Working The Refs: Will Bunch Explains Why 'Liberal' Media Bend Over Backwards for Conservatives
Attytood's Will Bunch brings two telling pieces of journalism news to our attention - first, that Andrew Rosenthal, the New York Times editorial page editor, admits that it's easier to get a slot on its letters-to-the-editor page if you are a conservative:
I’ll be honest: Because of the nature of our readers, letter writers who defend Republican, conservative or right-wing positions on many topics have a higher shot at being published.
And second, that Cynthia Tucker -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- is being moved up and out of her slot in an apparent move to woo back conservative suburban readers. Will says:
[...] For the first time in generations, the state’s leading editorial page finally will have abandoned its mission as a progressive voice in favor of a carefully constructed mirage of “balance” — designed not to tell the truth, whether it’s unpopular or not, as much as to mollify conservative readers.
He lays out the case for why journalists have become far too accommodating to conservatives:
What's the one liberal value that journalists retain as we grow long in the tooth and rise up the salary ladder? Liberal guilt. Politicians have played on this successfully for 40 years, ever since too many newsrooms cowered from Spiro Agnew calling us "nattering nabobs of negativism." As I wrote about in my recent book "Tear Down This Myth," Ronald Reagan's "teflon presidency" was in good measure due to journalists fearful they'd be accused of liberal bias with a too aggressive posture.
At every newspaper, big and small, the short-term social and economic incentives are far too often weighted in favor of "mushy middle" journalism. Even if your editor backs you (and that's not a given), there's still the publisher - and he doesn't want to hear complaints about his paper's "liberal bias" at the next Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
Will points out something I've been saying for years about the so-called "liberal" media: They're usually social liberals, but policy conservatives. While it's rare that a journalist gives a damn about your skin color, who you sleep with or what you smoke, they're still mostly establishment types who don't want to rock the boat - or their 401(k)s. They believe far too fervently in the judgment of an elite class, because they see themselves as part of that elite.
That explains what he describes here:
Did you ever watch the Sunday political talk shows, and the regular cavalcade of aggressively conservative pols and pundits, who usually outnumber and outtalk the handful of passive "liberals," many of whom aren't even that liberal? The Beltway journalists who book those shows tend to book "liberals" who are a reflection of themselves -- low-key, just-a-tad-to-the-left-of-centrists -- while bringing on more rabid conservatives a) to show that they're open minded and not "biased liberals" and b) because they find wild-eyed conservative entertaining. Real DFH liberals scare the heck out of them, and God only knows what they might blurt out about something like NBC/MSNBC/CNBC parent General Electric, also a major defense contractor.
Remember the debate on President Obama's stimulus package a few months back? Every time I flipped on cable TV, there was a 30-second factual (usually) description of the proposal, followed by five minutes of loud conservative criticism. That's how the "liberal media" shows that it's really fair and balanced.
Even so, I'm still a little stunned and slightly confused by Rosenthal's comment about over-accommodating conservative letter writers because of "the nature of our readers." Does that mean that the majority of the letters-to-the-editor in the New York Times take center-left to liberal positions on most issues? If so, that may not be the nature of the Times' readers but the nature of America, since most surveys show that most Americans hold center-left views on most issues. But instead a reader of the letters page, seeing an unfair weighting to conservative writers, will be getting a false impression of what people out there are thinking.
It's true that the Times' takes liberal positions on many issues, but not all. For example, its editorial page did not aggressively question the rush to war in Iraq, nor did some of the hyperbolic "news" coverage of the run-up by Judy Miller -- and like everyone else the Times ignored or undercovered massive protests before the invasion. But presumably the editorial page also overweighted conservative pro-war letters and underweighted the DFHs who couldn't understand why America was invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. That's balance?
A year later, the Philadelphia Inquirer made a bold decision (and correct, in my opinion) that the Bush presidency was such a danger to America that it ran a series of 21 editorials calling for the election of John Kerry. Yet every day it gave equal space to someone arguing that Bush should be re-elected, so was it really that bold of a move after all? That's balance, but what's the point? Check out this great riff from Jay Rosen on the bogusness of "he said, she said" journalism for a broader perspective.
Ironically, as the Atlanta piece notes, none of this contorting to accommodate right-wing critics has brought in any right-wing support or, more importantly, news readership -- conservatives still hate us, and no amount of sucking up will change that. That said, what's the harm in bending over backwards to overly represent or kowtow to conservative viewpoints? Well, when pundits still believe that America is a center-right nation on the morning after the election of a center-left president and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, that might offer a window into how the greater political debate gets warped by this odd charade.
Journalists should only have one great mission in our career. It is not the quest for something called balance. It is the search for the truth. Period. No matter how uncomfortable that makes some people. Cynthia Tucker knows that, and now she's paying a price.
Everybody's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
But then balance them with not-the-facts.
Ya...it's called truthiness
by the way thanks for putting Jerry Sloan's pic...we definitely need to attract more Utahans to Progressive websites.
Oh another problem okay.
Journalists are basically pussies.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
are not. They have to navigate the waters of what is worth the fight with their editor, and more importantly, their publisher.
Even if you get an editor that will stick up for you, which is rare, they have to bend to the will of the publisher, who bends to the will of the Chamber of Commerce and the Advertisers.
It does not matter if you are the strongest Journalist out there, if you are not established, it is a low paying job with a lot of years of moving around to find the right fit. Unfortunately, you may never find that fit, and for some, even when you do, you have to be able to keep your job to be read.
Short version...the owners and the editors are pussies.
owners are pussies in general. Editors are simply older pussy journalists.
Journalists are pussy editors in training.
Copywriters are pussy trainee interns.
Bottom line, American journalism is populated by pussies.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
just saying..it's not all that cut and dried.
I'm just giving you a hard time. LOL!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I like Will Bunch. I bought his latest book too.
say something about it then
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-republi...
... that the 'MSM' nonsense was a concept used to browbeat the media into covering the 'other' side, there were some folks here who told me I was full of shit.
NOW do you believe me?
But seriously...
I believed ya back then.
I remember that, but I think the problem was using the acronym MSM, so some people misread you. But there's no question the bulk of our media is in the hands of six corporations who are either out and out conservative, or the news is just another unit they're selling, often as infotainment.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
isn't that why the term "Corporate Media" is more accurate?
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
Absolutely. Every time a liberal or progressive says or thinks the term "mainstream media" "MSM" we are doing the corporate brainwashing media a big favor by promoting them as acceptable or mainstream, the leader without question, and without legitimate criticism of their totally unfair monopoly of 5 or 6 corporations. We should call our media on the internet the new media, the new mainstream, the grassroots truth, etc. to distinguish reality based journalism from corporate spin.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
They had an article today in the NYT about "right-leaning" bill o'really, and I wanted to write them saying, "Right-leaning, I thought he fell over."
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Cynthia Tucker sounds pleased to be "moving to Washington to become The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Washington-based political columnist."
Cynthia Tucker: Washington, here I come
More at link.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
I've been demoted to "reporter". I'll be starting a blog in an attempt to monetize whatever "Value" I have left for my remaining days on earth.
I know girl! We all been had.
I expect Cynthia Tucker's political columns will be every bit as expressive of her opinions as were her opinion pieces when she was editorial page editor - hardly a demotion to "reporter."
Change of venue - yes.
And she'll still be writing for the AJC. So regardless the main posts' central point - the AJC's shift to the right - it's not like they're throwing Cynthia Tucker (or Jay Bookman) overboard.
The Atlanta Constitution was always the left-leaning morning paper (Ralph McGill, for instance). The Atlanta Journal was the right-leaning evening paper. Merged, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial policy attempts to cover a broader political spectrum - Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
someone new to step up. too bad there's not a mentor system (for back-fill), instead of a star system. (no disrespect intended to Ms Tucker. she's held her own and then some for a long time.)
a carefully constructed mirage of “balance” — designed not to tell the truth, whether it’s unpopular or not, as much as to mollify conservative readers.
as much to mollify all viewers, readers, etc. would be more honest.
brought on by media consolidation.
I live in a mid range City, (St. Louis) with only one real newspaper, and 4 local television stations.
Two of the TV stations are definitely Right Wing and the other two are, more or less center right. (even though the majority of the talking heads that work for them appear to be a center left.)
Our ONE newspaper used to be the liberal voice. The writing of the news staff has gotten so bad, that some articles are difficult to read because of repeat information being thrown out. The editorial page is still sort of left leaning, but the syndicated editorials weigh heavily right.
Honestly, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the most liberal news show on basic local television in our area.(PBS) It is still fairly reliable, but it has been weighing right in recent years as well.
