In case you don't follow these things, one of the biggest stories in American politics this week involved Sarah Palin and the word "retard."
No, it's not what you're thinking.
But a few weeks after bemoaning "politically correct"-ness in an interview with Glenn Beck, Palin called for the resignation of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for his use of the "R-word" at a private meeting.
Later in the week, when radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh used the word to describe "liberal activists," Palin shot right back at the host like the maverick she is. The context Limbaugh used the word in was acceptable, she said, arguing that liberal groups "are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh."
When is the media going to hold Palin to her own word? It is absurd that no one has called the former governor out for not decrying the political correctness of the Black Eyed Peas 2003 hit, "Let's Get Retarded."
Why the news outlets love these sorts of stories I don't know. Wasn't anything else happening this week other than some politician turned television personality playing tattletale? C-SPAN broadcasts what happens inside the chambers of Congress, doesn't anything go on there?
I guess these stories aren't really all that shocking. They're like the "Jersey Shore" equivalent for the concerned class. Easily packaged, effortlessly consumed, slightly edgy and pretty much pointless. Here is your check, Snooki, now enjoy these messages from our sponsors.
Another great aspect of these little stunts is how they are essentially open-ended. People don't watch the news to get information. They watch the news to have their opinions and beliefs adulated.
You can really get whatever you want out of a situation like this. If you think Palin and the Republicans are as infallible as Dr. Gregory House, Limbaugh was just being "satirical," or something. If you think this group is as idiotic as some "Borat" sketch, then congratulations, you cultural warrior you. Either way, there is a news network there waiting to be proud of you.
For example, in this particular scenario, Fox would probably be the former and MSNBC the latter. And for the free thinking and civil, there's CNN, who can't touch an issue with a six-foot pole. That the major news networks are set up in this manner isn't really that shocking as viewed in hindsight either.
In their 1988 book, "Manufacturing Consent," Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky put forth that news outlets are fighting for profit against one another, essentially, by having a scoop. Because these stories require politicians and corporate figures for legitimacy, coverage is constantly distorted in their favor. To be relevant, they must make those they report on happy to ensure future relations with sources whose words become the news.
Fox News, for example, recently has taken such a strong aim at Barack Obama that the president attempted to deny the network interview privileges. The tactic failed when the other networks stood up for Fox, realizing that government could theoretically do the same to them in the future.
But Fox News has been built out of conservative commentators and former Republican political insiders.
As such, it has a solid base of viewership among conservatives. According to a poll by Public Policy Polling, while 74 percent of Republicans trust the network, only 30 percent of Democrats do, which is quite a discrepancy.
The fact remains: Fox News is the only network brave enough to stand up against the Chomskyan propaganda model. This is something that all networks should be doing; however, and Fox seems to be the only one in the position to do so.
Now if only it wasn't paying Sarah Palin to launch a promotional operation for her electoral campaign, didn't a give disproportional soapbox to "independents" like Bill O'Reilly who always side with conservative principles and took shots at Republicans on occasion as well.
At least there is always "Jersey Shore" season two to look forward to.
