How will the media play the Senate debate on the stimulus plan?
By John Amato Monday Feb 02, 2009 12:30pmLast week we found out that Republicans dominated the cable news TV shows over Democrats by a 2-1 margin as the House debate raged on. So it wasn't surprising that the media began to adopt Right Wing talking points to frame the debate against Democratic members of Congress supporting the stimulus bill.. The media gave the people most responsible for the state of the economy and who got destroyed in the November election an overwhelming edge in exposure and message control to the American people. Obama did what very few presidents have done in recent decades. He went to the hill to try and spread his bipartisan love around.
Unfortunately, even after the Dems caved on an item the Republicans targeted because Obama wanted some Republican votes, President Obama still didn't receive one vote from the HOUSE republicans for the plan. You would think the media might focus on the fact that the Republicans would not be supporting the bill because of ideological reasons, tactical issues, or maybe even highlight the fact that they were at the helm when our economy collapsed, right? Wrong. Matt Lauer's questions to Robert Gibbs on the TODAY Show were more in the line that it was Nancy Pelosi's fault that republicans didn't vote for it. Just more right wing clap trap...
Mark Halperin even blamed President Obama for not being partisan enough if you can believe that.
My question to the media today is, will you cover the debate that takes place this week in the Senate fairly or will you act as you did during the House debate and side with the Republicans?
Things are too bad in the country for this behavior to continue. I'm not saying don't do your jobs, I'm saying stop acting like part of the RNC.
President Obama is keeping his campaign promises so far which included reaching out to Republicans. He did WIN for a reason. The American people are looking for change and rejected the "tax cut" mentality of the republican party.
Or will they be coocoo for Cocoa Puffs?
Our eyes will be on you all week and we will call out the garbage and let you know. Your switch board operators will not be happy either if it's not a fair representation of what takes place up on the Hill.
Login or Register to post comments.
The "Media" has little interest in bipartisan government. It's just not sexy. To the "Media" there's nothing more boring than people working together for the common good. They want conflict.
The Republicans are delusional in their thinking. The Democrats are delusional in thinking that the delusional Republicans are at all interested in working with them. And the "Media" takes all that delusion and distorts and manipulates it even further. It's crazy.
The media was asleep during Dubya's reign of terror...all the while suckling Republican penis.
That's because they were more interested in "shock and awe" and Terror Alerts, and "breaking" news flashes, and people's sex lives. They're not intested in the steak, just the sizzle. Even now we can see the "Media" seeming to wake up a bit towards Obama, questiong him in a way they never questioned Bush, but it's being done in a faux-confrontational way. Boring reports about economics, infrastructure issues, constitutional issue etc just don't sell to advertisers.
"If someone has to answer for the failures of the Bush Administration, shouldn't that person by Barack Obama"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XGv_V2-NI8
How is it over in denial?
sells the soap.
Confucius?
Shit rolls down hill.
Galileo?
Scum floats to the top.
Archimedes?
Blow by blow
No...wait...
That's how they sold Monicagate.
Watch This Vid:
"The Fate Of The Bush Crime Family"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFh9F-5TcLg
..very cool. Thank you :)
"Could a media system, controlled by a few global corporations with the ability to overwhelm all competing voices, be able to turn lies into truth?..." This chilling documentary film examines the relationship between the media, corporate America, and government. In a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate America." Director: Robert Kane Pappas - Run Time 1 Hour 46 Minutes
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
the way you frame the question, John, is indicative of the way the msm will cover this story.
you ask: How Will the Media portray the Senate debate over the stimulus package?
and i think the answer lies in your question. they won't actually breakdown the stimulus package--as in bring in different economists and really hash out the details of the plan.
no, like your question infers, they will solely cover the partisan debate--the he said/she said "debate".
and, that folks, is a big part of the problem.
.
.
(I only had one card left) ... what?!?!
Gin!
Which brings happy hour to mind and gin and vermouth and olives and ice....oh my!
The media is trying to make themselves relevant. Light a fire if they have to just to make someone come and put it out. They are not worth listening to these days. In fact I don't think they have been worth listening to for a long long time.
...after the semester is over. They failed us when it really mattered. Innocent people were murdered, the constitution has shit on it and we're all broke.
Now they want to make up to us by overscrutinizing Obama.
Too late.
If we couldn't trust them when bush was lying his ass off and marching the country off to war, why the hell should we trust them now?
The public is looking for help and the media, along with the republican party, trying to go negative instead of positive is not winning any hearts or minds.
To get the real news!!!
Yep, plus some pretty cool folks hang out here sometimes.
Actually, the media are a bunch of lazy, spineless, chickenshit followers. Their actions will be determined by whoever makes the most noise, in an effort to make life easier for themselves, AND to make themselves popular.
