From Breitbart:
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don’t care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.
And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news — roughly one quarter of all Americans — were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.
More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don’t care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.
More than half — 53 percent — of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for “failing to stand up for America”.
Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.
The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public’s opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.
“Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America… a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight,” Pew said in a report.
One note of interest to take from this is that younger and more politically-engaged news consumers are both more aware of — and ostensibly troubled by — what they see as media bias and a trend toward advocacy reportage, than are their older counterparts.
Could this be “blowback” from a second-order understanding of precisely how it is that viral memes are developed, transmitted, and reinforced, until such time as they are molded into something resembling Enlightenment “truths”? Because if so, one could make the argument that the deconstruction of post-structuralist epistemology is (ironically) the best weapon against that epistemology’s propensity to insinuate itself into the social and political fabric of American policy discourse — and that such an understanding was made possible by the very academics given to proselytizing for the linguistic turn.
Or, to put it in a way more familiar to regular readers of this site, coming to understand what it is we think we’re doing when we interpret narrativized data is an essential component in understanding how we understand — which in turn will allow us to recognize (and so correct, if necessary), the kernel assumptions that underpin a culturally ascendant epistemic paradigm.
Alternately, it could just mean that we’ve learned to mouth a distrust of the traditional news media, even as we continue to trust that it remains committed to a conventional embrace of “objectivity.”
And alas, judging by polls that reflect just how much Americans have internalized the tradional media’s framing of events, I fear we may be seeing more of the latter than the former.
Still, a fella can dream…
(h/t Glenn)
Off to enjoy a nice, hour-long “core synergistics” workout. Which is the aerobic and resistance-training equivalent of being beaten repeatedly in the stomach with a billy club while running blindfolded on a treadmill.
WON’T ANDREW SULLIVAN SAVE ME?
And alas, judging by polls that reflect just how much Americans have internalized the tradional media’s framing of events, I fear we may be seeing more of the latter than the former.
Eh. I’m more likely to chalk it up to the power of marketing. As Philip Greenspun once said: “Ford Motor Company has enough money to remind you 2,000 times a year that ‘Quality is Job One’; unless your friend was roasted in a Pinto gas tank explosion, you probably will eventually come to agree.”
Even when we know we’re being lied to, we still come to believe the lie. Hell, I forked over 7 bucks for a lousy roast beef sandwich at Arby’s today, merely because I could have sworn I saw a glowing orange cowboy hat floating above my co-worker’s head.
The trick is to make sure that counter-marketing continues to be broadcast. We need to remind ourselves that there is a small, sad, scared little man hiding behind the Mighty Oz.
I think that part of the problem is that if you ask people if the media is biased, those who say that it is also believe that they are not affected by the bias, i.e., that having noticed the bias, they can make the necessary corrections, knowing when to call bullsplat and when to call it good.
The other problem with ferreting out subjective bias in narrative is that you get kinda dizzy. After awhile, all you see are different sets of assumptions that people hold, and seeing how so many people can believe so many different things based on, one supposes, the same facts (life’s little experiences), it’s easy to wonder if it matters which assumptions you choose in the end.
I guess we could go on to analyze what the consequences are of each set of assumptions (and that can be difficult to do, but not without a great deal of insight to be gained), but then it comes down to which results do we want.
And then the “we” splits up into many pieces because, when you get right down to it, everybody wants something different out of life. Some people genuinely want absolute power (or close to it) and don’t give a hang about the other niceties that are missing from their life. Other people are content to live in a highly controlled society where there’s little risk and little change (and little growth or innovation). Still others would be fine without having to worry about a society at all.
So on that nihilistic note: Hanna Nobel. Whoever she is.
I think that some people actively embrace the bias, because they know it serves their interest.
The trick is to show people how it works so that we can do away with the conventions that pretend toward non-bias.
It is only at that point where, in the marketplace, the kind of fact-based journalism that an informed populace relies upon can gain purchase.
Hold on to that dream.
No, the public has not yet internalized the underlying conceit; for most that level of understanding does not come at a highly conscious level, if for no other reason than they lack the requisite lexicon. But the growing doubts and suspicions are an overall positive sign.