Our city is still pretty liberal, but there are a lot of very wealthy, and very vocal right wingers who drown out any voice of desention. Since a lot of them are on first name basis with the BUSH (as opposed to BUSCH) family and the Limbaugh Family...this is not a shock.
Did you know that the Walker family (as in George Walker Bush) is from St. Louis? Some of them still live here....out in Huntleigh (near Frontenac). My uncle lives in Ladue and is a neighbor to Bucky Bush.
I don't read the Post much...pretty much of a crappy newspaper.
And every time that SOB came to town to visit his kin...he tied up every major highway that he could...and always during rush hour..just to make it a point to inconvenience as many people as possible. (rat bastard)
You are right about the Post..it used to be a good paper. Now all it's good for is lining the cat box after you take out the comics and the coupon sheets.
There are a couple of decent writers still on staff there, but since William Woo left town,(and sadly, passed away.) it has been a steady decline.
Even our local liberal weekly is a POS now. (Riverfront Times) Once in a while, they actually break a story, but mostly they are just kind of spitting in the wind, since they are not locally owned anymore.
At least the News Hour attempts to bring both sides to an issue. However, my take is that bigwig rethugs or brought on to debate a subject, and the liberal voice is very good, but usually a person not well known.
I think it is the best of what can be called fair.
Years ago, Mark Sheilds was really good, now he seems befuddled a lot of the time.
Also I miss Charlane Hunter-Gault, Gwen Ifill and Robert MacNeil. They were much less placid in their rebuttals.
It's late and the name is escaping me...but I loved the guy from Boston with the bow tie, as well.
Last summer, BillO the Clown had his crack team of "reporters" ambush Cynthia Tucker over an article in which she criticized BillO. The reason she criticized BillO is that BillO seemed to have a different set of standards when he criticized Jamie Lynn Spears' parents after she became pregnant, but he did not do so for Bristol Palin's parents.
Look for BillO the Clown to soon once again pontificate on the evils of the "left wing media" and what happens to so-called "liberal" newspapers and journalists.
some people can't handle the truth. they live in deception. they're addicted to deception. they find little use/time to cross check references/articles. for some this would cloud their black and white thinking. for many life is a game of winner and loser. we all have/known people to lie/cheat/deceive to win. it's a strategy, those of us that strive NOT to live that way the best way we can aren't wired to deceive to win. watching a news segment on fox with commentary is difficult at best. why? because often the opposing view is cut off/time expired after a prolonged argument by one side. DECEPTION is a reality. it's a strategy to win.the right/republicans are masters of deception. they use basic linguistic strategy that's very effective for certain demographics. one person's lie is another's truth.
"Working the refs" is a convenient excuse. Conservative viewpoints predominate in the MSM because multi-billion dollar corporations are conservative. Whether they're one of the few multi-billion dollar corporations who own the media or are one of the multi-billion dollar advertisers, they hugely benefit from conservative economic policies -- and they own the world (for now).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
corporate news in support of corporate interests.
Put on Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley, and Bruce Dixon and see how "passive" they are not!
Put on Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Paul Street, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, John Pilger, etc. so we can see bonafide liberals for once as well.
The real danger here is that the media are no longer doing their job - shining a spotlight on those who would "rule" us.
The corporate media, driven by advertising revenue has no stomach for it and bloggers haven't the resources to expose the next Nixon or McCarthy.
Salon, Daily Kos and the Huffington Post cannot reach the audience of a single half hour of Brian Williams or Diane Sawyer or one edition of USA Today.
Some morning we're going to wake up in Upper Rightwingnuttia and not know how we got here.
(You might want to sit down)...you're already there.
Name one news-person on broadcast, cable, or radio that is not either hardcore right-wing or right leaning, who is not Olberman, Maddow, or Jon Stewart.
But your point is still well taken.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Amy Goodman
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
Stephen Lendman
Robert McChesney
Yes, I forgot Mr. Moyers.
Where would one be able to listen to these people? :
Amy Goodman
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
Stephen Lendman
Robert McChesney
Here are some excerpts from Saul Landau's fine article on how the "surge in Iraq did not work," even as the morons in the media still claim that it did work. Even Bill Maher has bought into the media myth that the surge in Iraq "worked." I am no fan of Maher any way. I once liked him but no more. He is too willing to go along with some of that neocon claptrap as in the "surge working" and "all Muslims are bad" notions.
