Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 05/02/2008 12:00 am

Marlo Thomas: The Media Steals Our Chances of a Fair Election

© Shutterstock

JOAN: Does the deliberate dumbing down of the news have the same effect as censorship, by cutting the public off from information that we need to make our decisions?

MARY: I say this as an old advertising pro: The news is for sale. The news is just a factor, like entertainment. The ultimate person who is responsible for whether the news is good, bad or indifferent is the viewer, because if the news is not good, fewer and fewer people will watch it.

LILY: People didn’t used to try to make money on the news. We lived through an era when the networks prided themselves on their news department.

MARY: Yes. That may be true.

LILY: Not because it was a money maker.

MARY: The news around this election has been particularly obnoxious, idiotic. But you’re getting the news that is essentially what most of the people are willing to pay for, or what they want. I know that sounds vastly oversimplified. But it is a fact.

LILY: Look how many good people they have destroyed just by petty humiliations. There’s nothing worse in this culture than being discounted or laughed at. They destroyed Gore. They destroyed Kerry as any kind of viable candidate, just by making fun of him windsurfing.

MARLO: Look what they did to Hillary, from the very beginning. With her headband, and her not wanting to bake cookies. My God, you would have thought this woman had robbed a bank.

JOAN: There was this great op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards where she wrote that what we’re getting, “what is left, is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism.” As intelligent women, when you turn on the American news, do you desperately watch to try and find something? Or do you go on the Internet instead?

MARLO: I always think that if I read enough stuff, possibly somewhere in the middle I’ll find the truth. But the Joe Klein article in Time was so interesting. And he said we get this low-level information and use it as news. You know — what Barack’s bowling score is. All this foolish stuff — what Hillary was wearing and what Bill Clinton said to a guy on the street. But nothing about the issues, nothing about what’s happening to this country, nothing about the war. The war is now on page 18. Iraq is, I think, now on the back of the paper. And we’re not interested in it. And today Bush is all excited about his $600 rebate. A $600 rebate is going to make up, he says, for the gas prices. How far will $600 take you?

JOAN: About 20 miles.

MARLO: And people buy it.

JOAN: Do you think there’s a will behind this deliberate stupidity of information that we’re being given?

MARY: That it’s manipulative?

JOAN: Not only treating the public with contempt but actually —

MARLO: Withholding. Yes, I think they’re withholding.

JOAN: As in, “If we tell them all about Barack’s score – bowling score – they won’t pay attention to anything else.”

MARY: Why don’t we do something about it? I mean, it is possible to do something about it, if we’re really that interested. Why don’t we band together and simply stop it? After the last election, which was certainly questionable, we just accepted — I mean, we are an accepting country.

MARLO: I asked Bill Clinton, at a dinner party, why he and the first George Bush didn’t go to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and ask them to come up with a foolproof way that our elections would be fair and honest.

JOAN: Brilliant.

