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

Ms. Dee
Now, now. We’re always labelling somebody. Branding them. When you know you have the facts, it’s really challenging not to go looking down your nose at the idiots. I have driven the freeways of America from sea to shining sea, and I’m here to tell you, there are a whole bunch of idiots on the road in the U.S.A. But y’can’t just un ‘em off the road. I’ve stayed within the recommended guidelines for traffic safety, and my driving record is nothing to be ashamed of. And only once did truck drive try to run me off the road…but he might have been asleep. Scary. The point is, America has managed to elect President after President…WITHOUT hatred and suspicion winning the day! And people didn’t really drop out, they learned to appreciate each other, and look beyond a lot of ugliness in the interest of the task at hand. Caution? Absolutely. We should all proceed with some caution. But only us who make US the enemy can say the enemy is us…like Pogo. We, all of us who love America and its precepts and its traditions…we have a common foe, I believe. It’s a complicated enemy…threatrens the planet, at this point.
By Ms. Dee on 05/04/2008 6:30 pm
C A Rose
GT, Open discourse is not negative. Not having open discourse would be. I don’t sense negative, and ‘fear based’ is what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and their cronies have been feeding the country for 7+ yrs. I don’t look at this as negative talk. I look at it as positive talk because people are thinking and speaking out about about one of the most important elections I can remember voting in in years. Three cheers for speaking up and speaking out! No rug here, thank you very much.
By C A Rose on 05/03/2008 1:02 am
wild heather
I agree, Mugsy. And I do think wowOwow should make sure to have the kinds of content that GT and her crowd will enjoy and benefit from. Perhaps Deepak Chopra and Martha Stewart could be invited to post topics?
By wild heather on 05/03/2008 8:31 am
Mugsy Peabody
No no, this is women over 40, remember? www.gangaji.org. Actually, not even tongue in cheek, Ganga-ji is pretty amazing and helpful. As to Ms. Martha, I would tell you what I think about that huge load of steer manure involved in putting the No. 1 contributor to the Gore campaign for the presidence in prison, and if it happened in Latin America, Greece, or pretty much ANYWHERE else, what we would think about that. Oh, but there I go again, being negative. So sorry.
By Mugsy Peabody on 05/04/2008 12:05 am
Kay Mitchell
Looks like Marlo bought it judging from his “100 year war” comment, something that was taking entirely out of context but used by the Media and Obama as buzz words to get Democrats all worked up. The Wall St Journal ran a great article yesterday (“Democrats and the Killying Fields”) about how the truth about Vietnam and its aftermath were lost in the media and public sentiment. While you’re there, maybe also check out “Getting to Know John McCain”, stories about the candidate you have probably never heard, and never will, from MSM. It really touched me.
By Kay Mitchell on 05/02/2008 9:24 am
zut alors
The Wall St Journal ran a great article yesterday”…ah yes, Murdock’s editorial slant hard at it already. Reminds me of years ago when EF Hutton was the Tiffany of brokerage houses and so respected that their motto “When EF Hutton talks, people listen” had clout, because it was true. Then came their notorious check-kiting scheme and the slogan became “When EF Hutton talks, people snicker.’ The WSJ already has the Murdock taint with people who actually want ‘fair and balanced’ and not RNC propaganda. Thankfully there are commentary sites like http://www.truthout.org/ that today carries a piece by Chalmers Johnson author of the Blowback Trilogy on the Rand Corporation’s history and achievements as “Imperialism U” http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043008V.shtml The Nazis had Goebbles as their Minister of Information and Propaganda, and Bush Inc/the RNC has theirs in Murdock.
