olyclimber Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 the truth is relative jay, you know that. we all live in separate realities. as a man of science surely you already knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Question for Wolfie: DOes Rupert Murdock have any political agenda or is he simply a bottom line kind of guy? One could easily ask the same of Arthur Sulzberger, or any other media chief... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemoreJugs Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I think the true crux of the real issue was briefly mentioned, contradicted, and the brushed aside. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. All of it; NYT, CNN, Fox News, you name it. I am sure most if not all of the rank and file reporters truly believe they are reporting the news in a fair and balanced way. But the rank and file reporters are not pulling the strings. The man is. And the man says report it so we make money; the truth, the details, the facts DO NOT MATTER, and the only this that matters is the money It is all a bunch of over sensationalized poopy diapers Sorry, that's too simplistic. Just like saying Iraq is "ALL ABOUT OIL". There are multiple factors coming into play, partly related to money (driving the direction of news reporting - what topics to cover). But once a topic is deemed "newsworthy", then other biases come into play. And "THE MAN" is not completely to blame for the first part. WE ARE. If the news were erudite, well-done, and went far beyond sound bites... people would not watch. It's the collective ADD of the American public. Now you are beginning to make some sense. I mean, who can watch CSPAN for more than about 15 minutes without falling asleep. But its there. If you have the attention span, and can suffer through the minutae that comes with government, there is substance there. But again, no one watches that stuff. Who has the time in this day and age? How many people actually read more than a few paragraphs into any newspaper article? For the record, I usually do. And then you get down to voting for a candidate; let's face it, it is quite unlikely that a single person's vote matters. IF you really stand for a certain candidate, you are much better serving the democratic process by joining the campaign and influencing other people's votes. Otherwise, is it really worth the effort to do extensive research into a candidate's voting record, and whatnot? Anyone know of any good websites that consolidate this kind of information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 IF you really stand for a certain candidate, you are much better serving the democratic process by joining the campaign and influencing other people's votes. Otherwise, is it really worth the effort to do extensive research into a candidate's voting record, and whatnot? But even if you know what a candidate claims to stand for, does he really? Don't politicians lie regularly, flip-flop, "evolve", whatever you want to call it? And does the president really run the show? Isn't he beholden to his party, interest groups and supporters. Doesn't the cabinet and staff/advisors in total really run the show? Considering all that, whom we vote for is more about our "gut feeling" about the person and his affiliations/people behind the scenes, and history. At least for the primary. For the general election it is more about voting "against" the person you have less trust in, or whose affiliations/interests/interest you reject the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 50% of a democracy is voting against someone. But that is not what this thread is about now is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I think the political coverage is actually getting worse. Even NPR and PBS seem gripped by the horse race aspect or the latest "who-gives-a-rats-ass" fact, like the weepy Clinton story, instead of issues, needs, and analysis. As far as the general media - there is no liberal media in the US. And KK is correct about a controlling political machine. Both come down to money these days. Our political system is broken. Without sidling up to corporations with deep pockets you don't have a chance in getting your voice heard. Many folks say the internet is our salvation for new stories, but there is little, if any investigative reporting done by web sources. This is still done by large print organizations. The web is good for rehashing, opinion, and naval fuzz contemplation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Articulating a message that doesn't resonate with the electorate is something quite different from not "getting your voice heard." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Articulating a message that doesn't resonate with the electorate is something quite different from not "getting your voice heard." Articulating a message that does not sell advertising is the same as not getting your voice heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 "Political coverage is mostly about the horserace. Boo hoo." GAWD! The horserace is the only news, people! What else do you want the damn news to report? For each candidate each day they could write, "Senator XXX gave another three speeches today in which he/she presented successive paragraphs of feelgood focus-group-tested generalities, a few feelbad focus-group-tested generalities, peppered with a couple of negative specifics about the voting record of the latest frontrunner/nearest competitor." And it would be true, but uninteresting. And certainly not "news" [comes from the root word, "new".] If you really want more depth, you can get it. The internet is great that way. There are often "fact checker" pieces on NYTimes.com and Washingtonpost.com. Probably even on those nasty Republican sites too. But it's too much to distill for a headline or the