Bring out your Open Thread... No post tonight folks.
By the way, did you hear that only 7% of reporters are Republicans? Why am I not surprised. They claim it doesn't matter, that there is no bias, but do you think they would buy that if we were talking vast under-representation of blacks or women or some other protected minority? What about 7% of liberals? Somehow, I doubt anyone on the left would believe there was no bias.
By the way, did you hear that only 7% of reporters are Republicans? Why am I not surprised. They claim it doesn't matter, that there is no bias, but do you think they would buy that if we were talking vast under-representation of blacks or women or some other protected minority? What about 7% of liberals? Somehow, I doubt anyone on the left would believe there was no bias.
37 comments:
Eleanor Clift's position that Amabassador Stevens wasn't murder because he died of smoke inhalation is fascinating.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/eleanor-clift-doubles-down-on-claim-amb-chris-stevens-wasnt-murdered/
“How would you describe his death?” Malzberg asked.
“The way the word has been tossed around I think leaves a different image in people’s minds,” The Daily Beast columnist clarified. “When you tell most people how the ambassador died, they appear not to have understood what happened.”
“If he was, God forbid, your relative, would you tell people that he was murdered or not?” Malzberg asked.
------------------
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure if I set fire to someone's house and the smoke killed them but not the fire, I'd still go to jail for murder.
Most journalists claim they are "independant", but if one was to ask them "how many non-Democrats have you evr voted for for president?", I suspect the answer would be "none". The left is very good at the game, because their will always be a fringe on both sides who feel anybody who isn't to the left of David Korn or Katerina Vendenhoeval is a fascist right winger.
I don't hold any allusions that the right wouldn't act the same way, though, if they were in a position to do so. As a country, we are the poorer for all this. There is a dirth of true non-partison politics in media. Sadly, what happens is that while you might expect a normal person forms their affiliation based on issues (of which at least a few would cross part lines), today, people tend to gravitate towards their position on an issue solely based on their affiliation. "If Bush or Obama is for or against something, it must be bad ....." This shows a lack of critical thinking on the part of the electorate. While it may be disappointing, it isn't unusual.
Issues are complex, and most people don't have the time, interest, or inclination to study them. So, they go to news channels, talk radio, papers, or the internet to try and get "educated" on how to feel about a given issue. Instead of objective critical analysis, they get "talking points."
The media is not and has been for many nothing but parasites. Most of them are really useless as far as their job goes. They seem incapable of reporting just straight news, it always has a slant. I'm always surprised how misinformed (I'm using this word versus"dumber than s--t') so I don't appear to be biased. The average reporter knows nothing of street life, guns, the South, the Midwest, farming, conservative, hunters, liberals, Catholics, crime and Methodists. But they continue on tier ignorant path and people pay them.
IDK what to make of it. The Tea Party is claiming a victory in Nebraska because Ben Sasse won the primary. And yes, they did endorse him, as did FredomWorks (after crapping on their early choice) Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. The only problem? Nothing about Sasse is remotely Tea Party.
His credentials:
- graduated from Harvard
- masters from Yale
- former DOJ office chief in DC (ie beltway insider!)
- former chief of staff to Jeff Fortenberry (more beltway insider!)
- former DHS adviser (even more beltway!)
- principle adviser to HHS Secretary under W (could he be anymore beltway!?) ((Though the Tea Party isn't really decided on whether W was good or evil.))
- plus, every stint outside of Washington, Sasse has served in academia (never held a real job!)
Then there are his statements. He's bought into the 1/2 of 1/3 "myth" that Obamacare can't be repealed without first more Republican victories. He had to audacity to acknowledge that there are parts of Obamacare that the public likes (softie!) And now the little traitor says that he'll back Mitch McConnell now that he's "stolen" the primary. (Much has been made of the spat b/w Sasse and McConnell that never was.)
Hopefully my dripping sarcasm registers, because this is in reality another Tea Party defeat that they are claiming as a victory only b/c FreedomWorks shat on their boy to back the guy with obvious momentum. As for Cruz and Palin, they are no prognosticators. They're weather vanes. My only concern is that while the Tea Party crows, the MSM takes their chest-thumping credulously to push their "crazy, out-of-control GOP" meme.
I almost forgot, Sasse also once held "visiting scholar" status at Brookings Institute.
Anthony, Yeah, that's murder no matter how you cut it. Clift is a shameless mouthpiece for the Democrats, always has been.
Jed, Like you, I've always wished for a non-partisan media to present straight facts to the public, but that will never happen. And I totally agree about the left. They will claim to be non-partisan and above it all no matter how deep and dirty left they are. They would never accept the media the way it is if it were reversed with right-wingers running the show and married to Republican politicians.
"...because this is in reality another Tea Party defeat that they are claiming as a victory only b/c FreedomWorks shat on their boy to back the guy with obvious momentum."
Tryanmax - I find hope in this. Maybe, just maybe, it has begun to dawn on them that they have become a major part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I knew they had finally gone over the edge with the whole dump McConnell for anyone (including any Democrat, Socialist, or Islamic terrorist who may be running against him). They lost sight of the big picture at least for me - Force Obama to have to deal with Congress by taking the Senate/Keeping the House.
The craziness is why the majority of the people who were in on the beginning of the TP zeitgeist have dropped out. The crazy far right-wingers/radical libertarians took over. And the message we started with - Fiscal Responsibility/Less Government - got lost in muddle. It was right around when Andrew Breitbart died. For all of his brashness, he kept the TP'ers and the movement focused. Once he died everyone started jockeying for top voice position.
Critch, I concur 100%. Not only are they incapable of just giving you the facts, but I've found them to be utterly incompetent in addition. Seriously, it is the rare reporter who understands even part of the things they report upon. They just repeat what they are told without thinking or understanding. It's very frustrating.
tryanmax, LOL! That's hilarious.
I saw Fox News screaming about a massive Tea Party victory and I had to laugh, not for the reasons you sight, but because they originally slammed this guy as a beltway insider and endorsed his opponent. Then they switched for reasons unknown and overnight made this insider into the outsider and turned the outsider into an insider. Talk about unprincipled and idiotic!
And now you add this to the mix and I have to laugh.
Of course, Ted "the outsider" Cruz has a very similar work history and that hasn't stopped low-information voters from seeing him as their savior.
The Brookings Institute? Uh... aren't they on the left?
Re: death of Stevens et al.
So, why could the DNC possibly think that that the fact that he was made dead by asphyxiation answer any questions and, why hasn't that come up before? Not that it really matters, but that would mean that he was not dragged through the street or beaten senseless by an angry mob of disgruntled video watchers. That would mean more than likely a "bombing", "fire-fight", "planned attack" Of course, there are the other three were shot in all three, but hey, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW?? Sorry, I just can't get beyond that...
Bev, I don't think they will learn. There is too much money to be made in attacking the GOP, so they will keep doing it. Besides, you can't be famous if you just do what everyone else does.
I think though that their influence has all but failed and is on the verge of vanishing entirely. Right now, I would bet that no one in the GOP fears them and that they are only relevant in a handful of states.
Bev, This is step one: he did from smoke inhalation. Step two: smoke kills. Step three: Phillip Morris killed him.
Andrew, Yup. Though I think "visiting scholar" is code for "tolerated conservative" so I wouldn't necessarily count it against him.
Humorously, the article that reminded* me was on WaPo, where they downplayed Brookings as "sometimes left leaning." In other words, they want Sasse to be a whacko.
*My buddy on the Osbourne campaign made sure I was well aware of all the dirt on Sasse.
Ah, yeah, I get it -
Step Four - Bad timing really. He just dropped dead because of years of "smoking one day". [see: EXH A of pending lawsuit against Phillip Morris] which bruised and battered him because he fell on the ground repeatedly and coincidentally at the same time a riot broke out. Did we say "riot" we meant to say "terrorist attack", but it doesn't really matter because he died from smoking...coincidentally. He is a victim of bad timing, not a "failure of policy".
Bev, Exactly. Phillip Morris is an evil company, they clearly are more at fault than Obama/Hillary.
tryanmax, Sometimes leans left. LOL! Yeah, if "sometimes" means "100% of the time" and "leans" they means "totally in bed with the left." Brookings is the main leftist think tank in this country. Oh, and they happen to be the number one supplier of information to the WashPo/NYT teams.
I lost my shock and outrage about reporter bias two decades ago (okay, I was never that shocked or outraged).
Between Fox News, the WSJ and countless websites (literally everyone can find their poison of choice on the internet) conservatives have lots of ways to get news.
If they don't have more options its because many conservatives prefer to be Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (fabulously wealthy, powerful and famous people who analyze news and offer colorful soundbites) rather than shoe leather reporters.
Conservatives complaining about being underrepresented among the press is like blacks complaining about being underrepresented in the NHL. How many actually want to join?
I'm not sure I'm getting the straight dope from Fox either. Some internet news sources seem more reliable. When I was in the desert in 2006 we often listened to Al Jazeera, oddly, they just reported who killed who, by who, why who said they killed the other one etc...if it was an editorial it announced as such.
"Bev, This is step one: he did from smoke inhalation. Step two: smoke kills. Step three: Phillip Morris killed him."
I think you forgot "steal underpants" in there somewhere.
Koshcat, LOL! Yep. That should be in there too.
Anthony, True. The big problem is that conservatives won't go into the field. In fact, you see this anytime you suggests that conservatives should go into the field. You immediately get blasted with "What?! They're all leftists! Who wants to join them?! I ain't ever listenin' to another journ-o-list in my life!" That's not helpful.
Critch, I haven't found anyone that is reliable when it comes to the news. Everyone reads the same AP stories these days and just edits and spins them. This is a hard time to get real information.
On a somewhat different note, I saw Senator Portman on Bret Baier's show. It is the only t.v. news I watch. I don't know enough about him, but I really liked the way he handled himself.
it strikes me the conservatives not wanting to go into the field is a bit of a chicken vs. egg situation. Why would anyone want to go into a field where they are ostracized or made to feel unwelcome? It makes for a vicious cycle. While I understand the point you make, Anthony, it has only been since the advent of the net that it has been quite so easy to find a non liberal slant. Growing up, there were 3 t.v. networks with local news, local big city dailies, and national magazines such as Time and Newsweek. It got to a point where all of them became more obvious in their politics.
Jed, It is a chicken and egg problem, but I think blaming liberals is pointing fingers in the wrong direction. This is an instance where conservatives routinely heap disdain on anyone who wants to enter the profession.
I get the same thing being a lawyer. I know right away if someone is conservative or liberal just by how they react when I tell them I'm a lawyer. The liberals say, "Wow, cool." and the conservatives snarl and start complaining about "god damn lawyers ruining everything." And every single conservative I know asked me, "Why do you want to go to law school and be with all those liberals?"
Well, the truth was the with a couple exceptions, the liberals didn't care what my politics were in law school, but the conservatives really didn't want me going to law school. Then they would turn around and scream about the liberals keeping conservatives out of being lawyers -- which just wasn't true.
Conservatives have given liberals power over the media, the law, entertainment and publishing by doing their best to make it clear that other conservatives should not enter those professions. That needs to change.
Let me also point out that when it comes to conservatives and law, they have a very warped view of what is going on.
First, only a tiny percentage of lawyers do personal injury or criminal law. The vast majority do corporate work and never see a courtroom.
Secondly, contrary to conservative myth, for every personal injury attorney, there is a defense attorney, and also contrary to conservative, many of them are rotten to the core. And for every criminal defense attorney, there is a prosecutor, many of who suffer from a serious lack of ethics.
Moreover, contrary to conservative myth, innocent people do get accused of crimes all the time... corporations actually do do bad things... people do get genuinely hurt through no fault of their own... not everyone who sues is looking for a paycheck or looking to retire... and the law doesn't sanction even 1% of the urban myths conservatives have bought into.
Finally, it is amazing how quickly conservative opinions on lawyers change when they need one.
"Let me also point out that when it comes to conservatives and law, they have a very warped view of what is going on.
Andrew - Here is my two cents. The squeaky wheel gets the attention. Both sides paint with broad general strokes. Yes, there are bad greedy lawyers, bad greedy doctors, bad greedy mail men. And because our instant public floggy/pillory apparatus has gone global we MUST group and generalize to get the upper-hand on the piety/purity/self-righteous-o meter.