By zut alors on 05/02/2008 1:41 pm
Kay Mitchell
If the Wall St Journal is RNC propaganda, then it certainly isn’t working. Wall St has given SUBSTANTIALLY MORE money to Democrats than Republicans this election season. (Although I think a lot of this money is lip-service and comes in hopes of easing the new tax burden brought on by a Dem President who will tax the heck out of Wall St, sending NYC nosediving after it loses its tax-base.) I have been reading the Journal since before Murdoch took over, and I have to say that its contributors are diverse intellictuals who actually cover all 3 major candidates extensively. The Journal uses real facts, numbers, no fluffy “feel-good” fillers, and doesn’t publish vague/all-encompassing “Bush ruined everything” 3-paragraph pieces. Can’t say that about the NYTimes, or any other major new outlet, for that matter…
By Kay Mitchell on 05/02/2008 2:08 pm
zut alors
Kay, It wasn’t an ‘article’ but an opinion piece by a conservative author/history professor. I can think of 50 different best-selling historians with a vastly different slant. For example, Stephen Ambrose or Arthur Schlesinger Jr., two of America’s greatest historians, both who firmly opposed the Vietnam War. Undoubtedly the vast majority of the 58,000+ Americans who lost their lives there would also disagree with Arthur Herman, who doesn’t come close to the stature of Ambrose, Schlesinger. And here’s a passel of historians in a NYT piece all attributing vastly different reasons to the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Vietnam than did Arthur Herman. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23history.html http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html Here’s the WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120960140251557923.html The WSJ is now a Murdock rag and it will like all of his properties be a propaganda arm for the radical right. Conrad Black also performed that same service including hiring and giving platform to NeoCons like Richard Perle ‘The Prince of Darkness.” Black, like Murdock, thought he was invincible. Now his empire is in ruin, and he’s headed to the slammer for fraud. So who knows what awaits the lying perpetrators of this phony, ghastly illegal invasion. Time will tell. What is known is that 98% of 109 US historians have already voted GWB’s presidency ‘a failure’ and 61% voted him the “worst president in US history.” While 81% of Americans say he’s taken us down the wrong track. http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804 http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
By zut alors on 05/03/2008 1:05 am
Candace Wood
A great example of the irresponsibility of the media is the recent exposure of the pentagon’s propaganda program. This involved the major media outlets using former generals as “military analyst” on the air in the lead up to the war. These generals were given their “talking text” by the pentagon and the media outlets did not reveal this or that many of them were part of the administrations “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq” and many also sat on the boards or held paid positions with defense companies who stood to profit from the war. Since this has been uncovered the news organizations involved have not addressed their culpability in this travesty. As Mary Wells points out the only way to bring about change is for the customer to demand change. We are the target of advertisers and we can have a voice. Mary, if you read this perhaps we could have a part of the site which have letters written by the wowowos staff which outline a position on this or even bills being considered by congress. The letter can then be available for those readers who agree with the position to electronically sign. Then the letter can be sent to the appropriate parties. This is routinely done by various members of congress and various organizations when they have a position on a bill or policy and want to get documentation of support from their constituents. The founding fathers of America risked everything for freedom. I think we should be willing to spend some time to retain that freedom. If anyone did not see the John Adams series on HBO you should - see what our founding fathers sacrificed.
By Candace Wood on 05/02/2008 9:31 am
Brooklyn Gal
First, it’s all media doing this…not just TV. We have all these political talk shows as well with pundits telling us what to think. We have local TV news and newspapers now mixing personal opinions and observations within the context of a story. What ever happened to objective reporting?? Editorials and columnist are just as vicious as the campaigns. When Tavis Smiley refused to play this game, he was criticized for not endorsing Obama. After the NYTimes ran that incredulous story about McCain and the “possibility” of a mistress, the Times has only run front-page stories and editorials trying to discredit him. They are doing the same with Hillary. After her win in Pa., the Times downplayed it. All this after the Times endorsed both candidates. We have comedians constantly putting down Hillary and McCain, and the young viewers are eating this up as truth. Now we have Charlie Rose interrupting any guest the minute they start saying something positive about Hillary, and instead brings the focus of the conversation to Obama. No one in the media covered the fact that Obama knew about Wright’s remarks prior to YouTube, and when they did, he was forgiven. Yet when either McCain or Hillary are disingenuous, it’s all over the place. Mrs. Edwards op-ed piece was right. We did not really get to know any of the other candidates. The media focused on Hillary and Obama, and that was it. I never saw an Edwards rally covered, or any other Democratic candidate’s rally covered. And if we did, it ran for a few seconds and was never the top story. The media covered these candidates like they were just by-standers not worthy of our attention.
By Brooklyn Gal on 05/02/2008 10:27 am
E .
Yes, you are right. John Edwards was eclipsed by the media coverage on the amazingly eloquent black man vs. the cackling scheming shrew. The only coverage John Edwards received was in relation to Elizabeth Edwards’ breast cancer. A modern day side-show.
By E . on 05/02/2008 11:27 am
Brooklyn Gal
Elizabeth, While it’s okay for you to voice your opinions of the candidates in such a manner, it should not be part of the news coverage. But unfortunately Fox News as well as the NY Times are doing such things within the context of their reporting. It’s one thing to do it in your editorial or commentary, but not in the reporting. Ron Paul, the only independent-minded Republican was hardly covered at all. Another problem no one else is mentioning is the money that candidates have that “buy” the media coverage. We really have no idea if the best candidates got the nomination.
By Brooklyn Gal on 05/02/2008 3:42 pm
Star Lawrence
Cackling sheming shrew. Nice talk, babe. She always spoke well of you.
By Star Lawrence on 05/04/2008 2:30 pm
Lorraine Bates
Just a side note to Lily T - I pray you are never in an accident in your Prius. But if you are, and your insurance company totals your Prius, I hope there is someone who’s figured out what to do with the hazardous waste chemicals that are in the batteries. The hazardous waste of the batteries in electric and hybrid cars is more hazardous than motor oil and coolant, and no one has come up with a good disposal method yet!
By Lorraine Bates on 05/02/2008 11:19 am
Ms. Dee
Well, let’s figure that out. Recycling or something. I remember reading a memoir of a woman in Bergen Belsen recalling, not just the deplorable conditions, but the meaningless work she was given to do, recycling battery components for the Nazis.
By Ms. Dee on 05/02/2008 11:58 am