I remember when Reagan was elected, in the beginning the media were pretty critical of him, and constantly dissected his press conferences, and reported his factual errors. Then Reagan's fans started calling in and complaining, saying "leave the poor guy alone! He's doing the best he can! And besides, he reminds me of Ward Cleaver, and I always liked him. He was the father I never had. LEAVE MY TV DADDY ALONE!"
They soon fell in line.
At the moment, the wingnuts are doing what they do best. MAKING NOISE! Making so much noise at the media to go after Obama that the press will do anything just to get the noise to stop. So...it's up to US to pull a Reagan in reverse. Start griping and complaining, telephoning, writing letters, and threatening to stop watching their stupid channel if they don't stop knit picking Obama.
Strip Poker
they will not give any context at all. They want the two parties to fight for ratings....That's why I Said "portray," because they will not break it down...
Listen, if the media manages to screw this one up it will be just as much the Democrats fault. Why the Hell aren't they muscling their way into these TV shows, providing spokespeople to defend the bill? The Demos are looking far too complacent about this. They're going to get steamrolled if they don't get off their asses and go full throttle into the media war.
That is one poorly worded poll. Not the question itself, but the answers are questions, that makes no sense.
U understand my point....
C,mon John, you've got to put up a post about Ruben Navarrette's new incredibly libelous, Wingnut column at CNN.
He takes Pelosi's support for birth-control spending in the Stimulus package and turns it into an insidious Librul plot to murder the next generation of minority babies. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! It's HIDEOUS!
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/navarr...
I know I commented on this on the previous post, but I'M OUTRAGED and think EVERYBODY should read this piece of garbage column.
What does a wingnut journalist have to do, or say, to lose their job?
The right wing would produce the exact opposite results.
On a related note,I have noticed CNN uses specific language in describing how someone reacts to a perceived injustice or slight.
Lately (according to CNN)Obama has been "lashing out" at his critics.
A quick Google search reveals who is likely to "lash out" rather than say,"respond" or "react".
Here's a partial list:
"First Lady Michelle Obama lashes out.."
"Jeremiah Wright Returns to Trinity, Lashes Out at Media.."
"Powell lashes out at Palin.."
"Bill Clinton Lashes Out at the Media”
"George Cloony lashes out at the blatant ..."
"Michael Moore lashes out.."
You get the idea.Of course the right wing does at times "lash out" but for the most part it is employed as a description of someone who backed into a corner,lashes out with some emotional and irrational statement,like a child.
Now my question is,why is Obama(according to CNN)"lashing out" at over paid corporate CEOs?Rather than um.."reacting" to their shameless avarice and greed? Am I over thinking this thing?
There is definitely a double standard. And I don't know what causes it. Is it human nature.. as in if someone is trying to do good they are held to super high standards, while if someone is doing bad it is understood as the norm and acceptable? Is it corporate influence of the media. Easily seen in multiple common sense ways. Money buys power and influence. I don't know, but the double standard is glaring and not some make believe illusion.
Maybe just a tad. But I see where you're going and I understand it. Using the phrase "lashing out" brings to mind an angry person. Obama may need to "lash out" some day but to me he just doesn't seem to have that sort of personality. He's like my husband, no matter how angry he ever gets, he never raises his voice and he never "lashes out. I admire that in people.
Narrative frames are far more subtle than the name that is given to a proposed bill or proposal ("death tax" vs "inheritance tax", pro-life vs pro-birth, etc.). Framing also involves taking every opportunity to portray your ideological opponents as less rational, less polite, less informed, less impartial, more elitist, more bigoted, more corrupt, etc.
One way to do this is to continually use code-words to establish whose concerns are legitimate and whose are not. "Lashing out" vs "reacting", as you point out.
like putting "free" in front of "market"
hey america: would you prefer a loving, amiable, saintly, free market, or do you want a child-inappropriate-touching, stinky, agnostic, big government?
....of course, the same can be said by putting "free" in front of "trade"...
when you look at it, nothing is being traded. Or should I say everything that is being traded is internal to the corporations that have plants both here and there. Like when GM has a plant here that builds parts and then ships the parts over to Mexico to be assembled, or vice-versa. It's not trading between countries, it's just a gimmick. A care company shifting operations back and forth across the border for added value is not trade. It doesn't add anything significant to either economy, it only saves the company money. This is probably the biggest frauds in recent history to call this "FREE TRADE".
All of you folks for replying.
Sorry for the (very)tardy response.
The Democrats are doing a horrific job of selling the stim package. They're letting the GOP drive the debate and get their message out to the public, while the people truly in power are getting jobbed. It's just more of the ineptitude we've come to expect from Pelosi and Reid. And with Obama playing the fooling bipartisanship game, it creates a vacuum that the party of Rush is rushing to fill.
