Media Matters

      The TV medium is forever showing its diversity and contradictions, no more so than President Zelenskyy's speech before the U.S. Congress this past Wednesday. While the President had previously delivered a somewhat similar discourse near the beginning of the Ukrainian- Russian War, it had been a virtual presentation and, therefore, lacked certain obvious advantages (including President Baden's remark to Zelenskyy at the press conference, "It's nice to see you."  ).    This time, the speech's emotional content was also palpable as were the symbolic visuals.  Consider, particularly, Zelenskyy's camouflage-like apparel and the use of the Ukrainian flag as he passed it to Speaker Pelosi and V.P. Harris who were standing on the dais. Even Zelenskyy's faltering English, while potentially an impediment to understanding, carried a potent message: better have authentic and strong resolve than perfect English. Let's face it:  the speech couldn't fai

       Media has been the subject of harsh criticism for as long as most people can remember. There's no stopping such condemnation especially now as horrific events are also escalating. To the point, broadcast news ( along with Social Media) i s now being blamed for inciting extremist action from both individuals and groups alike. No doubt, such behavior is a broad-ranging one that has many diverse perspectives, deserving comprehensive examination.        However, such examination baits this question: where do we even start to assess TV news? How can we determine if TV is accountable for incitement? ( More to the point, can it ever be held responsible?)  But that's another subject altogether.      Journalist Margaret Sullivan's recent book, "Newsroom Confidential," addresses one possible way of testing TV news's responsibility for incitement although Ms. Sullivan is considering the nature of "objectivity" in the news, not its culpability Thus, Ms. S