Weekend Edition
April 10 / 12, 2009
How the Media Bought the Surge
Iraqi Dead Extol the Success of the Surge
By SAUL LANDAU
"The U.S. media has attacked the Iraq War story by going straight for the periphery. For example, instead of focusing attention on the devastation caused by an unjust, imperial war that has endured for six plus years, the media changed the debate: “Has sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in 2007 --“the surge” -- succeeded or failed?” "It’s no longer a close call,” wrote Peter Beinart. (Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2009) “President Bush was right about the surge.” By being “right” Beinart means that the number of Iraqi dead came to only 500 in November 2008, compared with 3,475 in November of 2006. And only 12 Americans died in Iraq in that same period, compared to a higher number in previous years. (Figures from The Iraq War Index, a Brookings Institution report by Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell) The realist might have added: “That’s 12 more than should have died.”"
"The New York Times Op-Ed page editors seemed undaunted about printing columns on the surge’s success by the very pundits who had only recently assured the public of the biggest lies of the young 21st Century: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda. Among the surge proselytizers, emerged Kenneth Pollack. In The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (2002), he wrote: “The only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam’s regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction.” He dismissed wusses who “exaggerated the danger of casualties among American troops.” Pollack even helped persuade Times columnist Bill Keller to support the Iraq war. “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season,” wrote Keller (February 8, 2003), “has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.”"
"The surgists focused on reducing violence in Baghdad which, if successful, would serve as a model for smaller cities. By late 2007, almost a year after its onset, the Pentagon sold the surge to the usual media suckers as the U.S. “success story.” The Pentagon claimed it had reduced by 60 percent the war violence and had driven Al Qaida from Baghdad and mostly from Anbar Province as well. The increased number of U.S. soldiers did allow U.S. forces to disarm some Sunnis in Baghdad. Then, the U.S. occupiers invited Shiite militias to invade Sunni neighborhoods and ethnically cleanse them. By mid 2007, Baghdad, once about 65% Sunni, emerged as a predominantly Shiite city. Indeed, leader of the multinational armies in Iraq General David Petraeus, now in charge of Central Command, purposely or inadvertently encouraged Shiites to drive Sunnis from their homes. Many went to Syria. (George Hunsinger, Common Dreams.org, October 23, 2008)"
"One mainstream media exception on surge reporting, Karen de Young, explained how many Iraqis had homes destroyed or, “the homes they left no longer exist. Houses have been looted, destroyed or occupied. Most Baghdad neighborhoods, where Shiites and Sunnis once lived side by side, have been transformed into religiously homogeneous bastions where members of the other sect dare not tread.” (Washington Post, Dec. 16, 2007)"
"The surge fans, however, ignored such minor details. They focus on the bright side. Iraq now sells 2 million barrels of oil per day! Tie that marketing fact to 2 million Iraqis who have fled their homes and remain displaced inside the country; or the 3 plus millions who felt forced to leave their unbalanced country. They don’t tie together? Surgites like Pollack and Beinart say, like Bush, that the $610 billion spent on the war has built a “democracy” in the region. Indeed, by knocking off Saddam, the United States opened to the entire Arab world the road to democratic reform. And pigs will fly!"
Read the entire article on the media's lies about the surge in Iraq at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau04102009.html
Was a joke. Why is no one talking about how the bush shitheads were PAYING the bad guys NOT to attack the US GI's. This payout came at the same time as this so called surge. Even left wingers like Bill Mahr said on his HBO show, the surge worked. What a load of shit.
I am not so sure that Bill Maher is a true "left winger" going by many of his positions. Maher is either very confused or does not know what he is regarding political ideology. Even his so-called libertarian views are muffled because he supports war in some instances where true libertarians do not.
Again, I do not trust Bill Maher as he contradicts himself over and over again. I do not view Maher as a true "leftist" or "liberal" either. I know he likes to pal around with his Fascist pal Ann Coulter and one of his favorite guests is the anti-gay ex-Senator Bill Frist's political aide---Amy Holmes. In short, I think Bill Maher is a fraud!
When the NYT spokeshole gets burned with the name Judith Miller
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Fake_New_York_T...
it takes money to deceive and you can make money deceiving.
in the mail. I always send back encouraging little comments on the otherwise blank subscription order.