Dicentra:
I agree that constantly second-guessing our assumptions and the assumptions of those around us has an anarchically dizzying effect. So, then, where do we stand? Upon what rock, what immutable fact, can we position ourselves? In the playground of life, we don’t want to test our bearings from the merry-go-round–much better from the back of that big green concrete turtle, right?
So, as Jeff has pointed out before, we begin by saying there is such a thing as Truth, and by remembering that we are–for the most part–incapable of perceiving it. However impossible, the pursuit of Truth is the most noble of endeavors.
Without acknowledging the existence of Truth, or for that matter, of other absolutes such as Love, Beauty, and Justice–I am afraid that the MSM is relegated to a permanent seat on the merry-go-round.
There. That’s more than a lurker should write, in quantity and in clarity.
“much better from the back of that big green concrete turtle, right?”
Yup. It’s good to remember that “our” green turtle is actually standing on the shell of the green turtle below, too. Just as it always has.
Turtles are so cool.
So. Word is getting out.
That’s comforting.
(and so correct, if necessary)
Unfortunate big-t Truth: This epistemic black hole is like a real one. There’s no “out” to go back to; you can see it, still, but it’s not there anymore. The world is transfigured. It will always be too late.
If you’re trying to make other people do things, Strauss (after Plato, Nietzsche, etc.) had the right idea: know how it is, use it, and (optionally) lie about it. It’s what “academics given to proselytizing for the linguistic turn,” and other politicians, do. It works.
Put it to better use. Or just pretend that that blurry mess on the cave wall is blocked cable porn, squint just right, and spank to it. Banging your head against it doesn’t do anything but break your head.
Never underestimate the stupidity that exists in the upper echelons of the MSM. From Dan Rather to the editors (or soon to be former editors) of TNR, to even the editor of Nashville’s alt-weekly, their ego’s know no bounds.
The Nashville thing I’m referring to is from this-
http://politics.nashvillecityblogs.com/?p=135
The second comment on this post was from Liz Garrigan, the editor of the Nashville Scene, our local alt-weekly. Here’s what I’m talking about-
Most bloggers wouldn’t last an hour under the journalistic quality control that a newspaper demands.
Uh-huh. I don’t necessarily disagree that there are many bloggers whose collective IQ wouldn’t amount to a large shoe size, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t call a spade a spade.
The Goliaths ignore the Davids at their own peril.
There are an awful lot of Davids coming back from Iraq who have seen the light on this one, and they’re talking about Goliath’s lack of credibility. Trouble is, Goliath isn’t going to tell you about them, but there are plenty more Davids who can, should and will.
Intersting take here.
“Removed from real competition, journalism has increasingly become politics, with the moral corruption that always flourishes among the poltical classes.”
I suspect plain ld corruption has more to do with all of this than anyone wants to admit…anyone.
“plain old,” sorry.
Sure. But one of the ways to use it is to point out its flaws and point people toward an epistemology that yielded more satisfying results.
Which, while it often feels like banging one’s head against the wall, is no less potentially effective for the cuts and bumps and headaches.
Every rhetorical push to eschew lazy relativism that relies on a fidelity to (man-made) “universals” is “using it” in precisely the same way those who have so misunderstood postmodern philosophy use it.
Arguing that we should be trying to approximate “things as they are” (to use Rorty’s differentiation between what is and “truth”) when we speak of “truth” is another competing epistemic proposition — and one that has the salutatory effect of giving us a fixed ground from which to engage in discourse.
Just as intent provides that fixed ground in discussions over “meaning”.
I think I wrote about this before at some point. Will see if I can’t find the post.
Ah.Here it is.
Never underestimate the stupidity that exists in the upper echelons of the MSM.
Or anywhere else you find a conglomeration of The Educated (and I’m one of them). I just read this letter to Powerline from William Katz about the arrogance of The Educated in journalism. Because they were able to jump through all of the scholastic hoops that were put before them, parents, teachers, and peers have told them all their lives how smart they are.
Humility is the one subject that is never addressed in academia, unless they’re telling other people to humble themselves before the academics’ greatness. It’s easy to think that Being Educated is the same as Being Wise, but nothing could be farther from the truth. When you’ve got a few degrees under your belt, you figure that you pretty much know anything of importance, and so your mind isn’t open to your own stupidity and ignorance.
And thus it ever has been…
the salutatory effect of giving us a fixed ground from which to engage in discourse
Because really, even though we have a he-said/she-said kind of situation with TNR (well, if you’re gullible, that is), either those incidents happened or they didn’t. Either someone kills dogs with Bradleys or there’s a woman with a melted face there or not.
And along the same line, if a bit off-axis —
It is an observed fact that the audience, readership and viewership, of the media-based “news” is shrinking, and doing so fairly rapidly in both absolute and relative terms. Several possible explanations for that have been floated, notably competition from the blogosphere; thus Ms. Garrigan’s comment. And while we are dutifully attempting to go forward using Jeff’s concepts, which are good ones, we should also pause occasionally to encourage that attitude, despite the fact that it’s going to cause some nastiness to come our way. A frontal attack, especially on two fronts, is a marvelous way to keep the other guys’ attention off the forces massing at their rear.
What is happening is that the mainstream news organizations are making themselves irrelevant. The word “news” is a neologism not related to the word “new”, but the assonance is obvious — “news” is something we haven’t heard before. If we already know what the content is (or will be) there’s no utility there, and no reason to pay for it, even by forfeiting teeny pieces of our lifetime sitting through the Depends commercials.
As it stands the mainstream news is very nearly fact-free. There are several reasons for this; primarily, though, it results from a positive feedback loop involving the structure of the pecking order in the news business, the self-satisfied elitism of the “educated” (as mentioned by Ledeen, quoted by corvan above), and the cost-cutting ambitions of the business-school graduates who run things.
More important, for real decision-makers “the news” is already irrelevant. A person who needs to decide where to send troops, be they uniformed military or sales reps with bags of samples, can ignore the NYT, and is better off doing so and digging elsewhere for the needed information. About the only remaining consumers of the mainstream news as news are the uneducated and minimally influential, who are important only as undifferentiated members of voting blocs. For everyone else, at maximum a mainstream-media story only informs us that something has happened; we can rely on the “facts” thus presented to be carefully sorted, and emphasized and elided, as necessary to support a specific political ideology — in other words, the story is useless as information even to the people who agree with the ideology. So why pay for it?
That’s eventually going to run them into the ground, and it couldn’t happen to a s*ttier bunch of a*holes. The danger is that they’ll notice and correct it before it’s too late, and we’d really rather that not happen — I, personally, want to see “Pinch” Sulzberger selling pencils on the street and being arrested for not having a pedlar’s license — so the right thing to do is (1) talk up the blogosphere as competition (which will keep them mad enough not to pay attention) and (2) keep pounding them on epistemology and “accuracy” (which will confuse them mightily, because by their own definitions they are accurate, i.e., they conform perfectly to the Narrative.) If we can keep their eye off the ball long enough, the Stock Exchange will flatten them in due time. The Stock Exchange doesn’t get mad (or happy) and it doesn’t attack anyone, but it’s fearsomely efficient at grinding useless shit into powder and flushing it down to Fresh Kills.
Regards,
Ric
There is also the entertainment aspect to consider, especially with TV news. Because I grew up in W. Va., people always want to talk about it when there is another mine collapse disaster on the news, about how dangerous mining is. Not to downplay the obvious dangers of working miles underground, but in the time since the Sego disaster about 5 times that many construction workers have been buried in trench cave-ins, if past averages hold true. But these are cases of usually one person, maybe two or three, being killed instantly and the bodies recovered that day, so there is no drama, no allnight vigils at the little village church, no anxious families to interview ad nauseum. It is not the news, it’s a fucking reality soap opera. That mentality permeates all of it, even STB had elements of it, the serialization, hoping people would get hooked on the battle for his soul.
B Moe, that’s a part of the business-school bit that doesn’t participate in the feedback loop because it has a tight little Red Queen’s Race of its own.
News-providers have discovered, over the years, that if there’s something really exciting people will pay to read/hear about it. “Extra! Extra!” “We interrupt this program…” They conclude from this that what they should concentrate on is the exciting stuff, because that’s what people will pay them most to provide.
The problem is twofold: different people think different things are exciting, until you get down to the common denominators, blood, guts, loud noises, and bright flashes of light; and people get used to the lower forms really quickly — it’s called “habituation”. One car crash is exciting (the proper word is titillating.) The next one is less so, the next less, and by the time of the fiftieth it’s “ho, hum, wonder if the beer’s cold yet.” So you have to up the ante. You start out with an ordinary crash, with tasteful long shots of the victims; by the time you get to the end of the process, you’re zooming in on people with their guts hanging out — and your viewers still get used to it, and won’t respond until you can come up with something more exciting.
And of course if you don’t find anything exciting enough, you have to manufacture it. Fortunately (for them) raw material is everywhere, but it quickly becomes another form of distortion. Those of us who follow military news knew about the abuses by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison four months before the NYT “broke the story”. What the news people did, of course, was wait for the car crash — boring textual descriptions of horrors aren’t good enough. You have to have pictures. And sometimes there just isn’t enough raw material — witness four years of trying to get something exciting, titillating, out of a fairly boring term of Reserve service.
They’ve cropped that pasture as short as their teeth are long and as far as their tether will reach; there’s no more nourishment in it.
Regards,
Ric
tw: habituals, husk (with the comma). This thing is good enough to key new posting ideas. Yay!
And yet? Plenty of methane gas.
Earth-butchering philistines.
Ric Locke’s comment (#18) was very interesting and I tend to agree with much of it, but on a few points I disagree.
I think that for the ‘real decision makers, the news always has been irrelevant. Except in the context of manufacturing public consent, or opposition. The MSM simply follows the events, shaping the perception to fit its own particular viewpoint, usually. It can even create them in certain circumstances. To wit, the firestorm created by the non-story of a minor complaint of an undercover CIA agent being outed and the complaint referred to the DOJ, two months later. Normally, this wouldn’t have even been followed up. But the (Wilson/Plame) affair put the administration into a defensive crouch for three years and one person did jail time and another is going to.
The MSM still wields the big megaphone and repeated exposure to whatever it is saying tends to eventually soak in to a greater or lesser degree.
How else do you explain that with inflation down to where it was in the 90’s or lower, with unemployment at record low levels, with the deficit a fraction of what was projected and if revenues continue may be eliminated by the time the next administration is sworn in, there is and has been for sometime much pessimism about our economy. This is (in my opinion) directly related to the MSM continually broadcasting doom & gloom?
How else do we explain the effect that much of the MSM has had on the erosion of will to fight this very important war?
The MSM may be down, but I do not think that is anywhere near out.
Again, those minimally influential consumers were the difference in the last election between a democratic and a republican controlled congress. So the MSM was certainly not irrelevant.
I don’t think that the administration would have refrained from prosecuting the NYT for leaking critical secret information in time of war if they didn’t wield considerable influence.
I have to agree wholeheartedly that it’s the blogosphere that is helping erode the MSM’s audience.
However, they’re (the MSM) still the gatekeepers, it’s just that now the blogosphere has cut a lot of holes in their fence so they can’t control the flow of information or the public perceptions created by them and thus help set the agenda as totally as they once did.
Those with the means have begun to realize that the MSM is largely unpatriotic bullshit. I really don’t care about the epistemology. I’m just elated that a large number of people realize that the MSM cannot be trusted. That it has political agenda.
“one person did jail time and another is going to”
Judy did her time for Fitz’s lies but Libby will never see a cell. The commutation fixed that one.
I think I would toss cable into the mix that you and Ric have described. Increased exposure levels don’t generally help poor products.
Tim P, we’re more in agreement than may be apparent. For one thing, you are absolutely correct to say they still “wield the big megaphone”. My point is simply that they are beginning to be more like the PA system in the original M.A.S.H.: everybody hears it — they have no choice — but fewer and fewer people are paying attention. That’s why the, hmm, the only good word is lascivious attention to things like Katrina/New Orleans. They have to have something incredibly striking to present, or people simply turn away.
The continual drip, drip, drip is more important, and that’s why we need to support Jeff to the extent we can. No, we can’t inflict any deep wounds, but they’ll do that to themselves, and already have.
One thing I do disagree with:
I say again what even the people who were discussing it at the time have apparently forgotten: the 2006 election was not about Iraq, or even the Bush Administration; almost all of the Democrats who unseated Republicans did so under the “culture of corruption” flag, and did their best to minimize or avoid the war or reference to Bush, impeachment, or any of the rest of the sacred cows of the Kos/DU leftoids — which is why Reid and Pelosi have had to yield to the Administration on FISA and a number of other issues. Constituents are calling and writing Congresscritters, and they are not supporting the Kos issues or the Mooreonic Convergence.
The media and the Democratic leadership have been pounding hard on the “Administration abuses” drum, but when the votes were counted the issue went the other way. The real decision makers are voters, and the people who are still strongly influenced by the MSM nowadays overwhelmingly don’t vote. The people who go to the polls are the ones who care, and the all-important centrists in that category don’t pay all that much attention to the MSM any more, which is why ad revenues at CBS are down and the NYT had to “downsize”.
Regards,
Ric
So, from the back of the now iconic big-ass green turtle, I look at various “news” deliverers and evaluate them based on this standard:
Do they report FACTS?
If, as with TNR, there is a history of seeking facts that feed a particular biased narrative–only for the sake of feeding said narrative–instead of pursuing Truth, then I ignore them. It is up to the “Davids” to point out when the MSM slips off the path, because otherwise TNR and others of that ilk don’t just lack credibility, they lack accountability.
If all is as you say, and on this we tend to agree, then the time spent learning about incontinecy products may represent the only true value gained from the entire exercise.
When viewed on a suitably long timeline, that is.
Ric L. Well said.
All I’ll add, regarding the 2006 election I agree with you that it was the ‘culture of corruption’ meme. And it was the MSM that flogged it.
Now, about that dancing ‘dillo.
On the very few occasions I watch or read the MSM I keep this firmly in mind:
Fear sells fishwrap.
and everything is explained.
Rory denied that’s harsh. I’d simply discourage the poor SOB
Because we know that the MSM is the same as Corporate Media Ownership, and as it continues its relentless march to be owned by fewer and fewer hands, we can be content in the hope that once the takeover is absolute, one day things will change for the better. Who but the media baron representing big corporations has a greatest interest of informing the dull and ignorant masses? Once the complete takeover is done, we will see a true resurgence of fact-based and objective reporting, as we know it is in the interest of the noble (albeit monopolistic) media owner to inform the public about the world as it really is, to the best of their ability. Since only an educated populace is able to make the best decision to improve their lot in life.
Those rats that still lurk in today’s media corridors, dirty back alleys they could be, that somehow manage to turn that which is not, into that which is, and even make the populace believe that the shadows they see inside the cave are not shadows, but the real thing, one day will scurry away, having been completely replaced by the exterminator of lies, the corporate media baron. Alas, the time will come when reality will be reported in the traditions that extol the virtues of the sacred Ayn Rand, and the masses will wake up from their dull and persistent stupor and finally see the light!
Wow Luis, that stuff is pure poetry. Do the Pulitzers have a category for strawman poetry? Cause if they do, BAM!
tw: credited universe
Nothing special, life refusal, but one day I will become more than just a strawman, when I see what you see, and believe in the righteousness of what you believe.
KLRFZ1, maybe we can submit this one, and see what happens…
but one day I will become more than just a strawman
With the thoughts you’d be thinkin’
You could be another Lincoln…
Push back. Pleasantly. Firmly. In every casual conversation. The heights of our philosophical view on all this won’t stand without the friendly persuasion at the mere level of day-to-day interaction.
Most of them have never been challenged out of their comfort zone, and they are not the enemy. The peer pressure works quite well. Then they go right back to what they think they thought before you called them on it. So you have to pleasantly persuade yet again, cheerfully challenge, gently lead. You must be convinced of the joyous freedom of your Truth and lead others around their obstacles, instead of trying to deconstruct the Lies.
Lies only work for liars, and as such, willful liars must be met on a different level. I watch Jeff and others doing the lion’s share of this kind of work, and I am heartened to believe that I can at least perform a smaller miracle: smile and say, “I don’t think that’s quite the case.”
If they jump into your sh*t with both feet, you can toe the line, stand your ground and keep smiling, or you can walk away and wait for a better moment. But the Lie must be challenged. It’s the duty of Free peoples to protect Truth on every front.
You have to make people want Truth. Unfortunately, enemies have a plan to do just that, and it’s not as nice as my personally patented plan.
Luis has claimed, in other threads, to be an open-minded seeker of the truth, spoiling for an intellectual debate.
In the thread he announced this, he began his intellectual inquiries with the observation that we are on the verge of becoming a banana republic, controlled by the religious right. DISCUSS!
Here, he begins his entry into the conversation not by addressing anything I wrote in my post, but rather by bringing up the specter of monopolistic media ownership (while, you know, posting on a fucking blog), then trots out the Ayn Rand bit to put the final rhetorical nail in our dull little coffins.
Because, you see, in Luis world, “Corporate Ownership” = corruption, in an equation as necessary as it is fraught.
Sure, there are only 24 hours in a day, but if Rupert Murdoch really wants to, he could probably find the time to make sure each and every one of those people working for him published only what he wanted to see.
Unfortunately, my ownership of Apple stock didn’t allow me a say in the design of the new iPhone. Otherwise, it would have had one of them Easy buttons, and a built in trimmer/razor.
Luis–
The secret to commenting here — and being taken seriously — is not to treat those whom you disagree with as if they’re total morons. Particularly preemptively.
If you have a wish to address what is written in the post, do so. If not, I don’t find you an interesting enough writer to wade through your pointless generalizations and conspiracy theories, so I might just take to skipping over them altogether.
And then you won’t get the attention you so desperately crave.
Corporations. They don’t want to sell you anything. They want to own your soul! Don’t even talk to me about the Military Industrial Complex. Oiy vey!!
Corporate Media Ownership is a persistent libertarian and truther alarmist meme, but I wonder how true it is? There are far more outlets for news today than ever before, taking the Web into consideration. Direct broadcasting from satellites for both video and audio channels deliver thousands of channels that provide alternative and narrowcasting media. Digital multiplexing may offer even more channels for earthbound stations. But alarmists don’t like the scenario in spite of that, as if one or two individuals will indeed control it all.
The MSM is monopolistic philosophically, and it was that media that misreported – intentionally – so much about communism for decades (Walter Duranty and the New York Times), Vietnam (Walter Cronkite and the lies about the TET offensive in his reporting), and Cuba (Dan Rather). MSM liberal bias is what is to be feared since it supports not greater liberty but greater regulation. It seeks to silence through government regulation what fails to conform to its agenda (the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”).
The problem is not that MSM outlets are consolidating as a goal of a demonic corporate plot. MSM outlets, repeatedly caught telling lies or making major mistakes in their narratives simply because the stories conformed to a bias, make themselves unattractive to persons who make decisions about their lives based upon that information. The MSM market shrinks down to the people who continue to support the narrative the MSM touts, who continue to believe in the same liberal delusions. That, fortunately, is not a huge number that can support the alphabet networks and liberal purveyors of doubtful prose like the New York Times.
So I guess what you’re suggesting is that, increasingly, New York Times circulation managers, NPR pledge drives, Time magazine, etc. are going to the same well for “donations” as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the DNC. For now, who knows what this means, in a recession, could be interesting.
Which, I’d guess, given how these people think, if the circulation picture got bad enough, we might anticipate a move to grant tax deductions for news subscriptions, just as NPR enjoys now.
