Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=briansd1]….I have conservative leanings especially when it comes to financial responsibility. But it’s hard for me to support current conservative ideology.
Conservatives have rejected intellectualism and they have embraced crass populism. They are appealing to the lowest common denominator.
What about lofty ideals and the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to become a better person and create a better society?
What’s the conservative plan? I doubt we’ll get a plan from that cast of uneducated characters.[/quote]
I concur, Brian. But while I can fault the nature of the actions of some of these political bottom-feeders, I can’t blame them completely for the results. People do what they believe they need to do to survive, and, to them, this is political survival (and more, to some of the extremists).
I might be repelled by their actions, but that does not excuse me for ignoring said actions, or for failing to spot their potential negative effects, or for choosing to do nothing about them.
For years, I thought that there were intelligent and skilled people running the political machines. Either I was completely wrong about that perception, or else it’s that their arrogance and conceit has clouded their judgement and dulled their intelligence.
The Democrats have been screwing up for years. Decades. They are completely out of touch with their base, and the range of people within it (or that there even *is* a range). They’ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”. They’ve refused to address the GOP’s smear tactics, adopting a moralistic tone while declaring their certainty that Americans would be ethically and morally repelled by the lies and hypocrisy of the extreme right, never realizing that Americans aren’t repelled by statements that they believe to be the truth. And they used up any political capital they had from two years ago by fighting among themselves while smugly declaring that they had been placed in their seats on a mandate from Americans who trusted Democratic rule (rather than the truth which was that Americans could simply no longer face voting Republican).
The Republicans are also guilty of the same hubris. They sat by and watched the rise of group after group of (for the most part) extremists, each referring to itself as the Tea Party. They sat back, saying and doing nothing while many of the leaders of this movement made false and morally reprehensible statements, and consciously worked at widening the divide among our nation’s people. They were confident that, at election time, they would reap the rewards of the labors of the party leaders, and step in to take over the reins while gaining access to millions of voters seething with Democrat-centered antipathy. What actually happened was that they had their collective GOP asses handed to them at primary time. But rather than turn away from unqualified candidates they knew could be harmful to America, they threw their public support behind them in an effort to remain in power.
I have my own ideas about why the members of the Tea Party movement chose to organize. However, I believe that neither they nor the GOP can survive without the other. The Tea Party chose not to centralize their rule, thus weakening their significant voting power. The GOP needs the voting power of the Tea Party, and its power structure *is* centralized AND experienced. Far more savvy than the Democrats, and absolutely unfettered by a sense of ethics and moral outrage, they’ll insinuate themselves into the Tea Party, and own it lock, stock, and barrel 18 months from now.
The Democrats have a chance to put up some competition in 2014, but it will require a top to bottom house cleaning. There are many people who want no part of what the extreme far right and current crop of Republicans who are aligning themselves with them are offering. But there has to be a clear-cut recognition of this, followed by a circling of the wagons and a rallying of the troops. Believe it, or not, I think that Obama recognizes this. His major problems are his lack of experience/young age and his placing too much faith in his advisors while not following his own instincts. There have been many other very good Presidents who were initially similarly afflicted, and who proved that lack of experience could be overcome. He needs to stop worrying about being re-elected in 2012, and concentrate solely on re-organizing the masses he managed to gather and persuade in 2008. Even if it does not result in his re-election, it is absolutely essential for the survival of the Democratic Party. And even if I am not particularly fond of Democrats these days, I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: Stepping back one step further, might it also be fair to say that the news (including electronic and print media), as it exists now, is very different from the news in the 1960s, 1970s and even into the 1980s? Meaning, we now see more of a tabloid-style journalism, versus the more thoughtful reportage in times past. Further, true investigative journalism, in the style of Woodward and Bernstein, is largely dead. Even amongst those papers that can afford to do it, like the NYT and WashPost, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as it used to be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in our era of soundbites, the 24/7 news cycle and “flash and trash” reporting (think TMZ), the facts have largely been lost. Add to this the dearth of true critical thinking and analysis from your average Joe (or Jane) and we find ourselves exactly where we are.
“If it bleeds, it leads”, has never been more true than the present.[/quote]
Absolutely, Alan. There’s no question that, by the early 1990s, print journalism was dumbing down big time for its readers. I know this will sound trite, but I’ll use People magazine as an prime example (mostly because we’re not talking about a publication that was aimed at audiences who were after in-depth explorations of events and issues). Prior to the mid-90s, the length of People’s articles were mostly 1 to 3 pages with lots of large pictures taking up space, in a primarily B/W format. Apparently that was too much for the attention span and reading capabilities of the average subscriber, because Time-Life moved the magazine to a 4-color format with little “items” instead of articles, more like that of the National Enquirer, and pretty much did away with the one or two human interest stories that were typically included prior to that. Time and Newsweek went in the same direction: not quite as extreme, but definitely in the “news as amusement/entertainment” vein.
It’s funny: I picked up a 1958 Good Housekeeping magazine in an antique store, and was blown away by the contents. It was written on a level that many current day college seniors would have difficulty comprehending. There were the usual articles on fashion, cooking, and other areas of domestic science ubiquitous to the genre, but there were also articles on household finance, investing, insurance, and on home architecture. I’m sure that readers of my mother’s generation were dismayed by the “dumbing down” that had taken place to attract readers of my generation in the late 70s to mid-80s, just as I am concerned about the same type of changes currently.
We’re upset about the way that news is being presented today because we’re old enough to remember when news was just that: NEWS. The reading of the events of the day read by a distinguished dark-haired (with a bit of gray at the temples) gentleman in low rumbling reassuring tones without a trace of emotion. There was no opinion, no disapproving grimaces or tones of outrage. And even a whiff of bias was something to be avoided at all costs. However, many of today’s viewers see news as something that is presented by an individual of well above-average looks and build, who is often part of a team of similarly-gifted people, often joined by “special guests” who are former political office holders, political operatives (former and current), retired military officers, and media reporters. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that because news is presented in an environment where people of opposing sides are brought in to “comment” (read “verbally mud wrestle”), that we’ve been privy to “unbiased” news, when, in fact, we have had a double scoop of it in two different flavors.
News is no longer the reporting of events that have occurred, but the presentation of events as the host organization would have liked for them to have occurred. I laugh when I read about how Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC: the ratings are for shows like Hannity and Countdown and The O’Reilly Factor and The Ed Show. This isn’t news – it’s entertainment, pure and simple. And they’re not there to inform people. They exist for people who need to have their egos stroked, their sense of self-righteousness stoked, and their opinions reinforced, and who are incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, critical thinking.
True, there are still traditional newscasts each evening on CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and even “headline” shows on the cable networks. However, as mentioned before, in an effort to appear “unbiased” they are engaging in bias when they underreport, or fail to report, or overplay the importance of particular events of a particular political persuasion.
One can follow this trend to its logical conclusion: whoever has the most money and can tell the most compelling story that will get the highest ratings will run our nation in the not-too-distant future. And while the winner will do that with the complete cooperation of middle class America, middle-class Americans won’t share in the prize.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: Stepping back one step further, might it also be fair to say that the news (including electronic and print media), as it exists now, is very different from the news in the 1960s, 1970s and even into the 1980s? Meaning, we now see more of a tabloid-style journalism, versus the more thoughtful reportage in times past. Further, true investigative journalism, in the style of Woodward and Bernstein, is largely dead. Even amongst those papers that can afford to do it, like the NYT and WashPost, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as it used to be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in our era of soundbites, the 24/7 news cycle and “flash and trash” reporting (think TMZ), the facts have largely been lost. Add to this the dearth of true critical thinking and analysis from your average Joe (or Jane) and we find ourselves exactly where we are.
“If it bleeds, it leads”, has never been more true than the present.[/quote]
Absolutely, Alan. There’s no question that, by the early 1990s, print journalism was dumbing down big time for its readers. I know this will sound trite, but I’ll use People magazine as an prime example (mostly because we’re not talking about a publication that was aimed at audiences who were after in-depth explorations of events and issues). Prior to the mid-90s, the length of People’s articles were mostly 1 to 3 pages with lots of large pictures taking up space, in a primarily B/W format. Apparently that was too much for the attention span and reading capabilities of the average subscriber, because Time-Life moved the magazine to a 4-color format with little “items” instead of articles, more like that of the National Enquirer, and pretty much did away with the one or two human interest stories that were typically included prior to that. Time and Newsweek went in the same direction: not quite as extreme, but definitely in the “news as amusement/entertainment” vein.
It’s funny: I picked up a 1958 Good Housekeeping magazine in an antique store, and was blown away by the contents. It was written on a level that many current day college seniors would have difficulty comprehending. There were the usual articles on fashion, cooking, and other areas of domestic science ubiquitous to the genre, but there were also articles on household finance, investing, insurance, and on home architecture. I’m sure that readers of my mother’s generation were dismayed by the “dumbing down” that had taken place to attract readers of my generation in the late 70s to mid-80s, just as I am concerned about the same type of changes currently.
We’re upset about the way that news is being presented today because we’re old enough to remember when news was just that: NEWS. The reading of the events of the day read by a distinguished dark-haired (with a bit of gray at the temples) gentleman in low rumbling reassuring tones without a trace of emotion. There was no opinion, no disapproving grimaces or tones of outrage. And even a whiff of bias was something to be avoided at all costs. However, many of today’s viewers see news as something that is presented by an individual of well above-average looks and build, who is often part of a team of similarly-gifted people, often joined by “special guests” who are former political office holders, political operatives (former and current), retired military officers, and media reporters. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that because news is presented in an environment where people of opposing sides are brought in to “comment” (read “verbally mud wrestle”), that we’ve been privy to “unbiased” news, when, in fact, we have had a double scoop of it in two different flavors.
News is no longer the reporting of events that have occurred, but the presentation of events as the host organization would have liked for them to have occurred. I laugh when I read about how Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC: the ratings are for shows like Hannity and Countdown and The O’Reilly Factor and The Ed Show. This isn’t news – it’s entertainment, pure and simple. And they’re not there to inform people. They exist for people who need to have their egos stroked, their sense of self-righteousness stoked, and their opinions reinforced, and who are incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, critical thinking.
True, there are still traditional newscasts each evening on CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and even “headline” shows on the cable networks. However, as mentioned before, in an effort to appear “unbiased” they are engaging in bias when they underreport, or fail to report, or overplay the importance of particular events of a particular political persuasion.
One can follow this trend to its logical conclusion: whoever has the most money and can tell the most compelling story that will get the highest ratings will run our nation in the not-too-distant future. And while the winner will do that with the complete cooperation of middle class America, middle-class Americans won’t share in the prize.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: Stepping back one step further, might it also be fair to say that the news (including electronic and print media), as it exists now, is very different from the news in the 1960s, 1970s and even into the 1980s? Meaning, we now see more of a tabloid-style journalism, versus the more thoughtful reportage in times past. Further, true investigative journalism, in the style of Woodward and Bernstein, is largely dead. Even amongst those papers that can afford to do it, like the NYT and WashPost, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as it used to be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in our era of soundbites, the 24/7 news cycle and “flash and trash” reporting (think TMZ), the facts have largely been lost. Add to this the dearth of true critical thinking and analysis from your average Joe (or Jane) and we find ourselves exactly where we are.
“If it bleeds, it leads”, has never been more true than the present.[/quote]
Absolutely, Alan. There’s no question that, by the early 1990s, print journalism was dumbing down big time for its readers. I know this will sound trite, but I’ll use People magazine as an prime example (mostly because we’re not talking about a publication that was aimed at audiences who were after in-depth explorations of events and issues). Prior to the mid-90s, the length of People’s articles were mostly 1 to 3 pages with lots of large pictures taking up space, in a primarily B/W format. Apparently that was too much for the attention span and reading capabilities of the average subscriber, because Time-Life moved the magazine to a 4-color format with little “items” instead of articles, more like that of the National Enquirer, and pretty much did away with the one or two human interest stories that were typically included prior to that. Time and Newsweek went in the same direction: not quite as extreme, but definitely in the “news as amusement/entertainment” vein.
It’s funny: I picked up a 1958 Good Housekeeping magazine in an antique store, and was blown away by the contents. It was written on a level that many current day college seniors would have difficulty comprehending. There were the usual articles on fashion, cooking, and other areas of domestic science ubiquitous to the genre, but there were also articles on household finance, investing, insurance, and on home architecture. I’m sure that readers of my mother’s generation were dismayed by the “dumbing down” that had taken place to attract readers of my generation in the late 70s to mid-80s, just as I am concerned about the same type of changes currently.
We’re upset about the way that news is being presented today because we’re old enough to remember when news was just that: NEWS. The reading of the events of the day read by a distinguished dark-haired (with a bit of gray at the temples) gentleman in low rumbling reassuring tones without a trace of emotion. There was no opinion, no disapproving grimaces or tones of outrage. And even a whiff of bias was something to be avoided at all costs. However, many of today’s viewers see news as something that is presented by an individual of well above-average looks and build, who is often part of a team of similarly-gifted people, often joined by “special guests” who are former political office holders, political operatives (former and current), retired military officers, and media reporters. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that because news is presented in an environment where people of opposing sides are brought in to “comment” (read “verbally mud wrestle”), that we’ve been privy to “unbiased” news, when, in fact, we have had a double scoop of it in two different flavors.
News is no longer the reporting of events that have occurred, but the presentation of events as the host organization would have liked for them to have occurred. I laugh when I read about how Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC: the ratings are for shows like Hannity and Countdown and The O’Reilly Factor and The Ed Show. This isn’t news – it’s entertainment, pure and simple. And they’re not there to inform people. They exist for people who need to have their egos stroked, their sense of self-righteousness stoked, and their opinions reinforced, and who are incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, critical thinking.
True, there are still traditional newscasts each evening on CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and even “headline” shows on the cable networks. However, as mentioned before, in an effort to appear “unbiased” they are engaging in bias when they underreport, or fail to report, or overplay the importance of particular events of a particular political persuasion.
One can follow this trend to its logical conclusion: whoever has the most money and can tell the most compelling story that will get the highest ratings will run our nation in the not-too-distant future. And while the winner will do that with the complete cooperation of middle class America, middle-class Americans won’t share in the prize.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: Stepping back one step further, might it also be fair to say that the news (including electronic and print media), as it exists now, is very different from the news in the 1960s, 1970s and even into the 1980s? Meaning, we now see more of a tabloid-style journalism, versus the more thoughtful reportage in times past. Further, true investigative journalism, in the style of Woodward and Bernstein, is largely dead. Even amongst those papers that can afford to do it, like the NYT and WashPost, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as it used to be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in our era of soundbites, the 24/7 news cycle and “flash and trash” reporting (think TMZ), the facts have largely been lost. Add to this the dearth of true critical thinking and analysis from your average Joe (or Jane) and we find ourselves exactly where we are.
“If it bleeds, it leads”, has never been more true than the present.[/quote]
Absolutely, Alan. There’s no question that, by the early 1990s, print journalism was dumbing down big time for its readers. I know this will sound trite, but I’ll use People magazine as an prime example (mostly because we’re not talking about a publication that was aimed at audiences who were after in-depth explorations of events and issues). Prior to the mid-90s, the length of People’s articles were mostly 1 to 3 pages with lots of large pictures taking up space, in a primarily B/W format. Apparently that was too much for the attention span and reading capabilities of the average subscriber, because Time-Life moved the magazine to a 4-color format with little “items” instead of articles, more like that of the National Enquirer, and pretty much did away with the one or two human interest stories that were typically included prior to that. Time and Newsweek went in the same direction: not quite as extreme, but definitely in the “news as amusement/entertainment” vein.
It’s funny: I picked up a 1958 Good Housekeeping magazine in an antique store, and was blown away by the contents. It was written on a level that many current day college seniors would have difficulty comprehending. There were the usual articles on fashion, cooking, and other areas of domestic science ubiquitous to the genre, but there were also articles on household finance, investing, insurance, and on home architecture. I’m sure that readers of my mother’s generation were dismayed by the “dumbing down” that had taken place to attract readers of my generation in the late 70s to mid-80s, just as I am concerned about the same type of changes currently.
We’re upset about the way that news is being presented today because we’re old enough to remember when news was just that: NEWS. The reading of the events of the day read by a distinguished dark-haired (with a bit of gray at the temples) gentleman in low rumbling reassuring tones without a trace of emotion. There was no opinion, no disapproving grimaces or tones of outrage. And even a whiff of bias was something to be avoided at all costs. However, many of today’s viewers see news as something that is presented by an individual of well above-average looks and build, who is often part of a team of similarly-gifted people, often joined by “special guests” who are former political office holders, political operatives (former and current), retired military officers, and media reporters. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that because news is presented in an environment where people of opposing sides are brought in to “comment” (read “verbally mud wrestle”), that we’ve been privy to “unbiased” news, when, in fact, we have had a double scoop of it in two different flavors.
News is no longer the reporting of events that have occurred, but the presentation of events as the host organization would have liked for them to have occurred. I laugh when I read about how Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC: the ratings are for shows like Hannity and Countdown and The O’Reilly Factor and The Ed Show. This isn’t news – it’s entertainment, pure and simple. And they’re not there to inform people. They exist for people who need to have their egos stroked, their sense of self-righteousness stoked, and their opinions reinforced, and who are incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, critical thinking.
True, there are still traditional newscasts each evening on CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and even “headline” shows on the cable networks. However, as mentioned before, in an effort to appear “unbiased” they are engaging in bias when they underreport, or fail to report, or overplay the importance of particular events of a particular political persuasion.
One can follow this trend to its logical conclusion: whoever has the most money and can tell the most compelling story that will get the highest ratings will run our nation in the not-too-distant future. And while the winner will do that with the complete cooperation of middle class America, middle-class Americans won’t share in the prize.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: Stepping back one step further, might it also be fair to say that the news (including electronic and print media), as it exists now, is very different from the news in the 1960s, 1970s and even into the 1980s? Meaning, we now see more of a tabloid-style journalism, versus the more thoughtful reportage in times past. Further, true investigative journalism, in the style of Woodward and Bernstein, is largely dead. Even amongst those papers that can afford to do it, like the NYT and WashPost, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as it used to be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in our era of soundbites, the 24/7 news cycle and “flash and trash” reporting (think TMZ), the facts have largely been lost. Add to this the dearth of true critical thinking and analysis from your average Joe (or Jane) and we find ourselves exactly where we are.
“If it bleeds, it leads”, has never been more true than the present.[/quote]
Absolutely, Alan. There’s no question that, by the early 1990s, print journalism was dumbing down big time for its readers. I know this will sound trite, but I’ll use People magazine as an prime example (mostly because we’re not talking about a publication that was aimed at audiences who were after in-depth explorations of events and issues). Prior to the mid-90s, the length of People’s articles were mostly 1 to 3 pages with lots of large pictures taking up space, in a primarily B/W format. Apparently that was too much for the attention span and reading capabilities of the average subscriber, because Time-Life moved the magazine to a 4-color format with little “items” instead of articles, more like that of the National Enquirer, and pretty much did away with the one or two human interest stories that were typically included prior to that. Time and Newsweek went in the same direction: not quite as extreme, but definitely in the “news as amusement/entertainment” vein.
It’s funny: I picked up a 1958 Good Housekeeping magazine in an antique store, and was blown away by the contents. It was written on a level that many current day college seniors would have difficulty comprehending. There were the usual articles on fashion, cooking, and other areas of domestic science ubiquitous to the genre, but there were also articles on household finance, investing, insurance, and on home architecture. I’m sure that readers of my mother’s generation were dismayed by the “dumbing down” that had taken place to attract readers of my generation in the late 70s to mid-80s, just as I am concerned about the same type of changes currently.
We’re upset about the way that news is being presented today because we’re old enough to remember when news was just that: NEWS. The reading of the events of the day read by a distinguished dark-haired (with a bit of gray at the temples) gentleman in low rumbling reassuring tones without a trace of emotion. There was no opinion, no disapproving grimaces or tones of outrage. And even a whiff of bias was something to be avoided at all costs. However, many of today’s viewers see news as something that is presented by an individual of well above-average looks and build, who is often part of a team of similarly-gifted people, often joined by “special guests” who are former political office holders, political operatives (former and current), retired military officers, and media reporters. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that because news is presented in an environment where people of opposing sides are brought in to “comment” (read “verbally mud wrestle”), that we’ve been privy to “unbiased” news, when, in fact, we have had a double scoop of it in two different flavors.
News is no longer the reporting of events that have occurred, but the presentation of events as the host organization would have liked for them to have occurred. I laugh when I read about how Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC: the ratings are for shows like Hannity and Countdown and The O’Reilly Factor and The Ed Show. This isn’t news – it’s entertainment, pure and simple. And they’re not there to inform people. They exist for people who need to have their egos stroked, their sense of self-righteousness stoked, and their opinions reinforced, and who are incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, critical thinking.
True, there are still traditional newscasts each evening on CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and even “headline” shows on the cable networks. However, as mentioned before, in an effort to appear “unbiased” they are engaging in bias when they underreport, or fail to report, or overplay the importance of particular events of a particular political persuasion.
One can follow this trend to its logical conclusion: whoever has the most money and can tell the most compelling story that will get the highest ratings will run our nation in the not-too-distant future. And while the winner will do that with the complete cooperation of middle class America, middle-class Americans won’t share in the prize.
Participant[quote=flu]It’s interesting that MSM is executing the backlash now…Bah bah…Just a bunch of fair weather fans in MSM…..[/quote]
The MSM’s been doing this for at least 15 years now. In fact, I addressed this phenomenon last night in a post on the “Sanity/Fear Rally” thread. They bought into the far right’s claim that they were biased, and they’ve been trying to prove ever since then that they’re not. To that end, they’ve soft-soaped, or completely ignored, Republican misdeeds, and blown Democratic ones way out of proportion on many occasions.
I’m sure that their executives were concerned about their shrinking numbers of readers/ viewers/ listeners, and changed their editorial policies accordingly, instead of critically analyzing the data to determine other reasons for the falling demographics. I can, perhaps, understand their attitude at the beginning of this phenomenon: shocked by the rapid rise in popularity of Fox News and other far-right slanted media outlets (namely talk radio), they panicked and responded reflexively by trying to prove that they also were fair and balanced. But it’s many years later, and they should see clearly now that, no matter what they do, die-hard right-wing consumers aren’t going to switch back.
I’m not saying that there was a complete lack of liberal bias on the part of the media prior to the 90s. There was. But it was not anywhere close to the degree that the right claims. History shows that, while reporters of that era were overwhelmingly liberal in their personal outlook, owners and publishers of media outlets (who have the final say over what is printed and broadcast) were at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
The far right’s attitude is that if media releases information about the misdeeds of one of their political figures, that’s bias. I’m not blaming them for their way of thinking. I believe it is naive and immature of them, and certainly indicative of a lack of intellect, but they’re human. But I do blame the media for abdicating their responsibility, which is to report the news. Plain and simple.
My attitude is this: I’ll have an order of facts, hold the commentary and opinion, please. If someone in Congress or the White house or on a campaign staff somewhere has fucked up, tell me about it. Again, just the facts. I’ll form my own opinion.
The media’s continuing to bend over backward to prove their lack of bias has never been more apparent than in the current election coverage. We have a cast of characters that probably shouldn’t be permitted to have driver’s licenses, much less a seat in Congress. But because of the media’s reluctance to appear as though they have a liberal bias, we have a woman in Delaware that could very possibly be their next Senator who, putting aside her questionable mental health status, has an extremely spotty employment record that demonstrates no recognizable career path, and an equally spotty record of fiscal responsibility, having issues with delinquencies on financial obligations and with repeated misuse of campaign funds. There is absolutely nothing in this woman’s background that, in the least, qualifies her for any public office, much less the one she is seeking. She’s running against a candidate with stellar educational accomplishments, a career as a corporate lawyer, election to two 4-year terms as county executive (New Castle County has 500,000 residents, 64% of Delaware’s total), and has also found time to volunteer for charities providing relief to the less fortunate. What about this woman would indicate that she is deserving of 47% of poll share? I understand that the people who support her (say they) want change in the government, more fiscal responsibility, closer adherence to constitutional law…..but why in the world would they think that this woman is, in any way, qualified and able to achieve these things?
A big part of the problem is the media. For fear of appearing to have a liberal bias, they treat these people on the same level as they do candidates who have impressive work and educational backgrounds and accomplishments, and who are intelligent and well-spoken. Every one of the crazy or outright stupid things that Christine O’Donnell has done or said has been glossed over by the mainstream media, and she is being presented as Chris Coons’ equal. I’m sorry, but that is not fulfilling their responsibility as the Fourth Estate.
My proof that this is part of a misguided effort to appear fair and balanced to the far right? Alvin Greene. He’s about on a level with Christine O’Donnell, but where’s his coverage? Has he dropped out of the race? If Alvin Greene gets any coverage at all from the MSM, it’s to further delineate his shortcomings as a candidate (as if further demonstration of this is necessary) or to provide some comic relief for a news anchor. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Alvin Greene should get the same treatment as O’Donnell. I’m saying that O’Donnell should be receiving the same treatment as Greene. Minus the humor. There’s no shortage of outlets, on all varieties of media, that will be more than happy to take care of that. The election of any public official, especially that of a United States Senator, is a serious issue, and should be treated as such by news producers, anchors, and reporters. Again, just the facts, please.
Participant[quote=flu]It’s interesting that MSM is executing the backlash now…Bah bah…Just a bunch of fair weather fans in MSM…..[/quote]
The MSM’s been doing this for at least 15 years now. In fact, I addressed this phenomenon last night in a post on the “Sanity/Fear Rally” thread. They bought into the far right’s claim that they were biased, and they’ve been trying to prove ever since then that they’re not. To that end, they’ve soft-soaped, or completely ignored, Republican misdeeds, and blown Democratic ones way out of proportion on many occasions.
I’m sure that their executives were concerned about their shrinking numbers of readers/ viewers/ listeners, and changed their editorial policies accordingly, instead of critically analyzing the data to determine other reasons for the falling demographics. I can, perhaps, understand their attitude at the beginning of this phenomenon: shocked by the rapid rise in popularity of Fox News and other far-right slanted media outlets (namely talk radio), they panicked and responded reflexively by trying to prove that they also were fair and balanced. But it’s many years later, and they should see clearly now that, no matter what they do, die-hard right-wing consumers aren’t going to switch back.
I’m not saying that there was a complete lack of liberal bias on the part of the media prior to the 90s. There was. But it was not anywhere close to the degree that the right claims. History shows that, while reporters of that era were overwhelmingly liberal in their personal outlook, owners and publishers of media outlets (who have the final say over what is printed and broadcast) were at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
The far right’s attitude is that if media releases information about the misdeeds of one of their political figures, that’s bias. I’m not blaming them for their way of thinking. I believe it is naive and immature of them, and certainly indicative of a lack of intellect, but they’re human. But I do blame the media for abdicating their responsibility, which is to report the news. Plain and simple.
My attitude is this: I’ll have an order of facts, hold the commentary and opinion, please. If someone in Congress or the White house or on a campaign staff somewhere has fucked up, tell me about it. Again, just the facts. I’ll form my own opinion.
The media’s continuing to bend over backward to prove their lack of bias has never been more apparent than in the current election coverage. We have a cast of characters that probably shouldn’t be permitted to have driver’s licenses, much less a seat in Congress. But because of the media’s reluctance to appear as though they have a liberal bias, we have a woman in Delaware that could very possibly be their next Senator who, putting aside her questionable mental health status, has an extremely spotty employment record that demonstrates no recognizable career path, and an equally spotty record of fiscal responsibility, having issues with delinquencies on financial obligations and with repeated misuse of campaign funds. There is absolutely nothing in this woman’s background that, in the least, qualifies her for any public office, much less the one she is seeking. She’s running against a candidate with stellar educational accomplishments, a career as a corporate lawyer, election to two 4-year terms as county executive (New Castle County has 500,000 residents, 64% of Delaware’s total), and has also found time to volunteer for charities providing relief to the less fortunate. What about this woman would indicate that she is deserving of 47% of poll share? I understand that the people who support her (say they) want change in the government, more fiscal responsibility, closer adherence to constitutional law…..but why in the world would they think that this woman is, in any way, qualified and able to achieve these things?
A big part of the problem is the media. For fear of appearing to have a liberal bias, they treat these people on the same level as they do candidates who have impressive work and educational backgrounds and accomplishments, and who are intelligent and well-spoken. Every one of the crazy or outright stupid things that Christine O’Donnell has done or said has been glossed over by the mainstream media, and she is being presented as Chris Coons’ equal. I’m sorry, but that is not fulfilling their responsibility as the Fourth Estate.
My proof that this is part of a misguided effort to appear fair and balanced to the far right? Alvin Greene. He’s about on a level with Christine O’Donnell, but where’s his coverage? Has he dropped out of the race? If Alvin Greene gets any coverage at all from the MSM, it’s to further delineate his shortcomings as a candidate (as if further demonstration of this is necessary) or to provide some comic relief for a news anchor. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Alvin Greene should get the same treatment as O’Donnell. I’m saying that O’Donnell should be receiving the same treatment as Greene. Minus the humor. There’s no shortage of outlets, on all varieties of media, that will be more than happy to take care of that. The election of any public official, especially that of a United States Senator, is a serious issue, and should be treated as such by news producers, anchors, and reporters. Again, just the facts, please.
Participant[quote=flu]It’s interesting that MSM is executing the backlash now…Bah bah…Just a bunch of fair weather fans in MSM…..[/quote]
The MSM’s been doing this for at least 15 years now. In fact, I addressed this phenomenon last night in a post on the “Sanity/Fear Rally” thread. They bought into the far right’s claim that they were biased, and they’ve been trying to prove ever since then that they’re not. To that end, they’ve soft-soaped, or completely ignored, Republican misdeeds, and blown Democratic ones way out of proportion on many occasions.
I’m sure that their executives were concerned about their shrinking numbers of readers/ viewers/ listeners, and changed their editorial policies accordingly, instead of critically analyzing the data to determine other reasons for the falling demographics. I can, perhaps, understand their attitude at the beginning of this phenomenon: shocked by the rapid rise in popularity of Fox News and other far-right slanted media outlets (namely talk radio), they panicked and responded reflexively by trying to prove that they also were fair and balanced. But it’s many years later, and they should see clearly now that, no matter what they do, die-hard right-wing consumers aren’t going to switch back.
I’m not saying that there was a complete lack of liberal bias on the part of the media prior to the 90s. There was. But it was not anywhere close to the degree that the right claims. History shows that, while reporters of that era were overwhelmingly liberal in their personal outlook, owners and publishers of media outlets (who have the final say over what is printed and broadcast) were at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
The far right’s attitude is that if media releases information about the misdeeds of one of their political figures, that’s bias. I’m not blaming them for their way of thinking. I believe it is naive and immature of them, and certainly indicative of a lack of intellect, but they’re human. But I do blame the media for abdicating their responsibility, which is to report the news. Plain and simple.
My attitude is this: I’ll have an order of facts, hold the commentary and opinion, please. If someone in Congress or the White house or on a campaign staff somewhere has fucked up, tell me about it. Again, just the facts. I’ll form my own opinion.
The media’s continuing to bend over backward to prove their lack of bias has never been more apparent than in the current election coverage. We have a cast of characters that probably shouldn’t be permitted to have driver’s licenses, much less a seat in Congress. But because of the media’s reluctance to appear as though they have a liberal bias, we have a woman in Delaware that could very possibly be their next Senator who, putting aside her questionable mental health status, has an extremely spotty employment record that demonstrates no recognizable career path, and an equally spotty record of fiscal responsibility, having issues with delinquencies on financial obligations and with repeated misuse of campaign funds. There is absolutely nothing in this woman’s background that, in the least, qualifies her for any public office, much less the one she is seeking. She’s running against a candidate with stellar educational accomplishments, a career as a corporate lawyer, election to two 4-year terms as county executive (New Castle County has 500,000 residents, 64% of Delaware’s total), and has also found time to volunteer for charities providing relief to the less fortunate. What about this woman would indicate that she is deserving of 47% of poll share? I understand that the people who support her (say they) want change in the government, more fiscal responsibility, closer adherence to constitutional law…..but why in the world would they think that this woman is, in any way, qualified and able to achieve these things?
A big part of the problem is the media. For fear of appearing to have a liberal bias, they treat these people on the same level as they do candidates who have impressive work and educational backgrounds and accomplishments, and who are intelligent and well-spoken. Every one of the crazy or outright stupid things that Christine O’Donnell has done or said has been glossed over by the mainstream media, and she is being presented as Chris Coons’ equal. I’m sorry, but that is not fulfilling their responsibility as the Fourth Estate.
