2008: A novel by Daniel G [EDITED]

As I watched "Orwell Rolls in His Grave," (summary) I couldn't help but wonder so many things about not only the facts that were being stated, but also the way in which the story was being presented.

In the documentary, Robert Kane Pappas tries to support his theory that the media no longer reports the news, but instead it shapes the news and therefore what is important and how it is dealt with. Although I was convinced of this by the end of the film, I was surprised by many of the statements made by those being interviewed, and the tactics that Pappas used in trying to persuade the viewer.

Although there are many people who are shown in the film, Charles Lewis, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders take, in my opinion, center stage and get most of the air time. While all of these are good choices for a film about the government involvement in the media, they all each pose their own problems as well.

Lewis, a former producer of "60 Minutes," has dedicated his life to journalism and most recently has focused his energy on reporting the workings of government and politics. When he left his job as producer on "60 Minutes," Lewis openly expressed his frustrations with the state of the media and what 'news" was and wasn't being reported. While I don't doubt that Lewis is a legitimate expert in this field, giving him so much airtime on the documentary seemed to me like an unfair effort at driving home the point. Lewis, with his flashy former title under his name and passionate and confident speech, is able to persuade the viewer in ways matched (and possibly passed) only by Michael Moore.

Moore, famous for his films which attack American society and the government, is an extraordinarily strong and persuasive figure in general and in the documentary. He is able to convince the viewer that he is right, not solely based on the facts which he presents, but also based on the way in which he states his points. Moore, like Lewis, seems to me like an interesting choice (in spite of his "expertise" for a documentary which discusses the problems with the way in which the media unfairly persuades the public.

The most interesting person, that is interviewed in the film is Joe Klines, an executive producer at Fox News. Klines tries (and seemingly is one of, if not the only person who tries) to argue that the media does a fair job and is reporting all of the important "news." He even goes as far as saying (perhaps jokingly, but I doubt it) that if you don't see something on the news that it might not be news or as important as you think. While I believe Klines, like Lews and Moore, is very biased and persuasive, he seems to be the only person arguing for the "other" side.

While I did enjoy the documentary and understood its message (and even may agree with it) I have a major question after watching it. Is this film, which works so hard to expose the bias of the media and the unjust service that the media does, guilty of the same injustice to its viewers with its biased attempts to influence the viewer?

I think yes...