top-of-the-hour 7 minute newsbreak. What do you want for these spots? In depth analysis? I think some people's expectations are a tad bit high here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 As far as the general media - there is no liberal media in the US. What about "Air America"? Are they still around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Without sidling up to corporations with deep pockets you don't have a chance in getting your voice heard. Again, an oversimplification. Corporations have a huge influence but don't account for everything that goes on in politics - not even close. And aren't you conveniently ignoring the role of unions, non-profits, and others? As for the system being "broken". Was it ever substantively better? Was there ever a time in this country or in any other democracy in the history of the world, where the poltical process was free of all influences of the rich, "corporations", etc? Politics is all about the interconnections between power, wealth, and control and always has been. Democracy does not make this go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 You're correct on the historial aspect. But yes, I think the concentration of wealth today is analogous to the Gilded Age with similar influences on the political system. One example - debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters - now run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is run by the former heads of the Democratic NP and the Republican NP, with very strong corporate, chamber of commerce ties. What difference does this make? They set the criteria for being able to get into the national debates, and make it very hard for Third Party candidates to get in. Combined with the two-party lock on how to become eligible for a national election in the states and even moneied thrid party candidates can't get in. It could be worse I suppose, but it could be a heck of a lot better. And the general public bears some responsibility for swallowing anthing that's thrown their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 One example - debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters - now run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is run by the former heads of the Democratic NP and the Republican NP, with very strong corporate, chamber of commerce ties. What difference does this make? They set the criteria for being able to get into the national debates, and make it very hard for Third Party candidates to get in. Combined with the two-party lock on how to become eligible for a national election in the states and even moneied thrid party candidates can't get in. I agree with this. And it seems like this is something which could actually be reformed. Another thing that irks me is the way primaries are run and scheduled. The structure and schedule benefits the parties, and not the voter. This year some states tried to move up their primaries to have more influence and were smacked down by the parties. I believe Michigan is one - and only Hillary is on the ballet there? And wasn't it the case that the conventions used to actually mean something? There was still some debate and uncertainty at the convention? But now the things are rigged so they are merely a place to grandstand and coronate the party leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Per your first comment. I think that you are constructing an imaginary public that responds to your imaginary representation of the media in an imaginary way. Neither the news coverage, nor the average person's parsing of it correspond terribly well with the picture you've constructed. In the second case it seems to me that for as long as I can remember, the gist of the reporting concerning CO2 emissions and global warming was that the scientific debate was largely settled, and the question was no longer if CO2 emissions are driving a warming of the atmosphere, but questions concerning projected rates of warming, etc were still the topic of ongoing debate. Even amongst those who hold the same opinion on this matter, there's still the matter of the optimal policy response, who should pay for it, etc. IMO the manifold deficiencies of the media are a bit of a red-herring. What really bothers you is that people can evaluate the same information, and come to conclusions or hold opinions that differ from your own (which is presumably infallible). Instead of accepting this and dealing with this much more complicated and difficult-to-change reality, it seems like you've constructed your own simplified narrative as a kind of coping mechanism. Corrupt-media + sheeple incapable of independent thought = public programmed to believe falsehoods.* *falsehood in this case = conclusions/opinions that differ in any fashion from those held by mattp. Typical snide retort there, Jay, but do you really think the newspapers and TV and Radio are presenting the present course of the war in a fair manner? We're both left to speculate about what is really going on over there because we both know we can't trust the media and, yes, two different consumers can draw twenty-two different conclusions -- but are you suggesting the coverage is either accurate or fair? I'm not quite sure you are or are not saying that. As to the climate change point (or distinction) you try to make, are you REALLY arguing that the mainstream media portrayal of this matter the last ten years has suggested that the question whether humans were causing climate change was settled and the only question was how fast? What have you been smoking? And then your last jab: you can do better, Jay. Clearly you and I both know that there have been plenty of "falsehoods" perpetrated or promoted by the media in this country in recent years, and perhaps throughout our history. In my opinion it is not so much a matter of a corrupt media (though I