|
do you really think that dan rather writes his own copy?
do you really think that dan rather's personal politics are directly at play in the kind of copy he reads on the air?
what if an anchor guy is just a functionary, a relay, and if the usual routine that shows the anchor putting the finishing touches on a script just prior to airtime is just theater--he could be writing "beneath this desk i am not wearing pants" over and over, for example, as the camera switches on...
or do you imagine an anchorperson to be a kind of parental figure telling you nice or scary stories before bedtime? in which case, what is at stake here apart from your fantasy-structure?
in other words, how do you justify the connection between the (presumed) personal politics of an anchorman and any kind of general argument about "the media"?
here is how it looks to me: this pseudo-linkage function for you because it enables you to ignore the mass of other information--for example, domination of opinion-management shows, of commentary, by talking heads who originate in conservative think tanks, from heritage to cato to aei--any of which would point your "analysis" of the media toward a conservative general biais?
or are you not interested in analysis? is this how conservatives operate?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|