My proof that this is part of a misguided effort to appear fair and balanced to the far right? Alvin Greene. He’s about on a level with Christine O’Donnell, but where’s his coverage? Has he dropped out of the race? If Alvin Greene gets any coverage at all from the MSM, it’s to further delineate his shortcomings as a candidate (as if further demonstration of this is necessary) or to provide some comic relief for a news anchor. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Alvin Greene should get the same treatment as O’Donnell. I’m saying that O’Donnell should be receiving the same treatment as Greene. Minus the humor. There’s no shortage of outlets, on all varieties of media, that will be more than happy to take care of that. The election of any public official, especially that of a United States Senator, is a serious issue, and should be treated as such by news producers, anchors, and reporters. Again, just the facts, please.
Participant[quote=flu]It’s interesting that MSM is executing the backlash now…Bah bah…Just a bunch of fair weather fans in MSM…..[/quote]
The MSM’s been doing this for at least 15 years now. In fact, I addressed this phenomenon last night in a post on the “Sanity/Fear Rally” thread. They bought into the far right’s claim that they were biased, and they’ve been trying to prove ever since then that they’re not. To that end, they’ve soft-soaped, or completely ignored, Republican misdeeds, and blown Democratic ones way out of proportion on many occasions.
I’m sure that their executives were concerned about their shrinking numbers of readers/ viewers/ listeners, and changed their editorial policies accordingly, instead of critically analyzing the data to determine other reasons for the falling demographics. I can, perhaps, understand their attitude at the beginning of this phenomenon: shocked by the rapid rise in popularity of Fox News and other far-right slanted media outlets (namely talk radio), they panicked and responded reflexively by trying to prove that they also were fair and balanced. But it’s many years later, and they should see clearly now that, no matter what they do, die-hard right-wing consumers aren’t going to switch back.
I’m not saying that there was a complete lack of liberal bias on the part of the media prior to the 90s. There was. But it was not anywhere close to the degree that the right claims. History shows that, while reporters of that era were overwhelmingly liberal in their personal outlook, owners and publishers of media outlets (who have the final say over what is printed and broadcast) were at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
The far right’s attitude is that if media releases information about the misdeeds of one of their political figures, that’s bias. I’m not blaming them for their way of thinking. I believe it is naive and immature of them, and certainly indicative of a lack of intellect, but they’re human. But I do blame the media for abdicating their responsibility, which is to report the news. Plain and simple.
My attitude is this: I’ll have an order of facts, hold the commentary and opinion, please. If someone in Congress or the White house or on a campaign staff somewhere has fucked up, tell me about it. Again, just the facts. I’ll form my own opinion.
The media’s continuing to bend over backward to prove their lack of bias has never been more apparent than in the current election coverage. We have a cast of characters that probably shouldn’t be permitted to have driver’s licenses, much less a seat in Congress. But because of the media’s reluctance to appear as though they have a liberal bias, we have a woman in Delaware that could very possibly be their next Senator who, putting aside her questionable mental health status, has an extremely spotty employment record that demonstrates no recognizable career path, and an equally spotty record of fiscal responsibility, having issues with delinquencies on financial obligations and with repeated misuse of campaign funds. There is absolutely nothing in this woman’s background that, in the least, qualifies her for any public office, much less the one she is seeking. She’s running against a candidate with stellar educational accomplishments, a career as a corporate lawyer, election to two 4-year terms as county executive (New Castle County has 500,000 residents, 64% of Delaware’s total), and has also found time to volunteer for charities providing relief to the less fortunate. What about this woman would indicate that she is deserving of 47% of poll share? I understand that the people who support her (say they) want change in the government, more fiscal responsibility, closer adherence to constitutional law…..but why in the world would they think that this woman is, in any way, qualified and able to achieve these things?
A big part of the problem is the media. For fear of appearing to have a liberal bias, they treat these people on the same level as they do candidates who have impressive work and educational backgrounds and accomplishments, and who are intelligent and well-spoken. Every one of the crazy or outright stupid things that Christine O’Donnell has done or said has been glossed over by the mainstream media, and she is being presented as Chris Coons’ equal. I’m sorry, but that is not fulfilling their responsibility as the Fourth Estate.
My proof that this is part of a misguided effort to appear fair and balanced to the far right? Alvin Greene. He’s about on a level with Christine O’Donnell, but where’s his coverage? Has he dropped out of the race? If Alvin Greene gets any coverage at all from the MSM, it’s to further delineate his shortcomings as a candidate (as if further demonstration of this is necessary) or to provide some comic relief for a news anchor. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Alvin Greene should get the same treatment as O’Donnell. I’m saying that O’Donnell should be receiving the same treatment as Greene. Minus the humor. There’s no shortage of outlets, on all varieties of media, that will be more than happy to take care of that. The election of any public official, especially that of a United States Senator, is a serious issue, and should be treated as such by news producers, anchors, and reporters. Again, just the facts, please.
Participant[quote=flu]It’s interesting that MSM is executing the backlash now…Bah bah…Just a bunch of fair weather fans in MSM…..[/quote]
The MSM’s been doing this for at least 15 years now. In fact, I addressed this phenomenon last night in a post on the “Sanity/Fear Rally” thread. They bought into the far right’s claim that they were biased, and they’ve been trying to prove ever since then that they’re not. To that end, they’ve soft-soaped, or completely ignored, Republican misdeeds, and blown Democratic ones way out of proportion on many occasions.
