Wednesday, October 3, 2007
My Sept 28 2007 Lecture at Fordham University about the Media Misreporting of Ron Paul
This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on September 28, 2007 about the media misreporting of Ron Paul.
The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided in five parts on the YouTube video, as follows: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ...
Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thanks for posting this Dr. Levinson.
I really enjoyed your lecture, but was surprised by one thing - you described, but didn't present (by showing stills, video, or playing audio), the incidents which inspired the lecture. You didn't mischaracterize them in any way, but it seems to me that seeing, for example, the contrast between the lone Iowa supporter image and the throngs captured by other lenses, or the cropped Kucinich image, provides an emotional understanding of the deception that an unbiased description doesn't.
I really appreciated having your students' questions as part of the video. I was surprised that there were none I'd dismiss as silly (I don't recall many relevant questions from other students when I was in lectures, I guess).
...and speaking of your students' questions (wow, guess I should've held the comment off until this morning!) it looks like MSNBC is starting to cover bias stories. Admittedly, this is not bias from ABC or Fox, but from a private group. However, this is a first, and is likely the result of the fundraising figures that were just released.
I think this means that any blatant mischaracterizations or omissions like you covered will be considered newsworthy now, and if the campaign's growth is mirrored in better polling numbers someone (probably from NBC, CBS, or CNN) may see value in running an expose on the older incidents. Paul supporters have, so far, been an extremely attentive group - a piece like that could be used as a ratings grab.
This means nothing so far as incidents like Mark Levin's behavior are concerned; his audience expects divisive, partisan behavior, and I doubt anything short of decreasing ratings attributable to that (or a similar) incident will have much effect.
The effort across the major media is even more pervasive then your lecture describes. This example:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/08issues/index.html?SITE=FLPAP&SECTION=HOME
This is taken from the Politics page of the Palm Beach Post online. It is an AP Interactivity box with Three Titles.
1.) Fund Raising Efforts
2.) Possible Candidates
3.) Where They Stand
Ron Paul does not appear in choice number 3.
I have written numerous emails to the Palm Beach Post and AP, none have ever even cause an acknowldgement.
It is obvious the media does not want Ron Paul to be exposed to the wide audience.
We shall overcome.
Before you dismiss the 911 truth movement, you might want to do a little research:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
Your assumption that I've done no research into the claims you reference is wrong, anon.
Here are two questions that you might consider:
1. Given that thousands people died on September 11, 2001, don't you think that at least some significant number of the relatives and loved ones of the victims would be up in arms, and doing everything in their power to bring this administration down, if our government was responsible for those deaths?
2. Given that his happened six years ago, don't you think that someone involved in the conspiracy - maybe on his or her deathbed, with a fatal illness, or, for whatever reason - would have had a serious bout of conscience, and gone public with this now?
I rule nothing out as absolutely impossible - but I would be interested in the conspiracy theorists' answers to those questions.
Post a Comment