Democrats trying to scare America

[Hugh Conway]

Is that last part a dodge? I don't believe she has ever suggested 1st amendment violations exist in the slanted media portrayals of she and her family.

 

She just did!

 

If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html

[billcoe]

democrats trying to scare America

 

YOU TALKIN ABOUT BIDEN TAKIN ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OBAMA BEING ELECTED?

[STP]

If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.

 

[video:youtube]epMeGr-wDc0

Fast forward to about 2:40.

 

Then, look at this: http://www.polyguardvaults.com/index.cfm?ID=9

 

Then, check out the aerial shot and zoom in: 33°33'57.36"N 83°29'6.26"W

 

Happy Halloween!!

[billcoe]

"We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself!"

 

(Until the Taliban takes over Pakiscracistan and drops a nuk on us, then we shall have other fears:-( )

[rob]

The republicans are the KINGS of scare tactics.

 

Telling people that Obama will raise their taxes. Telling them that he's dangerous for America, rattling the threat of terrorism in front of everyone's face.

 

It's dispicable what old man McCain will do or say to win this election. He has sold his soul, and is just another evil, vacuous piece of shit politician. The sooner we're rid of people like him in government, the better.

[Doug]

And it was just a scant four years ago that the Republican party implied that a vote for Kerry was invitin' the terrists to attck us again.

[Phil K]

"The republicans are the KINGS of scare tactics.

 

Telling people that Obama will raise their taxes. Telling them that he's dangerous for America, rattling the threat of terrorism in front of everyone's face."

 

What I find (amazing/scary?) is that peoples are stupid enough to fall for this shite again. Yesterday while out running errands, I popped into a local Pawn Shop to look at used roto-hammers. There were 2 Kalishnikovs hanging on the wall, one w/ a bayonet. For finishing off the deer if'n you run out of bullets, I suppose. Feeling like creating a bit of a stir, I asked the proprietor if they had any Uzis available. "No, but we do have..... And you'd better get your guns soon before the Democrats take over the White House and Congress."

 

WTF dude, where do you get your information? Jeez. So I just told him how "plum fucking tickled" I was about how things have gone under Repug control on my way out the door.

 

I prolly should have ripped my BD Halfdome helmet in two w/ my bare hands for good measure.

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Hey FW,

 

If that's what the Stranger actually did (maliciously publish the address of that house) then somebody at the Stranger is a tasteless shithead. Fair is fair. Add one to the rest of the tasteless shitheads whose path to money and/or power depends on malicious abuse of the media. "They" may not have to stop, but we don't have to listen either.

 

(Hopefully for the Stranger, nobody fucked with the house...)

 

ps. this is not a "political" post and I couldn't care less about sign-posting

[mattp]

Palin: Obama “Tries to Exploit the Fears and the Worries” of Senior Citizens

by Shushannah Walshe

 

NEW PORT RICHEY, FL –Sarah Palin warned senior citizens in this Sunshine State crowd that Barack Obama is trying to fear monger among the elderly in Florida while the GOP ticket is committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare.

[Fairweather]

Hey FW,

 

If that's what the Stranger actually did (maliciously publish the address of that house) then somebody at the Stranger is a tasteless shithead. Fair is fair. Add one to the rest of the tasteless shitheads whose path to money and/or power depends on malicious abuse of the media. "They" may not have to stop, but we don't have to listen either.

 

(Hopefully for the Stranger, nobody fucked with the house...)

 

ps. this is not a "political" post and I couldn't care less about sign-posting

 

Good post, Justin. Unfortunately, some here believe tighter government control of the media is in order regarding AM radio and other formats. Any thoughts, Matt?

[STP]

With articles like the following: (Beginning of Hyperinflation ), it doesn't take partisan inspiration to fan the feelings of fear. [Regardless of the specifics of the article, the general outline appears applicable to the US. Of course, unless the opposite is true: Is the gold market sensing deflation? ]

 

I suspect despite who wins that person will be forced to take measures that are dictated by the circumstances, be it global as countries succumb to collapse or domestic as private sector unemployment grows.

 

So, in reality there may not be much significant difference in their responses. I mean, how do you account for actions like the $700 billion bailout under the current administration?

[Hugh Conway]

Good post, Justin. Unfortunately, some here believe tighter government control of the media is in order regarding AM radio and other formats. Any thoughts, Matt?

 

Papieren bitte!

[tvashtarkatena]

The Stranger is biased? I'm appalled.

 

Fox is biased? I'm appalled.

 

JEbus, why don't you take a STFU break, puppyfucker?

 

Poor lil' fella...

Edited November 2, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

Unfortunately, some here believe tighter government control of the media is in order regarding AM radio and other formats. Any thoughts, Matt?

