paternalism; ad hocracy, a lack of transparency, lack of effective internal processes and a lack of accountability ... ach, I am getting bored.

It is not a particularly useful subject to debate. Some people like the BBC, and others don't. Not much more to be said, really.

B

I should add that I have a high degree of respect for almost all of the individuals I know personally who work in this particular machine.

B

Fair points really. I won't refute any because you seem bored with it already, but I would say that while your arguments may hold on a general level I like the BBC because it slipsin a lot of radical and well thought out programming in less obvious ways.

That's interesting.

I watch very little television, to be honest, and most of that is C4 or C5.

The BBC encompasses so much more than TV channels: it is a programme purchaser, a book publisher, a major UK online presence, internationally it is a radio and commercial news channel, it commissions and sponsors original music, it runs competitions. Oh, and it occasionally broadcasts tv shows.

'Well thought out' should be a given for a national broadcaster, but I am curious to know more about any 'radical' programming slipping under the radar. Is it the beeb's own, or bought in?

In fairness, I guess it isn't as bad as it was three or four years ago. It does seem marginally less complacent and more engaged.

I still worry about the demographics....

B

It's good to get your views Ben.

In NZ the BBC tends to be highly regarded especially for it's journalism ethics. But I can see that some of the issues you raise might not be so obvious from here.

Aw jeez, sorry to drag this all back a page and a day but kea asked me a direct question and courtesy demands a reply.

>> ..so when you called MM a complete liar..<<

I didn't actually do that. Just tried to suggest that his motives aren't as selfless and altruistic as he would have us believe. He is essentially an iconoclast, not a true investigative journalist.

>> All you've done jwf is throw out some brief personal opinion. <<

Which I will happily repeat with emphasis: this guy is a schmo. In real life you'd probably hate him. And his methods. Even if you could forgive his style and cheap tricks.

>> Hardly a challenge to the prevailing wisdoms. <<

You're probably right, I dunno.


Carry on.

~jwf~

I don't recall MM claiming to be selfless or altruistic, or even a true investigative journalist. He does claim to hate Bush and want him out, and he's pursuing that rigorously.

On a related note I have seen a lot of criticism of MM for earning lots of money from this. What is wrong with this? He has never challenged the idea of wealth, just the process by which it is used to crush freedom of speech and democracy. Is it because he is left wing? There is a group who do claim that personal wealth is bad, and should be given away, but that isn't the left, that is Christians. Or some anyway. Certainly not the kind of Christians who are running the US.

Actually I was about to retract some of what I said ~jwf~, as I went back and found some of your more detailed critique earlier in the thread. It's getting late here, so will save it for another time.

(waves HI to Ben)

Kinetic Artist said: "In NZ the BBC tends to be highly regarded especially for it's journalism ethics. But I can see that some of the issues you raise might not be so obvious from here."

I find discussions of journalistic ethics interesting. Did you know that the idea of unbiased newspapers are a relatively new phenomenon? Benjamin Franklin's little rag in the fledgling United States was wildly biased toward his personal views (just so happens I agree with a lot of his views, but slanted nonetheless).

ALL newspapers of the time were; it was standard operating procedure that if you didn't like what you read, you could print up your own paper, to showcase what you believed. There were literally (oh dear, PNI) dozens of papers available in the cities even though most had small circulations. Even "big" circulation papers were biased, just more and more subtly, up until the time of William Randolph Hearst.

Then along came a filmmaker, Orson Welles, who did a little film about a newspaper's influence, "Citizen Kane". Frank Capra, another filmmaker, did a take on the political machine, showing the manipulation and the power of a biased press (as a side light, anyway), in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Never forget that filmmakers, whether documentarians or not, wield a lot of power to persuade and to convince. And they are not immune to "spin", either.

Things really haven't changed much, just a lot of lip service in the US about journalistic objectivity. Media Ethics are an ideal which is rarely reached, although I occasionally hope the odds may be rising.

SC
s Rule

P.S. I greatly appreciate the BBC World Service; without it (even at only 2 hours a night) I would never get a hint of what's going on in the 95% of the world that ISN'T the US. (Don't shoot me, 95% is best guess, your mileage may vary! )

OOPS! Make that "K.inetic E.nergy A.rtist said"

See, you can't trust anybody!!

SC

I guess I'd better go see this movie. I should put "Bowling for Columbine" on my to-do list also
YB