Over on Oh John Ringo No!, (well worth the read for reasons other than politics) the author discusses how all stories are biased somewhat (will agree), but that some show a more overt bias than others, and discusses how that often has to do with political leaning. (Essentially, liberals tend to be dominate writing circles, so tend to write less overt messages as they assume that their readers already agree with them, while conservatives tend to be more overt). I found the idea interesting (and am inclined to agree).
I personally don't tend to read anything that reads like propaganda. With that said, some bias is going to slip through almost inevitably. (Which in my mind, is a good reason to know a little about the author in certain circumstances, especially if you're trying to find the message/understand the bias.) And I can read and enjoy things that have a distinct bias, even if I hold the opposing opinion, provided that the argument is well constructed. (Certain pieces by Megan Lindholm/Robin Hobb come to mind. Although if
( ... )
instantly reminded of both "Wag the Dog" and the show 24, the former being a temporary often-misused buzzword sometime during the Clinton administration, the later a reference used in actual defence of waterboarding.
How much responsibiliity, if any, do authors have for works that might have political overtones
In The End of the World News, Anthony Burgess posited a future with only two movies, grabbed by a passenger just as the space ark was leaving earth. The conclusion? The children thought the movies (docudramas, one about Freud, one about Marx) were silly. They wondered why people made such things as movies.
Therefore, I don't think we can or should judge the intentions of the makers except as a warning to others. As you point out with V, the intentions can skew. Consider also the 1969 CBS pilot by Norman Lear called And Justice for All, where a racist Archie Justice rails against Pollacks only to have his daughter marry one. It was later released as All In The Family, and Archie's name turned to Bunker. The problem? Conservatives loved Archie. They missed the less-than-subtle satire and derision against racists Lear worked into the script completely
( ... )
Comments 16
I personally don't tend to read anything that reads like propaganda. With that said, some bias is going to slip through almost inevitably. (Which in my mind, is a good reason to know a little about the author in certain circumstances, especially if you're trying to find the message/understand the bias.) And I can read and enjoy things that have a distinct bias, even if I hold the opposing opinion, provided that the argument is well constructed. (Certain pieces by Megan Lindholm/Robin Hobb come to mind. Although if ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
In my opinion if one kills in the name of god, god isn't responcible, they are.
Reply
DQ!
Reply
Reply
In The End of the World News, Anthony Burgess posited a future with only two movies, grabbed by a passenger just as the space ark was leaving earth. The conclusion? The children thought the movies (docudramas, one about Freud, one about Marx) were silly. They wondered why people made such things as movies.
Therefore, I don't think we can or should judge the intentions of the makers except as a warning to others. As you point out with V, the intentions can skew. Consider also the 1969 CBS pilot by Norman Lear called And Justice for All, where a racist Archie Justice rails against Pollacks only to have his daughter marry one. It was later released as All In The Family, and Archie's name turned to Bunker. The problem? Conservatives loved Archie. They missed the less-than-subtle satire and derision against racists Lear worked into the script completely ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment