More CNN Bullshit

[Fairweather]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/broken.government/

 

"Fair and Balanced" never did apply to CNN. Why are they running this multi-day special just a week before a national election? Note the title of the series, "Broken Government - Where the Right Went Wrong." Gimme a break. Clearly partisan - much more so than anything I've ever seen on FOX. And clearly meant to sway voters to a particular party. Hey Crux! Do you think that editors and execs at CNN should be jailed and fined like you did when ABC aired The Path to 9/11?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/broken.government/

 

"Fair and Balanced" never did apply to CNN. Why are they running this multi-day special just a week before a national election? Note the title of the series, "Broken Government - Where the Right Went Wrong." Gimme a break. Clearly partisan - much more so than anything I've ever seen on FOX. And clearly meant to sway voters to a particular party. Hey Crux! Do you think that editors and execs at CNN should be jailed and fined like you did when ABC aired The Path to 9/11?

 

And yet the liberals repeatedly deny there is a media bias.

[Dave_Schuldt]

So FW what do you think of Fox?

[cj001f]

So FW what do you think of Fox?

 

Real straight shooters. Management potential.

[mattp]

I have not followed Fairweather's link, but I wonder if it is "partisan" to run stories about the weakness of a Republican agenda that has clearly led this country astray. Isn't that a significant issue in this election?

 

I share KK's cynicism that he expressed in another thread that we're fooling ourselves if we think a shift in balance in favor of the Democrats is going to change the disastrous course we're on as a nation, but c'mon: the Republiklan playbook has been utter disaster. This constant drum beat of "we gotta take the war to the terrorists before they bring it over here" and "gays threaten the institution of marriage" has been an obvious pack of lies from the beginning and a clear attempt to divert attention away from real discussion of whether this or that foreign policy or fiscal policy is a good idea.

 

Over the last week we've seen the White House deny that "stay the course" was their policy, or even that President Bush ever used the phrase more than eight times. We've seen reports that the N. Koreans "unconditionally" agreed to return to the six party talks when it looks as if a "condition" of that return was that the talks would in part address last year's economic sanctions in response to their counterfit US currency scheme. Or take this Kerry story: the President wants to make hay bashing Kerry over what may have been a clumsy statement, but can anybody really deny that a large segment of our military volunteers DO sign up because they lack better alternatives? Didn't they relax educational requirements specifically because of the difficulty signing up new volunteers - or at least talk about doing so? Don't the recruiters target economically stressed communities? Tvash in another thread pointed out that it is not all poor or uneducated people who sign up for the military, but certainly this is a large pool of applicants.

 

What is "liberal" about an institution that actively supports - without rarely any question - such obvious distortion of the issues, whether by Democrats or Republicans?

[ashw_justin]

Partisan politics are retarded. How did we let them happen? Now we have a self-reinforcing binary system where the smartest thing someone can say is 'Democrat' or 'Republican.' When and why did we let these stupid fucks team up and start ignoring us?

 

It is time to secularize politics from partisanship. They could start by banning party affiliations from being printed on any government document (such as ballots and voters pamphlets). This isn't a fucking football game people. There are more than two sides.

 

ps. your first mistake was thinking you could get news by watching the TV.

[JayB]

That's an conglomeration of sentiments that you've commingled there, Matt. A hefty dose fatalism, wrapped in paranoia, inside a veneer of contempt. Sounds like Paul Ehrlich rocking back and forth in his nursing home bed after the meds have worn off.

 

The Republicans are leading the country to an unambiguous ruin in every regard, a Democratic congress won't substantially improve things, and the press is universally corrupted by nefarious powers who are out to decieve the public for their own advantage then the message is...we're all doomed? Sounds like an ethos that belongs on wild-eyed, heavily-bearded street prophet's sandwich-board than an agenda. Compared to what time in history? Compared to what country?

 

If the Democrats do take over, I will no doubt be relieved to find that most of them who succeed in winning office will for the most part be people who, despite all of the faults and shortcomings that they share with the rest of humanity, people who are prepared to engage the world and the people that inhabit it as they are and work within that context to make some constructive changes - rather than pining for some utopian netherworld where political corruption doesn't exist, etc.

[cj001f]

JayB is quality contempt to the core; no veneer.

[Jim]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/broken.government/

 

"Fair and Balanced" never did apply to CNN. Why are they running this multi-day special just a week before a national election? Note the title of the series, "Broken Government - Where the Right Went Wrong." Gimme a break. Clearly partisan - much more so than anything I've ever seen on FOX. And clearly meant to sway voters to a particular party. Hey Crux! Do you think that editors and execs at CNN should be jailed and fined like you did when ABC aired The Path to 9/11?

 

Since I don't have cable I will not be able to judge this. The title is meant to sell, which is what mainstream news does. But yelling bias is the tactic often used by the rightwingers when the veil is pull off and the truth is exposed. I'd have some more sympathy if you actually came armed to a discussion with some facts. Otherwise it's more arm waving. The fictionalized 911 program is a poor comparison.

[mattp]

Jay, around here you are Mr.-sneer-and-contempt so I guess I take that part of your jab as a compliment. But just what are you saying? That the press has done its job? That I am naive or idealistic to think that Democracy is founded upon the premise of there being an informed electorate and real discussion of real issues? That we are not, as a nation, on a disastrous course toward economic ruin with our unbridled spending while borrowing so much from so many nations that are not likely to be extending a helping hand when we have trouble paying that debt? Or do you think our overall tough guy stance in global politics has been a good idea?

 

We can and will debate the politics of these and other issues but how is it that anybody could say that the "liberal press" has helped foster any true discussion of the real issues? I'm taking "liberal" in the classic sense - not some "liberal = Democrat" baloney.

[JayB]

Actually, I don't think that we are on a "disastrous course towards economic ruin," actually - and really don't think that starting with today's economic metrics and scrolling backwards in time, or contrasting them with any other society in the world at any time in history would support such a view, either. I don't think that the consensus amongst professional economists, much less economic historians, would support that contention either. There are some key problems that they would agree on, like the national debt, funding social security, etc - but I don't think that many would agree that they are to the point where the challenges presented by either can't be addressed by policy changes.

 

I don't think you'll find many people that disagree with the notion that we should have an informed electorate and a that a good education system and an impartial press are critical for bringing that about, but again - what are you comparing the current state of affairs to? We have access to more information from more sources than ever before, so if the electorate isn't informed it certainly isn't the media's fault. "The Economist" and "The New York Times, " and "The Wall Street Journal," and "Foreign Affairs," etc, etc, etc, etc don't concern themselves with substantive issues? The average person can't get their hands on these with a mouse-click or a trip to the news-stand? Do you really believe that your opinion about what constitutes a real discussion of the real issues constitutes some kind of platonic uber-truth, and any reporter or editor or citizen who has a set of concerns and opinions about what's significant that differs from your own is hopelessly deluded? I think that what really bothers you here is that there are people in the world who have beliefs or ideas about policy that are inconsistent with your own view, and the only way that this could possibly come about is through a corrupt media, supine populace, etc, etc, etc.

[cj001f]

I think that what really bothers you here is that there are people in the world who have beliefs or ideas about policy that are inconsistent with your own view, and the only way that this could possibly come about is through a corrupt media, supine populace, etc, etc, etc.

 

JayB - something like 30% of America believes we found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was cavorting with Osama. A good fact to base "Americans are stupid/can't be bothered to be informed" thoughts on. Well, that and talking to a majority of the sheeple on the street.

 

Perhaps you'd like to believe that a majority of the supporters of your political ideals have reached their opinions after belabored reading of the relevant philosophical tomes and cafe discussions. They haven't - and that applies to any party/belief system.

[underworld]

pick it apart as you will...but reports go both ways on this. link

 

whether it is true or not - people, like you, choose to believe their news source.

[JayB]

The percentage of people whose beliefs on free trade are pretty accurately summed up by this passage from Paul Krugman:

 

"The idea of comparative advantage -- with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both -- is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it. Yet anyone who becomes involved in discussions of international trade beyond the narrow circle of academic economists quickly realizes that it must be, in some sense, a very difficult concept indeed. I am not talking here about the problem of communicating the case for free trade to crudely anti-intellectual opponents, people who simply dislike the idea of ideas. The persistence of that sort of opposition, like the persistence of creationism, is a different sort of question, and requires a different sort of discussion. What I am concerned with here are the views of intellectuals, people who do value ideas, but somehow find this particular idea impossible to grasp."

