Lying By Omission?

I started this post and discontinued it several times. Mostly because I couldn't find a good article to post as a source, but I think the issue is very relevant to class, so I'll try again.
MSNBC showed a clip of a close-up of a gun on a man's back, not showing the man's face. The anchors then stated that it was white racists who were bringing guns to the rally. It was later learned that the man they were showing was black. I wanted an article or video that gave the story straight up, but since it was opponents who called out MSNBC, of course there are no straight news stories. So here it is as unbiased as I could find it. There's a bunch of gibberish at the end about merchandise, so the story really ends at about 1:00 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGF-wI6KUw

I would really like to hear others' thoughts on this. As I said in my first post, it is up to the individual to decide what his opinions are. All the media can do is present facts. However, I'm conflicted in this particular story. Had I seen the story before it were exposed, would I have swallowed what the anchors said about racism having anything to do with firearms? No. I honestly would not have paid much attention to it. And I as I said in the beginning of the post, most of the videos and articles I found exposing the race of the man were spun with opinions. That's not a bad thing, but for the class, I just wanted a straight news story.
So, should MSNBC take the heat for this? Or should they be free to tell a story however they wish?

Why I Don't Like Stephen Colbert

I do realize I am in the minority amongst my age group when it comes to my opinion of comedian Stephen Colbert. That's okay with me. I'm not into 'mob rule', remember ;p He has a cultlike following that startles me a little. I try to stay away from cults (okay, that's not entirely true -- Fight Club, anyone?).
Now before I get accused of having no sense of humor or not being able to laugh at myself, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I'm probably one of my favorite things to make fun of. I think what bothers me about Colbert is that he strikes me as a pseudo-intellectual -- someone who thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does. I understand who he's making fun of. I undertstand the routine; I just find it rather whiny. And yes, as I said in my last post, people like slants, whether they admit it or not. I do not agree with Colbert's points of views, so that is a big reason why I don't watch him. Not to say I'm exactly fans of the people he makes fun of either. A lot of the political pundits he makes fun of (Bill O'Reilly in particular comes to mind) really are just doofuses. But I think he is rather closed-minded and makes generalizations when it comes to his views of the opposing side.
Unlike his couterpart (and coattails provider) Jon Stewart, he tries to be more of a political pundit than a comedian. Sometimes I can laugh at Jon Stewart. I remember a particular instance during the 2004 elections, Teresa Heinz (John Kerry's wife), made a speech during the DNC I think it was, in which she greeted everyone in different languages. Jon Stewart commenatated with, "And now to our dolphin friends," followed by dolphin-like shrieks and flapping his hands like fins. That's funny. I like his comedy, sometimes. I'm by no means a huge Stewart fan, but I can laugh at him, whereas I find myself just rolling my eyes at Colbert.
With that said, I admire anyone who makes himself successful. There's obviously something people like about him, what with all the "Colbert '08" bumper stickers I saw last year. I know a lot of people go directly to him as their news source, and while I don't understand it, I think it says something. So that's that on that, comments are welcome and appreciated :)

Mass Media and Politics

For some reason, my body has decided 4 AM is a perfect time to be awake, so I suppose it's as good a time as any to get started on my blog.
The first thing I will say, because I know I wonder this about everyone I meet, is that my political affiliation, in terms of parties, is libertarian (not to be confused with "liberal" -- I have had that happen a lot). However I prefer the term minarchist. Basically, less government is better government.
Well, this class is called "Mass Media and Politics", so I suppose that's a good place to start. During our last class meeting, we had a debate on the mass media doing an effective job serving the needs of the American political democratic system. What I found the most interesting is what took place in my own head. I originally was not sure where I stood on the issue, though I leaned more towards the negative. I joined the "affirmative" side, hoping to form more of an opinion and also because I rarely join the side I disagree with (I find that professors are always encouraging us to join the side we disagree the most with). By the end of the class, after hearing all of the arguments, I was definitely leaning more towards the affirmative, not because I think the media are praiseworthy or perfect, but because I think there's only so much that it can do, and that people really just like to complain too much. However, I was not crazy about the topic or the wording of it to begin with.
The first thing I have a problem with is "democratic". A democracy, to me, means mob rule. I do not believe that mob rule is an effective way to govern, nor do I think the United States was ever intended as a democracy. I believe, at the heart, America is a republic. The difference between a democracy and a republic, as I said, is the way the majority is controlled. In a democracy, the majority have the power. In a republic, power lies within the individual.
I also hear a lot of people complain that the media is biased. Well, which media are you referring to? News is news. The president made a speech today. That's news. It is a fact, and there is no way to slant or bias that fact. What an individual thinks of that speech, however, is up to the individual. One particular reporter may elaborate his thoughts on the speech, but that is not a bias in the news or leaving out facts. It is up to the viewer to decide what he thinks for himself. Biases stay in business because that's what people want; I listen to Neal Boortz so I can talk to the radio and say things like, "Yes! Exactly!" On the other hand, I watch Rachel Maddow so I can shake my head and also, so I can know what I'm arguing against. If you only listen to one side, how are you to know what you're even disagreeing with? So while some sources have bias, I believe that is a good thing. I like people with opinions. I like to hear others opinions, so I don't stay closed up in my own little box thinking my opinions are the only ones.
So in short, you can't bias the facts. What you can do is think for yourself. A little slant is good here and there.
If this wasn't coherent, I apologize; it's almost 5 AM. My body hates me.

About the flag in the background: you will see it with me everywhere. It's called the Gadsden flag. Look it up ;)

Testing, testing

Testing fonts, will probably delete this in a minute.