This article got me thinking (cantcha smell the wood burnin'?)about the role of artists in political discourse. Of course, the arts have often intertwined itself with politics throughout history. In Italy, for example, opera composers like Giuseppe Verdi used their medium to call for the unification of Italy.
I can't escape the thought there's a rather macabre irony in this. Don't all operas end in tragedy? Unification of Italy was bound to be tragic!
The article argues artists should be critical of Obama if warranted. There's a general sense of uneasiness in wanting to tackle this issue; possibly for fear of being a racist?
A few weeks back comedians confessed in not being able to find enough material to use. I felt it was because they weren't trying hard enough. The poster that circulated around California depicting Obama as 'The Joker' with the caption socialist (a commenter made an astute point. The creator should have used "Change." It would have left far more to the imagination), kicked off the festivities and most recently Jon Stewart went where no man dared go before.
Spoofing Bush is sooo over. It's lame. He had his fair share. So why is (seemingly) Obama off limits?
***
I picked up one of those "pocket book guides" about media a couple of years back. I'm a fan of the 'Dummies' and 'Pocket Book' format for introductory purposes by...the...way.
While it was informative overall, I could never get my mind quite wrapped around one assertion it made. Notably, that the media is controlled by the right. Really?
I know about the Aspers here in Canada and Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh and all that but the left is not without its bastion of media support. For example, MSNBC is left of center in its thinking (it's owned by GE and MS stands for Microsoft. Both were significant contributors to Obama. Plus it's home to Keith Olbermann). CNN was owned by Ted Turner - another Democrat supporter. The jury is out on the other (except FOX) networks.
Speaking of Fox, while it makes no attempt to feign impartiality, does it exist because the other networks weren't servicing a large portion of the American audience? I've been listening to conservative radio this past month and mentally taking notes and comparing it to the other networks. I hope I can make sense of it and lucidly articulate in a blog post in the future.
The biggest newspapers in the land - New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times - are often accused of being liberal or at least liberally sympathetic. They're offset, by the smaller New York Post and Washington Times. In Canada, The Globe and Mail and Maclean's are seen as conservative while the National Post is our "National Review" or Washington Times. For its part, the CBC is incessently perceived as not only liberal but even socialist - similar to NPR or even PBS in the United States.
I won't touch the internet. I think both sides have their supporters in high numbers.
At the very least, both sides seem well represented to me. Now who gets larger market share is a different matter altogether.
If there's one area where liberalism reigns supreme it's on campuses across the continent. My own experiences tell me this anyway. I'm still fluttering with the notion of liberals cloaking themselves brilliantly under the mask of "balanced progressive" thought.
In any event, all this suggests to me that North America, for the most part and all things considered, is pretty much a 50/50 place. Which, in turn, can be interpreted as "center." Though I sometimes wonder if it's possible to be effectively center."That's why when one side gets an edge it feels like it's "taking over." Again, I need to refine this a little moving forward.
And what about leaders? Bah. They're too busy holding the people in contempt to actually pay attention.
The one thing I've noticed is this: Conservatism has managed to maintain a connection to populism while liberalism, speaks in favor of "the collectivity" but ironically live in urban centers and has become comfortable with elitism. Perhaps therein lies the problem with modern liberalism; Too much of it is ironic; maybe even hypocritical. The problem with conservatism these days alright is its willingness to accept the expansion of government when it chooses: Fiscal stimulus and war ok. Health care reform not ok.
Last, conservatism crosses path with libertarianism on some issues mostly regarding individual liberty while liberalism sways towards socialism.
Interesting post. I cannot comment much on that but, seen from here (and due to European similarities) I agree that conservatism is sometimes closer to the common people, while liberals are often elitist and snob, which is contradictory in some way.
ReplyDelete