Where it claimed that the NYT had top-notch journalists, I wrote in heavy black marker: You mean like Judith Miller!? or Bill Kristol?!
(yeah, I know; just sayin')
Where they asserted that the NYT "Keeps you in the Conversation!"
I wrote: with all the news that multinational corporations want you to know!
For all of the good it does...
I don't know how it ended up there, pushed the wrong button I guess
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/will-b...
BOTH Cons and Libs control their message. It's that simple. Don't believe me? Even Jane Hamsher ADMITS there have been strongarm tactics done by the Obama administration. But that just gets shovelled under "not important" on most pretend left blogs.
White House May be Dictating, But We’re Not Stenographers
http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/08/white-house...
Seems that many supposed lefts and rights are being played by the political rich. Distractions, distractions. If the left is mad at the right, they don't see what their reps are doing. And vice versa.
Of course both sides have messages and both sides play politics. But we're talking about the MEDIA here not the political process. The media has become the lapdogs of the right wing.
If blogs take (and most have) credit for the Dem victory and influencing voting, then are they not the media? Do they not inform? Do they not have articles on news?
Are you comparing blogs to newspapers, tv and radio?
I don't know of many bloggers that refer to themselves as "journalists" except those who were already journalists in a different media type. This article is discussing the bias of "journalism", specifically that of major newspapers in this country. You're discussing something else.
... strong-armed for a liberal matter with the MSM's cooperation?
I remember a lot of Clinton/media strong-arming on NAFTA, "welfare 'reform'" and deregulation, but can't seem to remember any strong-arming for union rights.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Read the quote. It's right there in black and white.
Hamsher lays out how liberal groups have been strong-armed by Obama's administration (Rahm Emmanuel in particular), but that hardly demonstrates an example of liberal strong-arming.
In cruising thousands of the gazzillions of alternate realities predicted by string theory, I've yet to find one in which Rahm Emmanuel is a "liberal."
Moreover, if the Obama administration is strong-arming liberal groups, wouldn't that make the administration, by definition, anti-liberal on that particular issue?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Rahm Emmanuel is one of the many reasons I joined the Green Party. No, the present day Democrats are not "liberals."
The present day Democratic Party are corporatists which makes me laugh at the stupidity of all those right wing arguments claiming that Obama is a "Socialist" and "Fascist."
Obama is actually trying to save capitalism from itself and these wingnuts view it the other way.
If I was Obama, I would let this capitalistic society totally fail. These right wing jerks never fail to amaze me in their idiocy.
the DLC, DSCC and DCCC.
Bring back HOWARD DEAN!
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Yes, I have many criticisms of Barack Obama. But my criticisms are not out of hatred for him or wishing the man ill-will, nor hoping he "fails." I have been very critical of Obama, but not for the same reasons or from the same motives, of the right wing hate mongers.
The right wing critique of Obama is borne out of hatred and resentment and many false allegations, as in trying to slander him to bring him down as they did with Clinton.
So, yes, there are fair criticisms to be made about many of Obama's policies, but I just do not trust the likes of FOX "News" and the hate radio personalities whom just don't like Obama because he is seen as a "liberal" and the fact that he is a Democrat.
Opinions have limits. If one is going to make a charge, it needs to be backed up by fact and not just name calling. So, yes, there are fair criticisms to be made, but, thus far, the right wing attacks on Obama have been totally cynical and quite knee-jerked.
I notice the right wing do not have any problem when Obama continues the similar war policies that Bush started for example. I guess right wingers think there are no financial costs associated with escalating past wars/conflicts. Just remember that Bush pushed and signed the Patriot Act into law and now the Obama administration can utilize those provisions found in that document as well.
The Patriot Act as legal scholars will tell ya, has limited the "rights" supposedly guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Why weren't the right wingers doing tea parties when Bush pissed all over the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act?
I refuse to donate to the DCCC and the DSCC for 2 reasons which I told them.
I will contribute nothing until they fix the prescription drug benefit that helps drug companies and insurance companies but not the middle class.
I will not have my money to go to conservative Democrats like Senator Max Wyeth Baucus who takes money from insurance and drug companies.
Help get that sore loser Norm Coleman to concede. Go to
http://action.democratz.org
Yes, I refuse to donate as well.
I am now a proud member of the Green Party.