272 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

eleanor roche
To say that the way Clinton handled terrorists attacks and terrorism in general was sufficient is unbelievable. He could have done something—he didn’t. Now you think Bush is responsible? Clinton had 8 years, Bush less than 1. I am so sick of your stupid lib conspiracy theories—Clinton was the one too busy worried about his own a$$ and legacy, that he dropped the ball. If something didn’t “poll well”, he wasn’t interested. Can you say Mogadishu? He wasn’t serious about the threat from Bin Laden and now here we are! And to put this on Bush, who was in office less than a year when 9/11 occurred, a plot that took years in the making, is just absurd. Especially given that he responded properly afterward—the way Clinton should have after the Cole attack. Ya, Micheal, I know Congress declares war. But Clinton chose to handle it as a law enforcement problem. If at any time he would have urged Congress to do something, they would have. God, you people make so many excuses for that man.
By eleanor roche on 05/07/2008 8:03 am
eleanor roche
And Michael, where did I say Bush was my “favorite” president? Just like a lib to put words in people’s mouths.
By eleanor roche on 05/07/2008 8:13 am
Mugsy Peabody
He doesn’t need excuses. He needs people to be honest about his achievements. Yes, he stopped the bombing of the Space Needle, or did you miss that? Yes, he prevented the bombing of the World Trade Towers, or didn’t you think that was a big deal at the time? What about the LA Coliseum? Bush couldn’t even keep the Pentagon from being bombed. The Clinton-Gore Presidency left us with a substantial budget surplus. We’re facing the biggest national debt in history, a war that has achieved nothing except spending our future and killing over a hundred thousand people for what? To enrich Halliburton. You see what you want to see. Bush ran an oil company into the ground in Texas and was bailed out by who? The Bin Laden conglomerate. After 9/11, who was on the ONLY plane allowed to leave the United States for a week? Oh, members of what? The Bin Laden family. And who can’t we seem to find? Oh, a member of the Bin Laden family. Now, Eleanor, of course, this is all coincidence and excuse making. But it wasn’t President Clinton who has sent our soldiers into the desert for six years without an end in sight when they signed up for a year’s tour. It wasn’t the Clinton White House who lied to the United Nations to get us embroiled in this mess. It wasn’t the Clinton White House who started their presidency violating an international accord signed by us. Do NOT talk to me about making excuses for “that man.”
By Mugsy Peabody on 05/08/2008 12:05 am
eleanor roche
Mugsy— Where to begin. The “Liar in Chief” took credit for many things he did not do. The “Clinton Administration” did not “prevent” the bombing of the LA Coliseum. A very observant border guard did that, without any “anti-terrorism training” from the Clinton Administration. Just routine border guard patrol. I believe the Twin Towers were bombed during Clinton’s watch. Rememeber—basement—truck—expolosives? I think the perpetrator was the same guy who masterminds the 9/11 attacks or did you forget that? Budger surplus—PROJECTED—that means not real for those of you in CA. What a canard Clinton hoisted there—there NEVER was a “budget surplus”. The figures they always touted were projected. Like Bean said, I could go on and on and on. I suppose you buy Algore’s Global Warming crap as well. Again, for the scientifically challenged—there is NO hard scientific evidence to show that warming is man-made—NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA! The entire man-made global warming hoax is based on PROJECTION modelling of climate variables. Another great Clinton administration canard—sort of diminishes the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize. You gullible liberals are eager to believe anything that fits your paradigm.
By eleanor roche on 05/08/2008 8:36 am
eleanor roche
Mugsy— I know you liberals are fond of rewriting history, but WMDs were ONE of the MANY reasons we went into Iraq, not the MAIN reason. The main reason was Saddam’s refusal to obey the MANY UN resolutions. What good is the UN if it doesn’t enforce it’s own rules.
By eleanor roche on 05/08/2008 9:37 am
bean
Mug, this is the most leftist tripe I have ever heard with soooo many untruths and total misunderstandings of the facts (or is that a Clinton Euphemism for lies) I cannot believe this is how you think of the clinton administration. You REALLY need to get off the looney lefty blogs. For one thing, the Clinton administration went before the UN and said the same thing Bush did about Saddam Hussien-he had to go. Who was lying? GET the facts ma’am and try to stick to them. I could go on and on with what you got wrong in this rant but I dont have the time to argue with uniformed ignorance.
By bean on 05/08/2008 5:45 am
beth willis
You know, eleanor, I responded to your questions about vouchers in the most repectful way that I could, attempting to convey information, which I acknowledged was from personal observation and experience. Reading your comments here suggests that you would most likely interpret kindness as weakness. Hopefully, you realize that is illogical. Thank you too for reminding me how unkind and disrespectful we can be when we are frought with fear and emotion. Sometimes we can’t afford to acknowledge a different opinion or interpretation because to do so would loosen our grip on those stories which give us strength and a sense of security regardless of their veracity. I’ve learned a lot in these pages and intend to be more careful with my words and more sensitive to others, realizing that my ignorance could be more dangerous than your truth if I raise my voice so loud that I can’t hear you or discount your words because they scare me. Peace and grace, friend
By beth willis on 05/09/2008 3:27 pm