think there is some of that) as a tilted playing field and I think some of the others here who suggested that a sitting administration or the rich or the otherwise powerful can heavily influence our national dialog are certainly correct. Sometimes, too, I think the "liberal media" bends over backward to be "fair" in response to criticism of bias - to the point of erring the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I think God will come soon and sort it all out. Lock the thread now Feck. Actually, I beleive we are in a exceptionally dark period of history as far as media control and propoganda goes. The primary reason for this as I see it is the effect of special interest groups in Washington especially the really big ones like the Drug companies, Insurance companies, and oil and banking although the majority stockholder list of the last two are pretty much the same. But we are also at the apex of the TV age. Our attention span is very short and we are easily distracted. Throw a few cool movies about good vs evil out there, launch a smear campaign against a people or country (Iran currently), and strut around like Shane in the wild, wild west. Reagan was the all time master of this. Bush is a dim shadow. But as aresult of the consistent erosion of civil liberties we are creeping further and further away from a "free" country. I am a firm beleiver in the two/multi-party system but I think the republican party has veered way to far to the right and is now in facist territory. I think McCain and Huckabee are "old style republicans. Meanwhile, the democrats have conducted their affairs from a stance of fear. "Oh my God. We might loose an election!" and so they fail to lead. The flipping and flopping leaves them looking like what they are, politicians. We need some strong leaders with traditional party values to emerge and I am not seeing them on either side. Republicans used to be fiscally conservative. Now they spend us into the poor house and it was Clinton who paid down the debt. Bush has blown it up again. Democrats used be the champions of social morals. Now they have rejected change/adjustment to the welfare system for so long that IT has become a major problem. And so forth. I will vote for the person I think is most likely to bring about campaign finance reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I am a firm beleiver in the two/multi-party system but I think the republican party has veered way to far to the right and is now in facist territory. I laugh every time I hear this. Both parties have moved to the LEFT in the past 50 years. Right now the Republicans arguably occupy roughly the same spot on the political spectrum where the democrats stood circa the Kennedy presidency. And don't start up about "the religious right". Religion played a lot bigger role in both parties 45 years ago than it does today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I am a firm beleiver in the two/multi-party system but I think the republican party has veered way to far to the right and is now in facist territory. I laugh every time I hear this. Both parties have moved to the LEFT in the past 50 years. Right now the Republicans arguably occupy roughly the same spot on the political spectrum where the democrats stood circa the Kennedy presidency. And don't start up about "the religious right". Religion played a lot bigger role in both parties 45 years ago than it does today. I am talking about the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of rights (or lack thereof). Check the history of the supreme court including the dissenting opinions. We have shifted away from a long held beleif in and judicial support of personal liberties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 KJK is referring to the parties' stated positions on - what? - gay rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 No, according to an interviewee heard recently on NPR's "Democracy Now" program, the Clinton administration still holds the dubious title on that score. I asked for more information on this yesterday. Do you remember any details of what he said, or who the speaker was? My impression is that the Clinton administration was targetted much more aggressively by Congressional investigations,"watch dog" groups, and general flame throwing than Bush has ever been (especially considering the actual known felonies committed within the White House)and I'm surprised I haven't heard this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 ... I think McCain and Huckabee are "old style republicans. Meanwhile, the democrats have conducted their affairs from a stance of fear. "Oh my God. We might loose an election!" and so they fail to lead. The flipping and flopping leaves them looking like what they are, politicians. We need some strong leaders with traditional party values to emerge and I am not seeing them on either side. Colin Powell, Where are you when your countrie needs you the most? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Powell fell on his sword and hasn't been heard from since. I don't blame him. If he is a man of character, as we are led to believe, he got screwed and can't have been left with a burning desire to participate in National politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Powell fell on his sword and hasn't been heard from since. I don't blame him. If he is a man of character, as we are led to believe, he got screwed and can't have been left with a burning desire to participate in National politics. Exactly my point. No Politic, all leadership. Go in, Kick some DC Asses, and give our country back to the people! No politics. No flip floping. No trying to play the middel ground off of the extreems. It aint over yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 He was a good soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.