I’m sure that their executives were concerned about their shrinking numbers of readers/ viewers/ listeners, and changed their editorial policies accordingly, instead of critically analyzing the data to determine other reasons for the falling demographics. I can, perhaps, understand their attitude at the beginning of this phenomenon: shocked by the rapid rise in popularity of Fox News and other far-right slanted media outlets (namely talk radio), they panicked and responded reflexively by trying to prove that they also were fair and balanced. But it’s many years later, and they should see clearly now that, no matter what they do, die-hard right-wing consumers aren’t going to switch back.
I’m not saying that there was a complete lack of liberal bias on the part of the media prior to the 90s. There was. But it was not anywhere close to the degree that the right claims. History shows that, while reporters of that era were overwhelmingly liberal in their personal outlook, owners and publishers of media outlets (who have the final say over what is printed and broadcast) were at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
The far right’s attitude is that if media releases information about the misdeeds of one of their political figures, that’s bias. I’m not blaming them for their way of thinking. I believe it is naive and immature of them, and certainly indicative of a lack of intellect, but they’re human. But I do blame the media for abdicating their responsibility, which is to report the news. Plain and simple.
My attitude is this: I’ll have an order of facts, hold the commentary and opinion, please. If someone in Congress or the White house or on a campaign staff somewhere has fucked up, tell me about it. Again, just the facts. I’ll form my own opinion.
The media’s continuing to bend over backward to prove their lack of bias has never been more apparent than in the current election coverage. We have a cast of characters that probably shouldn’t be permitted to have driver’s licenses, much less a seat in Congress. But because of the media’s reluctance to appear as though they have a liberal bias, we have a woman in Delaware that could very possibly be their next Senator who, putting aside her questionable mental health status, has an extremely spotty employment record that demonstrates no recognizable career path, and an equally spotty record of fiscal responsibility, having issues with delinquencies on financial obligations and with repeated misuse of campaign funds. There is absolutely nothing in this woman’s background that, in the least, qualifies her for any public office, much less the one she is seeking. She’s running against a candidate with stellar educational accomplishments, a career as a corporate lawyer, election to two 4-year terms as county executive (New Castle County has 500,000 residents, 64% of Delaware’s total), and has also found time to volunteer for charities providing relief to the less fortunate. What about this woman would indicate that she is deserving of 47% of poll share? I understand that the people who support her (say they) want change in the government, more fiscal responsibility, closer adherence to constitutional law…..but why in the world would they think that this woman is, in any way, qualified and able to achieve these things?
A big part of the problem is the media. For fear of appearing to have a liberal bias, they treat these people on the same level as they do candidates who have impressive work and educational backgrounds and accomplishments, and who are intelligent and well-spoken. Every one of the crazy or outright stupid things that Christine O’Donnell has done or said has been glossed over by the mainstream media, and she is being presented as Chris Coons’ equal. I’m sorry, but that is not fulfilling their responsibility as the Fourth Estate.
My proof that this is part of a misguided effort to appear fair and balanced to the far right? Alvin Greene. He’s about on a level with Christine O’Donnell, but where’s his coverage? Has he dropped out of the race? If Alvin Greene gets any coverage at all from the MSM, it’s to further delineate his shortcomings as a candidate (as if further demonstration of this is necessary) or to provide some comic relief for a news anchor. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Alvin Greene should get the same treatment as O’Donnell. I’m saying that O’Donnell should be receiving the same treatment as Greene. Minus the humor. There’s no shortage of outlets, on all varieties of media, that will be more than happy to take care of that. The election of any public official, especially that of a United States Senator, is a serious issue, and should be treated as such by news producers, anchors, and reporters. Again, just the facts, please.
Participant[quote=DriveByLurker]Is KMmart even pretending to be a retail business anymore, or have they come clean and admitted that they were always just a front for an experiment to measure the long term effects of bad fluorescent lighting on cheap Chinese thermoplastics?[/quote]
DBL, if you knew anything about merchandising aesthetics, you’d realize that bad fluorescent lighting is the ONLY thing that will bring out the true sleaziness that is the hallmark of the very best cheap Asian thermoplastics. And nobody can do it like the masters at Kmart, right down to the degree to which they loosen the light tubes to cause that Morse code-like flashing. It’s actually a subliminal consumer message for shopping addicts.
Participant[quote=DriveByLurker]Is KMmart even pretending to be a retail business anymore, or have they come clean and admitted that they were always just a front for an experiment to measure the long term effects of bad fluorescent lighting on cheap Chinese thermoplastics?[/quote]
DBL, if you knew anything about merchandising aesthetics, you’d realize that bad fluorescent lighting is the ONLY thing that will bring out the true sleaziness that is the hallmark of the very best cheap Asian thermoplastics. And nobody can do it like the masters at Kmart, right down to the degree to which they loosen the light tubes to cause that Morse code-like flashing. It’s actually a subliminal consumer message for shopping addicts.
Participant[quote=DriveByLurker]Is KMmart even pretending to be a retail business anymore, or have they come clean and admitted that they were always just a front for an experiment to measure the long term effects of bad fluorescent lighting on cheap Chinese thermoplastics?[/quote]
DBL, if you knew anything about merchandising aesthetics, you’d realize that bad fluorescent lighting is the ONLY thing that will bring out the true sleaziness that is the hallmark of the very best cheap Asian thermoplastics. And nobody can do it like the masters at Kmart, right down to the degree to which they loosen the light tubes to cause that Morse code-like flashing. It’s actually a subliminal consumer message for shopping addicts.
-
AuthorPosts