Bipartisanism Rising

Before I start, I would like to acknowledge that the 35W bridge collapsed yesterday over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, my hometown. It is a tragedy, and this city will never be the same.

If you have happened to glance at the New York Times business section in the last few weeks, you will probably have seen an article about Rupert Murdoch buying the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal. Murdoch is the owner of News Corporation, which includes Fox News. The purchase of the Wall Street Journal has made people anxious about it turning even more conservative, similar to Fox.

Fox is known for its conservative leanings, just as CNN is known for being liberal. Yesterday, my Aunt Joey forwarded me this image from the New York Times, documenting how many minutes of interview time has been dedicated to each presidential candidate on each major news station from the beginning of the year to July 15th.

Most of the results displayed by the image, which is from the Hotline, are not surprising, but some are interesting. Senator Barack Obama had no interview time on Fox News, and neither did Senator Joesph Biden, even though they are in the top three for most interview time among Democrats. Senator John McCain had the most time total, and the most of his time was spent on NBC, not the conservative Fox. Out of ten Republican candidates, five had most of their interviews on Fox. All of the Democratic candidates had the most time on either CNN or MSNBC, with the exception of Senator Hillary Clinton, who spent most of her time on ABC.

What I think is most interesting about the image, and which my Aunt Joey altered me to, is the fact that Senator Clinton is twelfth on the list, below Tom Tancredo and above Dennis Kucinich. Clinton is the democratic forerunner with Obama, yet she doesn't receive nearly as much time as Obama, or even Tancredo, who isn't even close to the presence Clinton has. Joey speculated that this might be because she is a women, or by choice, and it is interesting to think about.

Anyways, back to my original point. Joey also forwarded me an email for the Edwards campaign, discussing how Edwards has refused money from Murdoch and his affiliates, and is calling for other democrats to follow him. This public statement is in response to what the e-mail calls the "right-wing talking points and temper tantrums" of Fox.

I agree with Edward's statement, and I think he, as well as other Democrats, need to respond to Fox's (and by extension, Murdoch's) attacks against them. As can be seen by the New York Times image, Fox does have a slant. But the image also shows the slant of CNN and MSNBC.

Partisanship goes both ways. Edwards is responding to the bias of Fox, but by doing so, he is strengthening that bias. He needs to go on Fox and refute their "temper tantrums" against him. Other Democrats and Republicans need to do the same on their respective nemeses.

Of course, that's easier said than done. In my opinion, Fox does close out certain people from their broadcasts, and makes it hard for people to respond to their negative claims. I think CNN is better at eliminating biases, yet it was the network that brought us Crossfire, probably the most partisan and polarizing show in television history. Jon Stewart was brave enough to say what he though about Crossfire, and defend his opinions on the show. (If you haven't seen the clip of this, I would recommend it. I think it is one of the best moments in recent media history.)

In a perfect world, these presidential candidates would be able to go on Fox (or CNN or MSNBC or ABC) and challenge what has been said about them. However, networks can make that difficult, and most candidates don't have the time to fight for their opinions, especially because they can just go on another new network and spit out opposite talking points.

But those who watch these talking points that increase bipartisanship can realize that this battle between two seemingly polar opposites is nothing more than an shallow reflection of the real world. Even though these people make our laws, every belief they hold does not represent our own. Even though I may be a Democratic, I do not agree with every thing that Edwards or Obama or Clinton says, or everything a CNN anchor reports. And even though you might be a Republican, you don't have to only watch Fox as a source of news. This isn't a perfect world, but at least we can understand that.

The Not-So-Other Half

I just recently received a column from the Austin Chronicle from a friend here in Boulder, titled "Heartland" from the columnist Michael Ventura. I don't know much about Ventura's work, but he's been writing "Letters @ 3AM", where this column is taken from, for the LA Weekly and the Austin Chronicle for quite some time.

Anyways, I thought that this "Heartland" column was particularly insightful and I would suggest reading it if you have the time. It discusses Ventura's travels and his interactions with lower class people of the Southwest, people who haven't gotten out much or seen much. He profiles his interactions well, and is able to illustrate how even these lower class, non-educated workers are still people too. The one part I wanted to point out is the following, describing someone he met on a bus:

"A crusty old farmer – work boots, creased and bony hands, sunburned neck and face – was reading a pamphlet titled 'Government and God.' Somebody was speaking to him, and it wasn't me, and it wasn't anyone I knew or valued. How do you expect people to go your way if you don't even deign to notice them? That farmer was interested. He was reading a pamphlet. If I'd written a pamphlet directed to him, in terms he could understand, chances are he might be interested and read it. If we ignore him, why shouldn't he ignore us?"

I've always been disillusioned about something in America (or maybe the world) more than just politics, and I think this last quote describes my disillusionment well. Not only does our political system leave out a significant majority of people, but our culture as well. Most of the work I've come across, either academic or entertainment, has been created for the upper class, or at least the middle class on up.

I don't know who this "we" is that Ventura referred to, but I took it to mean America, at least main-stream America, the America we think of when we think of "America". The "we" of popular America has left those behind who have not kept up.

While reading this column, I was reminded of a quote from comedian and personal hero, Jon Stewart. In an interview (I think it was with Senator John McCain, but I can't remember), Stewart said that 80% of this country could get along if we just sat down and talked things out. And the other 20% run it.

And that is true, as illustrated by the people Ventura met in "Heartland". He was able to carry on conversations and form connections with the people he met, even though they were working class or lower class, and he is an author. Everyone really can relate to each other, but it takes effort. People continue to be generalized and pigeon-holded with the increasing polarization of this country (and this world), and it is a shame. Everyone has something to offer another, even if it is just a pamphlet. Or a blog.