Let's face it BOTH sides are wrong and both sides right. But we are constantly arguing apples and barbecue grills. Where the public frustration lies with the ramped up rhetoric that is just opinion.
Where the "left/right" media comes in. Well, I don't know about you, but I have to read three newspapers and 4 online sources just to gleen enough to get the facts in order to draw my own conclusions. And even then, it is still my opinion as to what I am going to believe. And right now at this time, no one knows what to believe. We have one side taking issue with everything and one side that takes issue with nothing. And it just depends on which side you are on to know which is which.
All most of us just want the freakin' truth unvarnished, unredacted, wearing no makeup to make it look pretty...well, no need for live shots of people/animals/politician being beaten and tortured...but you get what I mean.
Bev, I agree with that. And unfortunately, rather than open their minds to more information, most people have responded by closing their minds and cherry picking only the things that confirm their prejudices. And that only makes people cling to their prejudices even more strongly because they feel like they've confirmed them as true, when they absolutely have not.
The result is that any incident no matter how unrelated to reality (or even how accurately reported) is enough to confirm a world of false opinion. And no matter how hard you push back with facts, it doesn't matter because people "know the TRUTH!"
In effect, we as a society have become like people in the witch-hunting age: immune to fact, drowning in superstition, and dominated by conspiracy-mongers.
Andrew - I am sure you are speaking from your experience, but I was accepted at law school, and the only reason I didn't go was I was incredibly ill. That isn't really the point, however. I don't recall anybody, regardless of politics, ever telling me no to get into the profession. I consider myself politically conservative, and don't feel I have a warped sense of the law nor do most people I have run across in my life. Sure there are lots of lawyer jokes, but there are lots of insurance jokes too. I've never really known you to paint such broad strokes, but if is the way younger generations react, I am truly discouraged. Maybe my problem is, I grew up with open minded people, and have been mostly exposed to them my entire life.
Jed, You and I have had many discussions, and of all the people I know, I can definitely attest that you have the most level view of what really goes on in law and other professions. I can also say that you've never been one to discourage anyone from doing anything productive.
But sadly, a lot of other people are like that, and as a general rule, that is my experience -- liberals act impressed, conservatives react with disdain.
Back when I was active at BH, several of the actors told me the same thing. They said that every conservative they knew tried to keep them from becoming actors and then crapped on their choice at every turn -- only the liberals were supportive.
btw, since it is an open thread, and I realize I might have missed a discussion, has anybody seen the new "24"? I am pretty disappointed to be honest. This show has always been formulaic, and maybe it is just getting stale, but it is boring me to death. As with Kevin Bacon's show, every scene is an improbable escape from reality.
24! 24! 24!
Uh, 10J, Jack Bauer has never escaped from any situation in any other manner other than "improbable"! That is kind of the point. I mean, his cellphone NEVER has to be charged and he can get across LA during a nuclear strike in 20 minutes and never hit ANY TRAFFIC!!! He never eats, sleeps, needs to "relieve himself" and never has to stop and fill up his car. He can go from NY to LA in 45 minutes and never have to fill up! And he has never been in situation where shooting someone in the thigh was not involved in some way. He can be beaten, shot, stabbed, poisoned (sometimes all of the above) and never actually bleed for very long. Case in point - Jack was shot in the shoulder in the first episode of this new season. Do you see any blood anywhere on his clothes after he mentions to Chloe that he's been shot?? No, it's JACK! He cannot be taken down.
The whole show is based on improbable situations. That's what makes it fun. Actually, if you want to be entertained during the show, join in at davebarry.com at Dave Barry's blog. Dave and his many of his followers live blog while the show is going on. At the end, one of Dave's friends does a very humorous wrap up. You will see that they embrace the improbable. It's a lot of fun.
Woo hoo! I am now the proud owner of a BluRay copy of Rollerball. Yeah, baby!
Andrew, if I had only known! I could have made that happen before now! But...what can I say...congrats??
Bev, I actually have to credit Scott with this. These were pressed by some specialty company in small numbers and Scott sent me the link for when to buy them. :)
Post a Comment