 

I realize you find it absolutely incredible but I believe there is such a things as historical truth.

 

I once posted, after the path to 911 broadcast, that I thought TV executives who were responsible for a "news" documentary that deliberately misrepresented recent history should be held accountable. You keep harping on this, I assume because you thought that particular documentary was pretty good. How else can I reconcile your outrage over my statement on this point with your diatribes about NPR and the liberal media over the years?

 

Bottom line: I bet you and I both agree that certain standards apply, although you would limit "anti-American hate speech" or stories that "undermine the troops" while I would focus more on other issues like deliberately spreading lies to take us into a war or influence an election. As to enforcing those standards I'm not quite sure how it would could or should be done.

 

Should The Stranger have published the address of somebody with yard signs? I'm honestly not sure it matters much. Maybe this would lead somebody to drive over there and steal a sign or something but I doubt that the guy was really much threatened by somebody's attention being drawn to his yard or he probably wouldn't have posted all those signs in the first place. I have never been a fan of the Stranger's "edgy" journalsim and trash talking style, and I suspect it may have been that aspect of the story that drew your attention to the dangerous incitement of crime.

[mattp]

Don't worry: You'll still be able to watch non-stop right wing propaganda on FOX news.

 

Update (12:28AM, Nov. 3): On Sunday, John McCain launched the final attack of his campaign, a fraudulent assault on Barack Obama that serves as a fitting reminder of the fundamental dishonesty not only of his own campaign, but also of the dishonesty of his allies in the right-wing propaganda establishment: Matt Drudge and FOX News.

 

As much has I don't think they should be allowed to broadcast out and out lies as news stories, I have no idea what can be done about it.

 

Supreme Court to hear FCC appeal over dirty words

November 3, 2008

....Fox, NBC and other broadcasters say the FCC policy has interfered with their free-speech rights and caused widespread self-censorship...Fox lawyer Carter Phillips said the prospect of fines under the new policy could discourage network airing of live entertainment and sports broadcasts

[ashw_justin]

The day when we are certain that nobody is trying to deceive us, will be the day when we have been fully deceived. Tampering with the free press in any way that assures people that news reports are infallible and unbiased would be self-defeating, of course granting corrupting, illegitimate power to the tamperers.

 

Everything is a balance, people just need to deal with information warily and rationally. I think that the more ridiculous and contradictory the media gets, the more people will be inclined to step back and wonder just what they actually know. Of course that kind of depends on a rational, self-honest, questioning public.

 

Those in whom these traits don't dominate, are perhaps not interested in the truth, but rather an agreeable notion that satisfies some or all of their pre-conceptions (basically, religion). News and politics have an undeniably religious flavor, the effectiveness of which must owe to certain opposing human cognitive traits. The symbolism, the faith, the willingness, the need, to choose one of several more or less unverifiable accounts of reality to believe in. One could argue that a people suffering from this affliction deserve to be deceived, even beg for it. Something to believe in. Tonight @10. Wouldn't it be wrong to persecute Fox News and its audience from practicing their religion? (Of course I'm not just talking about Fox News.)

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey FW,

 

If that's what the Stranger actually did (maliciously publish the address of that house) then somebody at the Stranger is a tasteless shithead. Fair is fair. Add one to the rest of the tasteless shitheads whose path to money and/or power depends on malicious abuse of the media. "They" may not have to stop, but we don't have to listen either.

 

(Hopefully for the Stranger, nobody fucked with the house...)

 

ps. this is not a "political" post and I couldn't care less about sign-posting

 

Good post, Justin. Unfortunately, some here believe tighter government control of the media is in order regarding AM radio and other formats. Any thoughts, Matt?

 

Actually, you're the only creature here that's called for tighter control of media free speech. But then again, you like it tight, dontcha? Woof!

[mattp]

Fairweather referred here to one thread where, after the "road to 911" docuumentary I said I was disgusted by the lies presented therein and that those responsible should be held accountable. So in a sense I too have then and still now believe that we need some mechanism to curb lies in the news media.

 

I'm not sure how we'd go about this. In the case of a situation where there is an out and out false news story - like recent FOX stuff about Obama - is it sufficient remedy if the "liberal" media would run headlines saying "Fox news lied?" Maybe, but doesn't this just confuse everybody even more - further render our public discourse more meaningless than it already is?

 

One thing tried in the past was an FCC rule requiring balanced reporting on controversial issues. The "Fairness Doctrine" approach has been criticized by folks like FW because it is a restriction on free speech, but in my opinion rightly criticized on other grounds. As Arianna Huffington put it, it amounts to providing equal time for lies. Look at the global warming "debate." Every story in the news presented both sides for years after there was essentially no debate left.