The Democratic Party are way too conservative for me.
This country has been moving more and more to the right for 30 years now. Even the Democrats had to move to the right by forming that awful DLC in order to "win" elections. The Democrats can't run fast enough, from being labeled, "liberals."
Just ask many in the gay community what they think of the Democratic Party when it comes to GLBT issues. The Dems gave GLBT community DOMA and DADT. Neither will be dealt with any time soon by these Democrats either.
they take their donations from the Corporations
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Bull. The big media outlets are owned or run by who? Very wealthy old white guys. Who are they going to support? I f'n wonder. We are being fed a steady stream of bs entertainment and non-news while being told nobody wants to listen to the issues. Nothing will change until the fairness doctrine returns and ownership rules return to what they used to be.
If progressive Philly readers call the newspaper and say they will boycott the paper, unless conservative fabricators do not get a prominent voice in the paper they will have to take notice.
I stopped watching CNN in 2005, because it leaned center right. Sometimes if a guest looks interesting, I will watch Meet the Press or Face the Nation. I don't watch This week with George Stephanopolous.
The only news programs I watch: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams and CSPAN.
CSPAN allows me to call once a month and voice MY opinion uncensored.
Help get that sore loser Norm Coleman to concede. Go to
http://action.democratz.org
all the problems plaguing journalism today. Careers in journalism are built on access and access to sources is absolutely dependent on the willingness to spin to order by the source. I wince every time I here someone call themselves a "professional" journalist. There isn't any such thing. The best we can hope for these days is journalist who is free from corporate control. Unfortunately those type lack the resources for the very expensive investigative journalism.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Remember back when the U.S. military was gearing up to invade Iraq? What I remember specifically about that time are the TV news reports about network TV journalists and major newspaper journalists getting ready to be embedded with military units that would be the ones over the hill into Iraq. They (male and female alike) seemed to be positively giddy about hanging out with the soldiers and getting to try on night-vision goggles and such. It was bizarre. I thought it strange, not to mention antithetical to what war-time reporters should be doing. I understand about them wanting to be safe and all that, but it seemed more like the reporters were so happy at finally being asked to sit at the popular kids' table in the cafeteria than anything else. That's what really started me looking for alternative sources of news about U.S. military activities around the globe, and about foreign policy in general.
it's not about the information we get, it's about the disinformation we get.
I was talking with the lady down street today. After the small talk she asked if I went to Austin to see glen beck. I said hell no, he is nothing but a raceist jerk. She was just supprised to what I said. She then said he speaks the truth, this Obama has never done any thing and he is dumbass. He is spending our country dry. I told her, you need to stop, bush was a dumbass. if you rember right he spent money on any thing and evert thing. He took us from money in the bank when he stold the election and put us about 9 trillion in the hole. started 2 wars and left his this country is a shit hole. She then said, just because he could not talk in public, doen not mean he was dumb. then she started in on Obama and how he was not born in the US, and HE is a muslim. Then she said I must go I teaching bible class today. I then said, why are you teaching bible class when you are trashing a nother person with lies, is that the christan way now.
this is a good example of the culture club wars. she'll stand by her culture club till the bitter end. right or wrong. much easier for this person to accept the deception then to challenge the members of her club.
BUSH gave the evangelicals a big dose of deception and many went for it. what did he provide them except some false attention and a christian crusade in the middle east.
An Everything to do with their class/income-level as well as the depth of their isolation from the people. Too many of these shills act as if they have been unleashed to be the shits they really wanted to be all along.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
can a shithead like Joe the scab can get on TV. This guy lies about every thing. I wanted to buy the plumbing from my boss for 250 thousand dollars. this scab was not a pumber. I guess ge got tired of cleanning shit out of shtters and started talking shit. Hey joe, payed your taxes, you know, the ones you forget to pay last year.And dont forget your child support.
Joe the Plumber was hamming it up with that spit-shooter--Bill Maher.
Bill Maher asked that Joe the Plumber softball questions too. As I have said, Maher needs to be exposed for the phony and fraud he is.
sorry...but he is full of shit.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Liberal AND Proud, I appreeciate your sentiment about Bill Maher.
Liberal AND Proud, please go check out the interview Maher did with Bill Bradley and tell me that Maher was not blaming the recipients of Medicare and Social Security for the present day economic woes.
