I'm so grateful that i came on this trip. Mostly due to the fact that i discovered that i LOVE DC. Although i must keep in mind that Ive experienced DC in special circumstances. Not only am i here for the most historic inauguration of my lifetime but i have been given the chance to listen to some of the people who have influenced American politics and experienced American politics in monumental ways.
Overall i believe the speaker that i would love to hear more from the most was Steve Bell.
On Wednesday Bell spoke about Media Bias which was a great follow up to our, ahem, interesting experience at Accuracy in the Media the previous day. Just a little side comment on that.. WOW! that guy was ridiculous. i was so excited when he began speaking about his organization's wish for unbiased media. Which i took to be unbiased on BOTH sides, right AND left. Even my liberal-loving self was still optimistic about the organization when he said that they were a conservative organization (b/c that makes sense due to the liberal leaning of the media). However, i was quickly disappointed when i realized that AIM is not truly about making the media move toward unbiased-ness (so not a word). Instead AIM is a hypocritical organization that is simply attempting to sway media bias from the left to the far right. Which is crap. Total crap. They are completely false advertising themselves. I did, however, enjoy myself while at AIM b/c i was given the chance to show my disbelief and disapproval during the Q and A session :). OKAY, back to Bell. Bell brought up an interesting theory: that the media coverage of this election was not biased but merely one-sided. Of course there are more liberal journalist than conservative but perhaps the biased was not intended for the majority of journalist. Bell quoted an old professor of his saying "Know thyself and compensate". Bell presented the idea that the media needs to realize that they, being more liberal for the majority, prefer to cover liberal candidates. And thus they should compensate by making an effort to cover both sides. The Obama Phenomena made a great story : the little senator with a great accomplishment story. The fault of the one-sided coverage was not bias but instead was simply nature. Nature to cover someone with whom you agree with and with whom has such a tremendous story.
While i do believe that Bell's theory is somewhat optimistic and gives the media perhaps more credit than they deserve, i say what the heck. Ill buy it. And even though I am ,as i said before, a liberal-lovin liberal i would love to see the media move towards more unbiased coverage so that everyone has an equal chance... .AND so that conservatives have no reason to complain anymore( i couldnt resist! ) I guess i too need to heed the word of Mr. Bell's professor :) .