 

I don't know if I would go very far to stand by my prior musing that maybe the individuals responsible for the lie should be fined or something, because we will have difficulty doing this in anything like a fair manner. However, something should be done about it if, for example, the New York Times were to run a headline that completely misrepresented what happened in Iraq today. My sense is that we are seeing an increasing trend toward lies being passed off as news and I think it is mostly happening on the conservative side but I don't harbor any illusions that avid partisanship or bias on the left can and sometimes does produce similar misrepresentation.

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Sure, maybe the media and government have become more dishonest, sensational, and for sale to special interests than before. However, we might also be waking up a little more as a culture to the idea that not all of the information that they put between the ads is a perfect substitute for a reality that we otherwise can't fully conceive of without significantly more awareness and research, if at all.

 

I can only hope that we're learning some new appreciation of the dangers of misinformation and the need to be skeptical of the talking heads that have nearly always worked to shape public opinion, consciously or unconsciously, for better or for worse. At the very least, for example, it would be nice if the next time an administration and the media that suckles at its teat [exaggerate|fabricate?] the pretense for something like an imperial foreign occupation*, we call the bullshit even louder (nationwide protests didn't seem to be enough?), and perhaps punish them a little more convincingly than by rewarding their deceit with a re-election.

 

(*sadly I don't think that anyone (except maybe McClellan?) is close to telling us any more of the truth than they thought we could handle, or needed to hear.)

[mattp]

I too can only hope that we're going to come out of this Iraq war debacle more vigilante about government lying to us, but as long as we accept that because our politics are so divided there doesn't seem to be much incentive for the media to point it out and I don't have much hope that most Americans are going to figure these things out on their own.

 

Meanwhile, as long as our news sources are going to continue lying to us in order to distort our politics I don't think that most people will ever know when future lies are told. Think about it: during the run-up to the Iraq war there were plenty of references to the fact that the hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia and not Iraq, or that the only people who had any current information about Saddam's weapons (UN inspectors) said he didn't have the nukes, yet half of all Americans still believed the opposite.

 

Are you thinking that maybe there will develop some alternate news source - the blogosphere maybe - and the American public will not stand for increased military posturing or bombing if a President McCain dishonestly accuses Mr. Dinnerjacket of manufacturing a nuclear weapon and his story is told by a mass media that doesn't want to get shut out of the press room?

[ashw_justin]

I am thinking that the more the government or the news-flavored media entertainment tries to mislead the American public, the greater chance there will be that the public will adapt into being less gullible, and less susceptible to propaganda as a consequence of excessive naive trust in information from sources that show themselves to be dishonest. So I am arguing that there is a silver lining to being misled or lied to, that is we are trained to recognize propaganda for what it is, and to see through it. This is an important point to me because I can't imagine a world without lies and half-truths.

 

Fox has already alienated a lot of people and gone pretty far to discredit itself. It seems like a lot of people don't take it seriously anymore, and seek other news sources which haven't shat as much in their own nests. I'd rather see Fox, or any other dubious purveyor of news-product, continue to hang itself, instead of the government getting more involved in deciding what is allowed on the "news."

Edited November 4, 2008 by ashw_justin

[ashw_justin]

Also, I think there was a strong negative public response to the Bushite propaganda campaign for the occupation of Iraq (which depended heavily on an ecstatic news media), as evidenced by the widespread demonstrations and countless critics, including a minority of elected people in Washington crying foul. I guess it just would have taken a lot more, not sure what, to cause enough of a domestic crisis to make Washington think twice. But then there was the shift in both the house and senate in 2006, which almost certainly was a kind of reckoning.

[mattp]

I don't see much likely to change unless somebody like probably a very popular politician takes it upon themself to make a big issue out of it and that doesn't seem likely to me. A grass-roots cry for fairness and accuracy in the media sounds great, but most people want news that confirms their political beliefs, I'm afraid.

 

Do you think FOX is any less popular or less believed by those who were inclined to believe their BS six years ago? I doubt it. My impression is that they are still very successful.

[ashw_justin]

most people want news that confirms their political beliefs, I'm afraid.

Well, if we really are a society that predominantly favors religious-like belief systems over critical thinking, then acting against this starts to sound kind of undemocratic. Also, in that case it could be worse if the government were to assume more control over the media, realize that the people just want something to believe in, and bang, theocracy now.

[mattp]

I certainly do not want the government to control the message and for that reason I'm not sure I'd want "more government control over the media" unless I was somehow convinced that there could be adequate safeguard to prevent any political censuring of the free press. But I'd like to see wider and real discussion of the issue and, at least, some kind of public acknowledgement that it IS an issue.

 

Mostly what we see now is B.S. rhetorical argument from the righties that the liberal media is unfair and a relatively small number of folks on the left complaining about blatant lies and deception mostly coming from the right.