eleanor roche
Well, first of all, Beth, I didn’t ask you any questions about vouchers, I challenged the way you erroneously replied with the dismissive remark that “they were not available to those who need them most”. They are not even available, period, therefore, your anyalysis was incorrect, so I guess you were hoping no one would notice that inaccuracy. If you were able to read my subsequent response to you, you would know that I found your reasoning for dismissing vouchers flawed. As to your opinion of my posts here. I take it you have no similar remarks to make of Mugsy’s post to which I was responding. Problably because you agree with her, so then it’s all right for her to be disrespectful. As I have noticed from reading some of your other posts, you clearly have a liberal bent and have no problem expressing your dislike of all things Bush and not always in the “nicest” way. My opinions are not expessed any more forcefully than those of the opposite opinion. I suspect your problem lies in the fact that you feel threatened by a differing point of view and don’t like to be challenged. If the truth scares you, then I suggest you don’t read my posts. Frankly, I find your arrogant condescension distasteful.
By eleanor roche on 05/09/2008 4:10 pm
quiltsis one
Get my main daily news (TV) on bbc world news. Just as much ‘bias’ but at least it’s different. Read all newspapers and news mags with a built in translator and bullshit filter.
By quiltsis one on 05/13/2008 7:48 pm
John Agno
Last summer while on vacation in Maine, I purchased a $.25 well-used book from the Great Cranberry Isle library. This best-selling book was written in 1972 and targeted to young Baby Boomers to help them understand the political health of their country and what they must do to get the country back on track. Here is the author’s Foreword to the bestseller “Captains and The Kings” in 1972: This book is dedicated to the young people of America, who are rebelling because they know something is very wrong in their country, but do not know just what it is. I hope this book will help to enlighten them. The historical background and the political background of this novel are authentic. The “Committee for Foreign Studies” does indeed exist, today as of yesterday, and so does the “Scardo Society,” but not by these names. There is indeed a “plot against the people” and probably always will be, for government has always been hostile towards the governed. It is not a new story, and the conspirators and conspiracies have varied form era to era, depending on the political or economic situation in their various countries. But it was not until the era of the League of Just men and Karl Marx that conspirators and conspiracies became one, with one aim, one objective, and one determination. This has nothing to do with any “ideology” or form of government, or ideals or “materialism” or any other catch-phrases generously fed to the unthinking masses. It has absolutely nothing to do with races or religions, for the conspirators are beyond what they call “such trivialities.” They are also beyond good and evil. The Caesars they put into power are their creatures, whether they know it or not, and the peoples of all nations are helpless, whether they live in America, Europe, Russia, China, Africa, or South America. They will always be helpless until they are aware of their real enemy. President John F. Kennedy knew what he was talking about when he spoke of “the Gnomes of Zurich.” Perhaps, he knew too much! Coups d’etat are an old story, but they are now growing too numerous. This is probably the last hour for mankind as a rational species, before it becomes the slave of a “planned society.” A bibliography ends this book, and I hope many of my readers will avail themselves of the facts. That is all the hope I have. Taylor Caldwell Now 35 years later, Baby Boomers are the best educated of all former generations. However, they need to read or re-read “Captains and The Kings” to better understand how their countries are being weaken through politically created wars and inflationary monetary policies. Boomers are valued and needed to exercise their responsibility, serious work ethic, “can do” attitude and competitiveness in stopping the bankruptcy of their country. They need to exercise their leadership capabilities in finding, promoting and voting for political candidates in 2008 who are for free markets, sound money, reasonable tax policies, and ready, willing and able to fight terrorism the way Canada, Sweden and Switzerland do.
By John Agno on 06/11/2008 9:48 am
sibelle daubigne
Thank you John for this excellent post!
By sibelle daubigne on 06/11/2008 10:23 am
Sherrie Crews
Thank you Joan, Mary, Lily, and especially Marlo. You said all the things I’ve been saying for almost 8 years now, but couldn’t get heard the way you can. I also agree with the lady who suggested letting some of your high profile media friends know how you feel. The next time you see Diane, Katie, Barbara, Deborah, Cynthia, Elizabeth, Meredith, Ann, Robin, well you get the picture, invite them to come here and talk to us about it.
By Sherrie Crews on 06/12/2008 1:40 pm
Sherrie Crews
OOPs, my bad, I should have read a few more subjects before I posted. I see Cynthia is here now.As a news journalist that I haven’t lost respect for yet, I’d like to hear what you think about this subject Cynthia.
By Sherrie Crews on 06/12/2008 2:19 pm
kelsey davies
bush has just won an emmy for the worst president ever.
By kelsey davies on 07/11/2008 8:29 pm
randy hinton
I still want to know why St.Jude has turned down the only phase III drug trial that has produced 6 five year survivors of Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma.It officially become a phase III trial by the FDA on January 13 and St.Jude is still not committing to it even though they have had NO 5 YEAR SURVIVORS.Don’t believe it??I can prove it.Call me on this.864-998-4388
By randy hinton on 01/16/2009 8:56 pm