Some "lefty" that Maher is alright. Maher blames those with the least amount of power for the ecoonmic decisions made at the top.
Liberal AND Proud, yes, I would be very interested to know your opinion of the Maher-Bradley interview. Thanks. Take care.
but...linky please.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
joe the plumber is just another reality show........for some. he's a team mascot. he represent the demographic of people that know much about nothing.
and he keeps getting free platforms too....inclduing a free ride and hotel to do the Bill Maher show....this demonstrates what a very warped society it is.
Joe the Plumber has become a spectacle and media fetish, and Maher plays right along, so I say shame on HBO and Mr. Maher for continuing this spectacle and fetish.
that's definitely one of the ways to look at it. he may be further exposing joe the plumber to the public. it's comedy... kind of. your probably more correct then me. joe the plumber is a version of hypocrisy. from my perspective joe the plumber is a opportunistic joke.
I do not find Maher's shtick to be all that "comical."
I see Maher as a "B" rated comedian as well. Maher is no A list comedian. Carlin did not depend on writers for his comedy routines.
I see no comedic value of putting Joe the Plumber on his show to hawk his book. Maher makes fun of Joe the Plumber in past shows and then has him on as a guest? Please.
In all due respect, Maher's guests for the most part are not put on for the greater purpose of "comedy." Maher's guests are actually there to engage in serious political conversation, which is why I criticize putting on Joe the Plumber.
That Joe the Plumber is now a "credible author" of a book is also laughable. If Maher put his ghost writer on as a guest, then perhaps, that would have value of some sort. There have been plenty of very credible books released in the last two months, in which HBO/Maher could have asked those authors to appear on his show.
Joe the Plumber is a published author.
George W. Bush can't get anyone to publish his memoirs.
This has to be some kind of commentary on our society.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
like i said your probably more right than me. i don't really think(maher) is that funny either, but that of course is subjective. sure the greater purpose is"serious"political conversation, but there's plenty of nuance/laughing at the expense of others. i'll just leave it at that.
Okay...fair enough...Yes it is subjective...
There is a certain demographic in the US which I will call 'Old Farts'. It consists mainly white men near or past retirement age.
This is not the coveted 18-35 demographic that most tv shows are geared toward.
The only television old farts watch is news and talking heads. They are also some of the largest readers of newspapers - particularly the editorial sections. Sometimes they spend their retirement writing letters to the editor.
Newspapers and TV want to reach this demographic for advertising purposes since they are not reachable through stuff targeted 18-35. Just look at the difference between advertisments on talking heads shows and the rest of tv.
My father was an old fart.
for the stereotype.
woodguy
We're almost to the standard of China, a state media of 1, with our Corporate Media, thus the concerns of fascism during the Bush years and the degeneration of a real political left in this country with a weak "center right" "no drama Obama" status quo guy as president now.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Are a country with no left wing.
At the end of the day, the news industry is a business. Publishers and editors want to make money, which means they have to keep advertisers and the public happy. Even if what they report are lies, they can't afford to anger the 25 percent of the population who believes Obama is a Muslim, Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Qaida, and Armageddon is near.
The Times is Conservative now? Wow, must have missed that one.
The reason that it is easier to get an editorial published if you're conservative is because the newspaper is so liberal. Think about it, if they want one conservative and one liberal reply but they get 10,000 liberal replies and 100 conservative who has a better chance of getting published?
You'd rather they just refrain from printing the conservative view point entirely, right? That way you can sit in your protective bubbles and avoid any kind of challenge to your philosophy. Very easy to believe in broken philosophy when you never have to encounter the alternative view point.
I used to think you people were crazy, now I'm absolutely sure. The NY Times is conservative? The garbage you people think up is just mind numbing.
I love the ridiculous generalizations you people make about conservatives, you seem to think your opponents (us) are retarded back water hill billies. You don't even know who we are.
every day they inspire millions of conservative teabaggers to contact and harass and whine to local media for giving them truth and reality that contrasts with the lies, distortions, myths , and stupidity they get from 1000 radio stations and national and local blowhards who would dissolve if they didn't have call screeners to protect them from dissenting callers and truth.
the talk radio monopoly determines the flavor of american media.
How to destroy a newspaper. Like Paul Krugman said, if you want to "assert" that the earth is round, the mainstream media will have to put on an opposing opinion. And apparently Rosenthal bought into that.
Comments are closed on this entry