The Dems should draft the bill they want and call for a vote. If the Repugs try and fillibuster it, let them speak from the well day and night. After 2 days, the public will cry "enough" of their chicanery.
What do you mean the media favored Republicans over Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin? According to the graph, the 2 to 1 margin was the LOW END of the bias scale.
CNN was favoring Republicans by at least 10 to 1, while Fox News was putting them all to shame with their 1.25 to 1 Republican to Democrat margin. The MSM SERIOUSLY needs to be ashamed of themselves over this!
The #1 criterium for newsworthiness is "conflict", and the Repugs have invested millions in machinery that cranks out excellent sound bites for creating conflict. So, in our world of tv broadcast, such sound bites have the most effect. Someday, I hope, most Americans will be reading news again.
I realize that as new Chief of Staff, Rahm has a lot on his plate and it will take him a little time to get his sea legs but time is something he does not have. Rahm is in charge of the President's communications depart. Responsible for getting the President's message out. A message that put him in the White House with a mandate BushCo could only dream of. There seems to be 3 points that Rahm is not understanding. Point one? The press has gotten "religion". Here's what I mean. With a Republican in the Oval Office, the press failed for eight years on an epic scale to hold BushCo and his minions accountable. Instead, they regurgitated every single piece of Republican flotsam fed them without using Democrat's principles and ideas as framework for debate. Now that the press has found "religion" AND because there is a Democrat in the Oval Office, suddenly the press is "holding the President's feet to the fire" and asking "the tough questions". The trouble is, the questions they are asking ARE REPUBLICAN.
The second point is? That despite the successes of KO and Maddow, the press is STILL OWNED and operated by a handful of angry white men loyal to BushCo and so called "conservative principles" and the news media is still about entertainment - not truth.
The third point is that Republicans are nothing if not in lock-step. They lost the election because they "got-in-line" behind the lunacy and hate of McCain/Palin and they will dig themselves out of their self made hole together the same way - in lock-step, only louder. It's the only way they know and it's easy to do since they have demonstrated absolutely no problem with hypocrisy. They will lie, obfuscate and howl like junk yard dogs about Democrats "big spending" after plowing us into the worst economic disaster since 1929.
Rahm has failed to understand this. He should have realized long before he crossed the threshold of the Oval Office that he has to more than DOUBLE the President's communications efforts in order to have even the slightest chance of staying on par with today's media machine in this country.
We have all watched the news in recent days and been floored by the confused fluster of Dems trying to tell the President's story in the face of shameless screaming Republicans and news hosts vomiting up Republican talking points.
If Rahm doesn't see this as a wake up call about future issues the President will have to face and make a concerted effort to improve, and improve quickly, then he is setting the President up to fail.
The media has one job. Find out what is going on and tell us that info. It's not their job to moderate debates between people leaning right and left. It's not their job to give a forum to either side. They should only be concerned about the facts.
it's about opinionation. When's the last time you saw a complete panel of expert analysts (instead of Krugman and everyone else)?
Panelists who provide their "expert opinions" - that's what we get now.
Its not perfect but compared to Network/Cable news its like the voice of god.
BBC News on the radio is pretty good too.
Watch Morning Joe on MSNBC any morning and you'll have a prime example of "expert opinions" from not even close experts. Thing is, they seem to think they are experts on every damned subject. They look like little kids playing like they are adults.
funny, all it took was reading "Watch Morning Joe"...
ugh, oy, oof....
and, yes, i have noticed msnbc's tendency--on all their shows--to go to the same "experts" again and again.
i mean, really, do i care what michelle bernard, or pat buchanan, or bob shrum, etc. think about anything? let alone everything, every topic, every issue... *yawn*
i swear to jah that they have some sort of crypt in the bowels of the msnbc studios where they keep buchanan for the 5 minutes a day he is not on TV, and some sort of hyperbolic chamber for 32 seconds michelle bernard is off air...
hmmm... maybe i should further cut down on my msm viewage...
Every time a repub or one of their mouthpieces spouts off about their objections to the stimulus package the interviewer (or if a rare appearance by a dem or one of their mouthpieces is on the show) should respond with: But the current financial crisis occurred during 8 years of a republican in the Whitehouse and 6 years with a majority in the house and senate, why should anyone listen to you folks now?
Fox News and Frank Luntz Caught Red Handed Focus Group Fraud:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c
"Ideology and communication more often than not run into each other rather than complement each other. Principle and communication work together. Ideology and communication often work apart."
[Frank Luntz]
More cute pages?
...is to shame them.
If you're in a dirty fight, fight dirty. We can all call on the so-called media to do their job, do whats right, until we are blue in the face. The only thing these fuckers understand is pocketbook. The thing that scares them to the bone is fear of losing their money, reducing them to "average" people. If you watch them or buy goods and or services from the people who buy ads from them, you are supporting and enabling them to continue their propaganda and hypocrisy. Don't forget, the media are co-conspirators in bush's lies and tall tails that pushed us into a fake war, and have continued "to question not", the official 911 story, which only the stupid and the willfully ignorant still childishly believe. They can't even provide entertainment that is not slimy, why would anyone go to them for news.