“Luis–
The secret to commenting here  and being taken seriously  is not to treat those whom you disagree with as if they’re total morons. Particularly preemptively. ”
Jeff, first and foremost, talk about clueless, when we engaged in our last “discussion” I had no idea I was talking to the Jeff G. Let me just say that regardless of the tenor of our exchanges so far I find it a badge of honor that you have chosen to challenge me and engage with me in discussion, even thought, if thus far I had proven to be an unworthy opponent, if I understand you correctly.
I’m not here to take pot shots, or cheap shots and anybody, and then run back and high behind my already-made-up liberal loony mind. I can grow an learn.
In fact, yesterday I was on Hesperian Blvd. having a quick lunch at Wendy’s (I tried to eat healthy bdw), and in the middle of eating my turkey sandwhich I had a moment of zen; I decided that my little theory of the possibility of a Coup D’état in the U.S. was bullshit, at least for now. The healthy discussion I had with you guys helped with that. That’s the magic of intellectual give-and-take. Sometimes it is possible that the opponent may be influence to see the light, or to learn.
Regarding the media, I still have hope, especially after reading an article last night on the August 11th issue of the Economist, which finished with this conclusion: “The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement–weilding power successfuly. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats’s game to win or lose.”
In my previous note I went to I believe to be the crux of the issue (the so-call kernel), but I will go back a couple of layers and engage you at your level.
“Jeff, first and foremost, talk about clueless, when we engaged in our last “discussion†I had no idea I was talking to the Jeff G.”
You do realize, Luis, that when addressing His Lordship Master Goldstein directly it is imperative that you carefully disinfect your keyboard and wear silk gloves while typing?
Luis wrote
Well, you might not have been actually talking to him so much as using his blog comments section as a platform for your own oh-so-mighty intellectual superiority. However, since this blog is owned by “the JeffG”(sic) it might have occurred to you that he had a chance of noticing what you wrote… and having something to say about it.
TW: unwisdom first
How old are you, that you needed “intellectual give-and-take” with people on the other side of the political fence to realize that a paranoid conspiracy theory was a paranoid conspiracy theory?
Good lord.
propaganda, an npr art form…
You’ve seen the link on Drudge. Bush War Adviser: Military draft should be considered… This would be Lt. Gen Douglas Lute talking with our subsidized pals at NPR.
NPR’s Michelle Norris interviewed Lute in a story in which they pimp th…
And yet you come back spewing tripe about Big Corporate Media(cue the eerie music). Maybe it wasn’t a zen like experience. Maybe it was gas.
Jeff, I will address the issue at heart in this thread, but let me first address the issue of ideology, as it has surfaced many times during our discussions.
Moral relativism is the enemy of truth. Truth doesn’t belong to anybody, to any ideology, nor to any epoch. Truth is there whether we know it or not. Sometimes we can achieve “knowledge” which is where truths and beliefs meet, but in my opinion this process is a lifelong process.
As I have stated previously, I never (and probably never will) claimed that I have achieved a high level of knowledge that would allow me to say that I am a wise man, although I believe it is something that can be achieved at some point in the journey of life. The little knowledge I have been able to achieve so far, however, tells me that the conservative right wing ideology, as it is practice in the U.S. today, is a bankrupt ideology; a set of beliefs that fall far away from truths.
For I “know” that burning a man at the stakes for being an unbeliever, or lynching a man by hanging because of the color of his skin, or burning and drowning witches at Salem, or claiming that a brain dead woman that has laid in that condition for years can still be saved (because of a diagnosis performed by watching a TV screen), or attacking the morality of a woman because she chooses to share her love by laying each night with another woman and pressing her breast against her partner’s in the practice of love-making, or claiming to know the absolute truth about the deepest mysteries of existence, or claiming that dinosaurs and men lived together within the last 5,000 years, or claiming that God rains sulphur on bad people, or destroys cities because of their sinful ways. My friends, those things are demonstrably and utterly wrong. You don’t have to achieve wisdom to know those things. To ascertain so means that at least you are on the right path to maybe one day come close to achieving knowledge.
