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

Dona Howlett
Not everything was greater in the Good Old Days…… But New reporting was……both Papers and Television. I remember when you got the news with a straight face and not all the phony smiling……It wasn’t meant to be entertainment. It was meant to keep the public informed. I miss that. Now you have to listen to all the garbage to get one tidbit of real news. Anchor people sit and make an announcement of how many of our Soldiers were killed in a given day and then give the camera a big smile.
By Dona Howlett on 05/02/2008 4:19 am
zut alors
Dona, “Anchor people sit and make an announcement of how many of our Soldiers were killed in a given day and then give the camera a big smile.” Not only do most of the anchors lack anything approaching gravitas…..but the ‘First Grandma” isn’t exactly Emphathy Central either. Can ANYONE imagine Jacqueline Kennedy, or themselves for that matter, saying THIS on national TV or even locked in their bathroom and merely THINKING. In March 2003 on Good Morning America Barbara Bush said, “Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it’s gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”
By zut alors on 05/02/2008 12:42 pm
Susan S
Has anyone else noticed that it seems that it is the media telling us that the sort of news we get is what we are asking for. No one has ever asked me what sort of news I would like to hear. CNN used to be fairly good at news, that is when it first began. Now we get Entertainment Tonight, Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs. Don’t even get me started with Fox news. I don’t believe that the middle class wants to listen to this garbage. I think that if the media would pull away from reporting the junk of the world to us it might begin to change the way people think about news. Never in history has there been the wealth of information available to the world of people that is available now. Why are we inundated with so much that is unimportant to our well being and hear so little about what is important? Who cares what Obama’s preacher says? Not me. I care about what Obama says about how he would run this country. He has never said anything to my knowledge that echoes what the preacher of his church thinks. Do we not give credit to a man/woman for independent thinking? The media doesn’t….they have beat this horse to death and keep on doing it. If they wouldn’t hound people to death about these gossipy items, we wouldn’t have any interest in them and perhaps then we could get back to what is really important to our world.
By Susan S on 05/02/2008 4:20 am
C A Rose
We actually have never had cable or satellite tv in our house. We watch and support PBS. If I wake up at around 5A I am able to see the News on the BBC. I still see Charlie Rose the afternoon after his show airs, but my New York Times arrives on line the night before it hits the streets. I guess there’s some balance there.
By C A Rose on 05/03/2008 12:42 am
Jozie Lee
Real news is still available on C-Span. You get people’s opinions on Washington Journal. Words straight from the horse’s mouth during the rest of the day’s programming - unfiltered, unedited, uneditorialized. C-Span 2 covers books and authors. And C-Span 3 is devoted to history.
By Jozie Lee on 05/02/2008 5:53 am
Jeannot Kensinger
I for one stopped listening to the news 3 months ago. Fed up ! I am lucky for today Hillary is visiting our town and I will hear what she has to say in person. I am lucky.
By Jeannot Kensinger on 05/02/2008 6:28 am
zut alors
JMK Singer- While Hillary was still First Lady I heard her speak last, after other notables at a commencement in San Francisco. She wove the key points of each speaker through her own remarks in a way that fortified her points and gave a roundness to the entire ceremony. As a speaker she was on fire and I watched the 11PM ABC News to see how one of ‘liberal’ San Francisco’s main news channel conveyed her remarks. What appeared was a clip of her least significant sentence. An eye-opener that I never forgot.
By zut alors on 05/02/2008 1:13 pm
Mugsy Peabody
Yeah, what she said.
By Mugsy Peabody on 05/03/2008 11:54 pm
Deborah G
Interesting conversation and, to Marlo’s point, the media is in the middle of the mess. Not only do they focus on trivial “side show” stories, reporters often let their personal perspectives color the stories. I do not agree with Lily, though: “Nobody wants to see the greater good for more people. They want to see the greater good — for their individual group.” I think a lot of somebodies do want to work for the greater good. The fact that you had this conversation is proof! Don’t give up hope! An interesting web site from the Annenberg Center @ U Penn monitors what candidates say and challenges the reporting of the candidates: www.factcheck.org. Highly recommended!
By Deborah G on 05/02/2008 6:36 am
kat
Marlo is spot on. Why do the news channels, including cable, seemingly report and speak down to the masses they are trying to reach. Quite frankly, i chuckle to myself. It appears they think that we can’t read between the lines or make our own decisions.
By kat on 05/02/2008 6:48 am
Marjorie C.
We still have PBS and C-Span, but the consumer has to sift through a lot of opinions to find out what’s really going on — and even then…. As for the media stealing our chances of a fair election, I agree 100% with Marlo. The slant has been horrendous. I’ve never seen so many ugly photos of Hillary as the screaming, bleary-eyed hag. Ah, but payback is sweet. The women of the land caught on early. Early enough? We can only hope.
By Marjorie C. on 05/02/2008 6:56 am
CAROLINE MuLVEY
I totally agree. Marlo you hit the nail over the head. I watch sometimes but never believe half of what they say. I never read the news paper,it is just for entertainment.
By CAROLINE MuLVEY on 05/02/2008 6:59 am
Liz Seger
Ok I may be off the wall here, but in Canada our political campaigns for federal elections are at the maximum six weeks. None of this two year run at the Prime Ministership, because the winning party with the most seats picks the PM. You guys have a presidential race that is far too long and exhausts even the most interested of voters. Anyway I think it’s the voters’ responsibility to learn as much as they can about the candidates from all sources of news and politics and not just rely on what granpappy voted and if it was good enough for him it’s good enough for me thinking. I also am amazed that people because they are in a particular party or favour a particular candidate , close their ears and their minds to any other party or candidate but that particular one. They don’t want to hear it , they believe the most idiotic stuff. Frankly I’m extremely disappointed with how former President Clinton has conducted himself during this election, he’s taken cheap shots, he’s introduced the race card and frankly he hasn’t acted like a former president . Support your wife’s chances, but don’t stoop to being mean , low and nasty. That’s what people don’t want , they’re tired of the same old politics , they want change but it’s too much effort on their parts to do so, so they get the same ole same ole. Cheney and Bush have done a lousy job , so why hasn’t the Democrats done anything to impeach them, they’ve surely got enough ammunition. They might lose this election so to heck with being resposnisble for the country and do what should have been done years ago . Sorry they’re worried about their own political butts and they haven’t got it in them to actually be responsible and fight for the American people and their rights to good government.
By Liz Seger on 05/02/2008 7:20 am
wild heather
Liz, I don’t know where you are getting your information about President Clinton (or why you care so much, for that matter — is it because politics up there is so boring?) Mr Clinton has been a model of probity, if you think about the ways he might have abused his position if he had been inclined to. Pointing out that Obama’s reputation as an anti-Iraq war activist is a fairy tale, or that it was no surprise Obama did well in South Carolina, a state with a large African American population, was hardly playing the race card or being nasty. In fact, as we talk about it here, “playing the race card” is something that blacks do, not whites. A classic example was when our Sup. Ct. Justice Clarence Thomas belittled the Senate’s investigation into his qualifications calling its hearings a “high tech lynching.” If a black employer person slandered me because of my race, that would be an example of bigotry, not playing the race card.
By wild heather on 05/03/2008 8:15 am
Ms. Dee
You’re right, Liz. These past few years have not been among America’s best. But as this election goes forward, many of us need transparency and information…not the sideshow the mainstream keeps mounting…we gobble it up.
By Ms. Dee on 05/04/2008 6:44 pm