 

Is probably pretty high. The odds are pretty good that most of them probably consider themselves both highly intelligent and impeccably informed on this issue, yet their beliefs are completely at odds with the best scholarly consensus.

 

The world is full of lots of smart people who believe things that are at odds with the best evidence and understanding, but the odds that they are uniformly wrong or massively misinformed about everything of any consequence is pretty low. I have met chemical engineers who are obviously incredibly intelligent, yet reject evolution out of hand. I think that asking a single question and using the response to gauge how well informed or intelligent a single person - much less an entire population is - is problematic at best. Even if you conclude that the entire population outside of yourself is a bunch of deluded, passive rubes - well - that's the raw material that anyone who wants to change things is going to have to deal with.

[cj001f]

Are you running for office JayB? You've got the tortured prose, contempt for populace but heartfelt desire "to help America, and mindless optimism necessary. Do you have the backstory? You could be the Obama conservative!

[JayB]

No, but if I were you the odds are good that I'd either be running for a tall bridge to leap from or a therapists couch to recline on.

[RuMR]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/broken.government/

 

"Fair and Balanced" never did apply to CNN. Why are they running this multi-day special just a week before a national election? Note the title of the series, "Broken Government - Where the Right Went Wrong." Gimme a break. Clearly partisan - much more so than anything I've ever seen on FOX. And clearly meant to sway voters to a particular party. Hey Crux! Do you think that editors and execs at CNN should be jailed and fined like you did when ABC aired The Path to 9/11?

man, you are such a whiny little bitch...can anyone say anything negative about shrub? You think he's done a good job, seriously???

[cj001f]

No, but if I were you the odds are good that I'd either be running for a tall bridge to leap from or a therapists couch to recline on.

 

ahh, so you are the next Ann Coulter

[underworld]

You think he's done a good job, seriously???

 

the diverse left just can't fathom it, that someone has a different opinion than theirs...

[tvashtarkatena]

There are too problems with Doomsday scenarios, economic or otherwise.

 

First, they discount the complex system of checks and balances that tend to resist change in any one direction. Take our debt, for example. Will it cause us problems? Sure. Will it destroy us? No, in part because our debt holders have a vested interest in keeping our economy healthy enough to a) pay our debt and b) buy their stuff and keep THEIR economy healthy. And no, because when the debt gets bad enough we will elect people who will decrease it.

 

Second, Doomsday doesn't sell well. The public at large would rather talk about solutions rather than how horrific their world is going to be in x number of years. Those who are NOT into solutions, who deny there is a problem at all, will exploit this to their political advantage, as the GOP so adeptly did after Vietnam.

 

The only world destroying problem I see facing humanity is global warming and its many unpredictable, and possibly catastrophic, consequences. But even under our present do-nothing administration we see solutions being implemented at lower levels of government and by the population at large. Bush's denial of the problem probably did more to increase awareness than any other single factor...because of the strong reaction to that denial.

 

This interlocking system of checks and balances has its analog in nature. Mass extinctions can and do occur, but they are rare due to complex systems that resist change in any one direction. Is the total downfall of America possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not really. Who would buy all that cheap Chinese crap? No one. Why am I talking like Donald Rumsfeld? I don't know.

[catbirdseat]

Nice post.

[JayB]

Nice post - but you have clearly been turned into an uncomprehending tool of the establishment by the corrupt media who is trying to divert your attention from the real issues while the country and the world plunge headlong into irreversible ruin.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nice post - but you have clearly been turned into an uncomprehending tool of the establishment by the corrupt media who is trying to divert your attention from the real issues while the country and the world plunge headlong into irreversible ruin.

 

If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.

[catbirdseat]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/broken.government/

 

"Fair and Balanced" never did apply to CNN. Why are they running this multi-day special just a week before a national election? Note the title of the series, "Broken Government - Where the Right Went Wrong." Gimme a break. Clearly partisan - much more so than anything I've ever seen on FOX. And clearly meant to sway voters to a particular party. Hey Crux! Do you think that editors and execs at CNN should be jailed and fined like you did when ABC aired The Path to 9/11?

91% think Government is Broken? That's amazing, and it is a result of of how the question is asked. I strongly believe that Government is NOT broken. People are just ready for a change. We have an election coming up and it is how the goverment will be brought back into line with the current desires of the populace.

[cj001f]

If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.

 

Do condoms count as boots?