I am very fascinated by the Obama/Fox news controversy. As I mentioned in my ap language class forum, i think it's a argument of definition. All the sudden we as an audience begin to wonder "what is news?" and my big question "is someone wrong just because they disagree with Obama?" I know that Obama's famous line is that he 'welcomes the tough questions', but if so, i have to ask, why is it that the orginization which is asking tough questions the one that Obama attacks?
It doesn't add up to me.
Its also sort of frustrating to me that he and his administrations point of attack was to declare that fox operates like a "talk radio". Here again, argument of definition. I believe this is a dangerous thing for a president to do, because historically as a people American's have accepted or at least highly considered a President's opinion as truth. Much different than Bono or the Jonas brothers saying that they think Fox is like talk radio, a president is in the dangerous position of people really believing what he says, simply because he says it. Or simply with "great power comes great responsibility".(spider man yess)
and while we're at war, home sick with swine, losing property value and our jobs, aren't there better ways a president can spend his time than to attack Fox?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment