This episode's portrayal of media bias is uncanny in its accuracy.
Plot Synopsis:
This episode breaks the usual format, as it unfolds in the form of an ISN report on the thirty-six eventful hours anchorwoman Cynthia Torqueman spent on Babylon 5. There's even a Psi Corps commercial (which is in itself a hilarious - and also scary - bit of propaganda).
The primary story within Torqueman's report revisits the Narn-Centauri War. At the start, ISN cameras capture images of a Narn ship attacking a Centauri transport outside Babylon 5. The Narn government later claims that said Centauri transport contained weapons of mass destruction bound for the front. The Centauri government, of course, denies this claim, but Sheridan orders an investigation that ultimately turns up evidence of Centauri duplicity. A shooting war erupts outside Babylon 5, and Sheridan responds by opening fire on all hostiles, prompting the surrender of both parties. Sheridan prepares to board and search all Centauri vessels parked in Babylon 5 space, and the Centauri respond by sending a war cruiser and threatening open conflict if their ships are molested in any way. Sheridan decides to call their bluff by sending an unmanned Earth transport through the Centauri blockade, and the Centauri do in fact back down. But before Sheridan and his team can breathe a sigh of relief, a Narn war cruiser arrives (damn it!) and destroys the Centauri cruiser in another firefight that once again endangers Babylon 5. Then, when the Narn cruiser tries to depart, it too explodes due to jump engine failure. (What a waste.)
Now, while Torqueman is recording the above events for posterity, she is also interviewing the station's residents and asking for their comment on both the day's events and the purpose of Babylon 5 in general. And the impression of Babylon 5 a hapless viewer is likely absorb from this broadcast? Well, that will be remarked upon below.
(For more specifics, you can take a peak at the full transcript here.)
The Skinny:
Stephanie S. - I don't know how J. Michael Straczynski remains such a flaming leftist; he clearly understands how modern journalists slant the news. Let's examine the methods Straczynski's fictional reporter uses to convey a message without doing so overtly, shall we?
Method 1: Describe the opposition as "angry" as if anger is not sometimes a reasonable - even necessary - emotion. Take a look at the first "Compare and Contrast" lesson I've included in the highlights below. When Sheridan states that Quantrell's attitude vis a vis Earth's military strength is not consonant with the facts, Torqueman accuses him of being angry. In the real world, this happens ALL the time. And if the opposition (from the mainstream media's point of view) is not described as "angry," it is described as idiotic, racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc., etc., ad nauseam. They are trying to paint us as fundamentally irrational and our concerns as unserious.
Well, you know what? YES, I am angry. I am angry that an unqualified poser is now sitting in the White House and looking down his nose at the American citizens he's supposed to serve. I am angry that said poser and his cheering squad in the media and elsewhere are so hell bent on pursuing a public policy that didn't work historically and is obviously accomplishing nothing now. I am angry that our ruling class is worse than I when it comes to responsible spending -- and that's saying something, because - and this I admit freely - I can be impulsive in my shopping habits. And I don't think my anger is irrational; anger can't be irrational when it is inspired by something arguably outrageous. To go back to Babylon 5 (because I know I'm digressing here), perhaps Sheridan is angry, but it's not without cause, as the kind of crap Quantrell spews here is encouraging an irresponsible isolationism on Earth. Bottom line, there ARE things we NEED to get angry about, and deriding people for their perfectly natural and reasonable emotions - while a nice way to skirt the substance of someone's argument - is pure gamesmanship rather than ethical reporting.
(And here's another thing: media leftists are hypocrites. They evidently feel it's perfectly valid to get angry about the things they care about. When Keith Olbermann goes on one of his rants, be careful: a screen may be between you and him, but you still may be hit by the spittle.)
Method 2: Give your favorites free reign while pointedly grilling those you don't favor. Notice how Torqueman treats Quantrell in the first "Compare and Contrast" example and how she treats Londo in the second example. She doesn't really challenge their assertions; basically, she just lets them bloviate freely on the matter under discussion. On the other hand, Torqueman not so subtly challenges G'Kar to defend Narn's decision to continue fighting a losing battle -- and she makes Delenn cry. Why, it's just like the real world media's Election 2008 coverage:
MSM: We need to send a team of investigative reporters to Alaska post haste! We need dirt on Sarah Palin!
CONSERVATIVE PUBLIC: What about Jeremiah Wright? Obama attended his church for twenty years, and it turns out the reverend's a raving loon.
MSM: But Obama made a pretty speech about race relations! Sheesh, people, get over it already and feel the tingle.
CONSERVATIVE PUBLIC: And what about Obama's radical pro-abortion record?
MSM: What's that? We can't hear you over all these songs cute little moppets are singing about Senator Obama.
CONSERVATIVE PUBLIC: And how, exactly, has Obama proved he has the capacity to be an executive?
MSM: HOPE! CHANGE!
The scary thing? I'm only exaggerating slightly.
Method 3: Heavily favor one side of an issue in your commentary and presentation, then throw in a brief nod to the other side to look "fair." Torqueman spends the majority of her report suggesting that Babylon 5 is a powder keg ready to blow, then finishes with a passing acknowledgment that not all days on Babylon 5 are (as of yet, anyway) as hectic as the one she witnessed. This also reflects real world realities. The mainstream media, by and large, do a poor job of presenting both sides of any debate. The average reporter, it seems, is lazy; when he finds one token opposition statement to add to his article-in-progress, he often decides at that point that he's successfully achieved "balance" and doesn't need to do any more footwork. In my experience, this is often not so.
Okay, this enumeration is getting tiring. Suffice it to say that this episode does a masterful job tackling the inner workings of media bias. The production values are also a cut above the usual; I love the little details - like the graphics, for instance - that were added in post, as they really do make you feel like you're watching a news program. I didn't have this on the feature list at first, but after viewing the episode again, the above discussed elements forced me to change my mind.
SABR Matt - A friend of mine was dumbfounded when I suggested that today's media (not to mention today's system of higher education and today's public schools) is slanting to the left in ways that aren't particularly obvious to the average viewer but that nonetheless will sway public opinion for those who don't have the time or the desire to take a lot of time to do their research on the issues. In fact, many people who I would otherwise believe possess superior judgment and reasonable skepticism INSIST that the exact opposite is true. They believe the media slants to the RIGHT (citing the media's tendency to sensationalize every story with comments with Joe Six-Pack and cover military actions in excruciating detail). I'm sorry, but I just don't see how we can continue to believe there is either no slant, or a slant to the right unless what is viewed as "centrist" politically is, in fact, mainstream liberalism.
And that's the magic that is yellow journalism. The average American with limited time on their hands for current events will watch the evening the news (maybe) and perhaps listen to the radio on the way in to work or talk to colleagues about stories that impact them...and the only feedback they get is from a position where mainstream thought comes from the left of the political spectrum and voices of opposition are systematically marginalized. I would like the readers here to try something the next time they watch an informational talk show or News/Entertainment show (The Daily Show, Good Morning America, etc). Count the number of times a conservative opinion called in to provide balance is described with words that have a traditionally negative connotation. Count the number of times a liberal speaker is similarly labeled.
I can save you a bit of time with some comments about Lexis Nexus - a media search engine that is freely accessible on the web. Scan the New York Times or the Washington Post for words like angry, opposition, radical, far, opponent, obstructionist, denier, etc and the references to conservatives will outnumber the references to liberals 10 to 1. I know this because Ann Coulter actually did this work herself (readers' note: I hate Ann Coulter...I cannot stand the way she presents herself...she makes such an easy target for marginalization of the conservative frame of mind with her condescending, hateful speech...but she does do her homework when she's presenting facts like this).
Have you ever noticed how spin-words used to quickly reference political movements tend to bias negative for right-wing causes and positive for left-wing causes? On Environmental issues (left-wing: environmentalists - right-wing: big-oil funded political opponents or obstructionists or climate deniers), on healthcare (left-wing: pro-health-reform, right-wing: anti-health-reform...it's subtle, but being "pro" something feels good..being "anti" something feels bad...especially when the something is innocuous and progressive sounding like "reform"), on abortion (left-wing: pro-choice - right-wing: pro-life activist), on cultural norms (left-wing: progressive, right-wing: redneck, radical, neoconservative) on other cultures (left-wing: multicultural, tolerant, modern - right-wing: racist, old fashioned, xenophobic)...the media places labels on the left and the right that just do not balance.
My sisters dissected some of the techniques used by the media to marginalize an opposing viewpoint, and I gave an example of that in a recent blogpost this past Saturday from our own media. It turns out my timing was impeccable. This episode is a very strong portrayal of the potential danger of an activist press. ISN is very much akin to the four-headed hydra that is the main networks...it has the bully pulpit...it dominates public perception. The media needs more competition...thankfully, the age of network television is ending, soon to be replaced by subscription internet access to media outlets...we will have to be vigilant there as well...the same bias could come to influence a place which, until now, has remained a bastion of balance and political/informational freedom.
Writing: 9.5/8.0
I doubt that a reporter would be permitted quite the level of access that Torqueman is granted here, but that is my only quibble. This script is otherwise extremely clever and incisive.
SABR Matt Chimes In: The message is strong, but the plot-driven execution feels convenient and often a bit melodramatic for my taste. The Narn/Centauri firefights seem way bigger than the events that precipitated them...I know the tensions were high already, but I do think the script was bigger than it needed to be to make its' point.
Acting: 8.5/8.0
No one knocked me off my feet, but the entire ensemble did a very good job. This episode is not plagued by the kind of uneven performances that have marred other outings.
SABR Matt Chimes In: I would agree that this was more of an ensemble performance, but I do think our perhaps unintentionally biased anchorwoman was well portrayed and I did appreciate Mira Furlan's interview scene from an acting standpoint.
Message: 10.0/10.0
Again, Straczynksi knows how the media works. Torqueman's report is a stunning lesson on how reporters attempt influence public opinion. It also doesn't hurt that isolationism is portrayed as foolhardy.
Highlights:
FRANKLIN: You know what the folks back home don't understand - the ones who've never left Earth - is just how dangerous space can be. Aside from incidents like this, just the everyday reality of living your days and nights in a big tin can surrounded by a vacuum... I remember my first time on a transport, on the Moon-Mars run. I was just a kid, maybe seventeen. A buddy of mine was messing around, and zipping through the halls, and he hid in one of the airlocks. I don't know, I guess he was gonna try to scare us or something, I don't know... but just as I got close, he must have hit the wrong button because the air doors slammed shut, the space doors opened, and he just flew out into space. You know, the one thing they never tell you is that you don't die instantly in vacuum. Just hung there, against the black, like a puppet with his strings all tangled up. Or one of those old cartoons where you run off the edge of a cliff and your legs keep going. You could see that he was trying to breathe, but there was nothing. The one thing I remember - when they pulled in his body? His eyes were frozen. (A beat.) A lot of people make jokes about spacing somebody, about shoving somebody out an airlock. I don't think it's funny. Never will. (Rick Biggs does a nice job with this monologue. It's actually pretty compelling.)
Compare & Contrast Lesson 1:
(Scene I)
QUANTRELL: Well, obviously, Babylon 5 is something President Santiago believed in very strongly, and I think we owe it to his memory to try to make it work.
TORQUEMAN: That doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement.
QUANTRELL: Well, clearly we've taken a lot of heat, and the cost overruns have been appropriately astronomical. But let's remember that the Babylon Project was conceived right after the Earth-Minbari War. At that time, the idea of a diplomatic station designed to keep anything like that from happening again was very appealing.
TORQUEMAN: And now?
QUANTRELL: Now? Well...still too early to tell. Certainly we've rebuilt our military forces to a point far in advance of where they were fourteen years ago. If the Earth-Minbari War started today, I think things might have gone a little differently. So, while I'm not sure how much...concrete benefit we really derive from Babylon 5 any longer, I suppose it still does keep us in a highly visible position with other races... and of course it's very important to interstellar commerce and trade.
(Scene II)
SHERIDAN: Well, with all due respect to Senator Quantrell, speaking as someone who did his part in the front lines, I'd have to say we still haven't fully recovered from the Minbari war. And we haven't anywhere near the level of technology we would need in the event of another major conflict. And anybody who thinks that we could hold our own with the Minbari, the Centauri, and, God forbid, the Vorlons, is just plain kidding himself.
TORQUEMAN: You sound angry about it.
SHERIDAN: No, I'm not. It just...it just sounds to me like...like jingoism and self-deception and armchair quarterbacking. Any time you lose a war, you just...you just wait a few years, and you'll hear from everyone who thought that we could have won if they'd have done the fighting... (Do you see the tactic employed by Torqueman here? See the commentary above.)
TORQUEMAN: Can you give us an example of Audronado?
DELENN: Neech sach schnek, slem-ba. I am your friend, in peace.
TORQUEMAN: Your appearance, though, isn't typical of your people, is it?
DELENN: No.
TORQUEMAN: According to station records, you looked quite different a year ago.
DELENN: I volunteered for this change, in the hope that it would lead to a better understanding between our peoples.
TORQUEMAN: Over a quarter million humans were killed in the war with your people. How do you think the families of those victims will feel about your...change?
DELENN: (suddenly disturbed by the turn this interview has taken) I, uh...I don't know. I uh...I would hope...
TORQUEMAN: I think they would feel hurt, betrayed. That by assuming a human face, you're taking a part of us you're not entitled to. What would you say to them? To all the husbands and wives and children and brothers and sisters of the people who were killed in the war with your people, and now see a Minbari...with a human face? (By drilling Delenn in such a hostile way here, Torqueman once again reveals the developing slant of ISN. Chilling.)
Compare and Contrast Lesson 2:
(Scene I)
TORQUEMAN: How did you become involved with the resistance?
G'KAR: My family lived in G'kamizad, one of the larger cities on Narn. My father... served in a Centauri household during the last years of the rebellion. I was barely a pouchling at the time. My mother was ill, unable to escape through the underground, so we all stayed. It was a difficult time--we were striking deep into Centauri resources. Things were tense. One day, my father spilled a cup of hot jala on the mistress of the house, and... and she had him killed. They took him out, tied his hands together, and hung him from a Jalwa tree for three days. I came to him the last night against my mother's orders, and he looked down at me. He said he was proud and to go and fight and...be all the things he never was. Then he died. The next morning I ran away and killed my first Centauri.
TORQUEMAN: Why do you think they invaded back then?
G'KAR: Why does any advanced civilization seek to destroy a less-advanced one? Because the land is strategically valuable, because there are resources that can be cultivated and exploited, but most of all, simply because they can. You have experienced much the same on your own world. There are humans for whom the words "never again" carry special meaning, as they do for us.
TORQUEMAN: How do you respond to reports that your military has lost six out of the last seven engagements with the Centauri forces, and now the war consists mainly of holding actions and forced retreats?
G'KAR: Centauri propaganda. We will never fall back. We will never surrender.
(Scene II)
LONDO: When we first met the Narn they were, what, a primitive people. We gave them technology centuries ahead of their own, took them with us to the stars, taught them laws, civilized them. They repaid us with terror and death.
TORQUEMAN: So you're saying that the Centauri originally came to help the Narns?
LONDO: Of course. And at considerable expense, I might add. Which is why we finally left. We wished them well, but the cost, you've seen.
TORQUEMAN: Then you weren't driven off the Narn homeworld?
LONDO: Please. The Narn have rewritten history enough, don't you think? If they wanted us gone, we were hardly going to force the issue. But ever since, they have grown more and more irrational, have gone out of their way to harm us, to seize Centauri territory. Finally, we had to take a stand. They were the ones who declared war. Not us. We want only peace. (And this pair of scenes reveals another tactic often utilized by biased journalists in the real world. See above.)
TORQUEMAN: As journalists, we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we suggested that events such as those you've just witnessed were typical of the situation on Babylon 5. Like anyone else, they have good days and bad days. But there can be no question that it is a flash point that can only grow hotter as time passes. And yet, growth only comes through pain and struggle, so perhaps we should allow Babylon 5 time to realize, or one day, even exceed the dreams we have invested in it. (And we conclude with a very thin attempt at appearing balanced. Awesome.)
SHERIDAN: The job of Babylon 5 is not to enforce the peace, it's to create the peace. And this place was built on the assumption that we could work out our problems and build a better future. And that, to me, is the key issue. See, in the last few years, we've stumbled. We've stumbled at the death of the president, the war, and on and on. And when you stumble a lot, you...you start looking at your feet. You know, we have to make people lift their eyes back to the horizon and see the line of ancestors behind us saying, "Make my life have meaning." And to our inheritors before us saying, "Create the world we will live in." We're not just...holding jobs and having dinner. We're in the process of building the future. That's what Babylon 5 is all about. Only by making people understand that can we hope to create a better world for ourselves, and our posterity.
No comments:
Post a Comment