I don't know who is " lost" or not, don't know where to get a deal on back to school crap, don't know who is "Americas top" slut,dancer or worm eater,or what new sex fiend is out to get my kids, don't fucking care, don't fucking miss them a bit. CEO,citizens,eyes,open
not trying to talk smack, but was it really necessary to hold a vote to ask (C&L veiwers no less) if the MSM is in the pocket of the Republican Right? please, that's been a given for almost 30 years now.
I was very surprised today to find that one of the new right-wing talking points is that Pres. Obama is getting a pass on FEMA's handling of the ice storm here in Kentucky.
The gist of their argument is that the ice storm here wasn't a media sensation that was splashed all over the news so obviously, that means the media is in bed with the Obama administration.
No where in that argument do any of these pseudo-people mention that it could be that only 44 people have died in the ice storm compared to more than 1800 people during Katrina.
You just can't make stuff like this up folks.
of deaths is less, that makes it ok?
Wow. You completely miss the point.
1800 people dying because of a singular event is a lot more newsworthy than 44.
The wingnuts are tying to play the difference in media coverage between the two natural disasters as being a race issue and a liberal bias issue.
I'm having a hard time understanding how someone could miss that point, but...O.K. I hope I was able to shed some light on it for you.
I understand where you are coming from. But my point was, even though the number is less, is it not still a failure of the government?
I didn't live through Hurricane Katrina.
I do live in rural Kentucky however and was one of the people who lost power for 5 days (yes, it did suck).
Could the govt. done better? Certainly. However, I wouldn't deem their actions a failure either.
The morning after the ice storm, my wife and I heard on the radio that electrical teams were already on their way from Arkansas and Alabama to assist in reestablishing power, which was the biggest factor affecting Kentuckians. It took 4 days for supplies to get to the Gulf Coast.
Also, one has to factor in that during Katrina, the majority of people affected were the citizens of New Orleans, Slidell, Gulfport and Biloxi, all of which are urban areas that are in close proximity, making the delivery and evacuation of people easier since they were more centrally located. Kentucky, on the other hand is very rural and hilly/mountainous (in the east). Being more spread out makes delivery of supplies and moving people to shelters far more difficult and time consuming, especially when that means driving on mountain and hilly roads that are iced over.
Long story, short, I think the neo-cons simply want Pres. Obama to suffer every indignation they thought was unfairly put on bush. So...they're making a mountain of a mole hill and trying to say they are both of equal height.
They simply aren't. There were no cops looting stores. There was no lawlessness (at least that I know of).
Lastly, it's kind of hard to compare the two when there were more people in FEMA shelters a year after the event than there was here total.
I'm sorry to hear that you didn't make it Tim.
Your family must've been devastated.
Let me know where to send the condolences cards.:)
;-)
due to a hurricane. (Hurricane Fran). Was without power for over a week. This was a business and a home (small farm). Glad we had a generator. We weren't alone in being out, some people had no power for multiple weeks after Fran.
No one cared.
No one blamed the president (it was Clinton).
Not sure I care.
Stop being lazy and playing republicans game, it's not "Stimulus Bill," read the name on the bill.
AMERICAN RECOVERY and REINVESTMENT ACT HR1
Define "Recovery and Reinvestment" and reset this lost spin war.
I totally agree.....but the last thing most Repubs want is to talk about "(re)investing" in America's future.
But there might be some room to maneuver here, in any case, with people like Snowe and Collins. The other Repubs want to center the discussion on "jobs" only because they are petrified about an Administration taking the lead on investing in the country and doing it well.
Olympia Snowe is speaking on the Senate floor about the "stimulus package". Sounds to me that with a little tweaking, she'll be supporting it. And I doubt she'll be alone. Her only caveat: certain expenditures that should be part of the normal appropriations process. ....But she strongly supports unemployment extension, food stamp extension, state aid for Medicaid, aid for working families earning not enough to be paying income taxes and the alternative energy component....There's your 59th vote (since that's all that will be needed since there's a "missing Senator" (Minnesota).
that a global meltdown of the likes we are seeing, governments globally would get together, bring groups of real economists together and actually devise a plan, wouldn't you? Instead we see politicians that know NOTHING tinkering and pretending to know how to fix it. Truly sad. It is no wonder there was a depression and no wonder there were 2 world wars. These people are all right out to lunch.
...then we will verify it for you.
when everyone gets along, it's so BORING!
Same as they always do . . . simple reason . . . Rich Republicans own the media!
Login or Register to post comments.