For where else would you find a preponderance of adherents to some of the things I list here, but on the conservative right? Where else would you find the obtuse, zealot mind that is so sure of the righteousness of their beliefs, that the average practitioner is incapable to ever admit that he was wrong about anything, as they see such a thing as signs of a weak and unprincipled mind.
Regarding politics, I have no problem expressing my disdain towards the current crop of leaders in the Democratic party. For how is it possible that a man of character, a true war hero, can be defeated by a leader who is so demonstrably inferior, and hence, you see the catastrophic results in our governance today.
They are weak and they are cowards (Democrats). The one thing I admire about the Republicans, especially the right wing Republicans, is the level of fervor with which they fight for their positions and beliefs; they fight with gusto. They BELIEVE in what they are doing. They have cojones. So yes my friend, I take my hat out to you (if you are one), bow down, and pay my respects to you.
But in the cesspool that is politics today, where at one level we are basically talking about one party (Rep/Dem) deep in the pockets of corporations, and where we are talking basically about sewage, I choose to waddle in the pond labeled “D” as its water has gone through at least the first level of purification.
As to the issue at hand, if you put all the mainstream media together, including the so-called leftist liberal loonies like the NYT and NPR, it is basically a mirage of a true independent media dedicated to truly inform and educate. However, the eclectic reader who bothers to read many different sources from many different points of view, can educate himself; but you have to want to do so.
Regarding T.V., the overall effect is to dumb-down and to misinform (all put together, starting with FoxNews). The worst thing the average person can do is to come home every day from work, tired, and wanting a little relaxation, is to turn the T.V. on and pretend that she is being informed and educated. The effect is to basically to turn out Orcs.
I hope I addressed the issue of the so-called liberal media, but I’ll be glad to clarify any point.
———————
How old are you, that you needed “intellectual give-and-take†with people on the other side of the political fence to realize that a paranoid conspiracy theory was a paranoid conspiracy theory?
Good lord.
———————
McGehee, I’m 41 years old. I agree; it was a paranoid conspiracy theory. Maybe one day I would realize that a man my age should have already all the answers, and will come to view the world your way, and at that point I’ll be sure to defend my unwavaring position about anything with the same fervor. It takes some people longer than others. I will try to gloss over the insults, putdowns, and namecalling and will focus on engaging in direct debate with substantive issues, from now on, otherwise, I’ll never get to it.
Ever notice that everything you needed to know about “right wing Republicans you learned from the liberal media? They still won’t let Jerry Falwell die. You’ve been played. Your media inflates the “right wing” far far in excess of its actual influence. They do this because they know you’ll lick. it. up.
I’ll settle for you demonstrating basic critical thinking skills, which would have caused you to question the notion of a coup d’etat the first time somebody spoon-fed it to you.
Where else would you find the obtuse, zealot mind that is so sure of the righteousness of their beliefs, that the average practitioner is incapable to ever admit that he was wrong about anything
TNR’s editorial board, The Church of Algore, and The Academy?
Man, for somebody who don’t know nothing, Luis sure has a lot to say.
I’ll leave it to someone else to Ctrl-C and paste the terabytes of irrational leftist beliefs, not that it would do any good.
I am curious to see only what Luis DOES believe is a non-bankrupt and rational set of political beliefs – I could sure us the laugh about now.
What is Orcs? Is he saying TV turns people into Orcs? That sounds quite dire. I hope this gets resolved before BSG comes back.
tease!
I actually thought I’d post a response to this, but if Luis actually can ignore the five consecutive years of expansion of the economy, the all-time low unemployment rate, the lack of attacks upon the homeland since 9-11, the all-time record high of home ownership (and LESS THAN 1% OF ALL MORTGAGES NATIONALLY HAVE FAILED!!!!!!), and the progress of the Iraq war in the last few weeks…well, I haven’t time to suffer idiots.
Time for another Jim beam and the Mummy Channel (History International, tonight).
NO!!!! DANGER DANGER
YOU WILL BE ORCIFIED!!!
oh god they got Geezer
Ahh, there you are happy.
We’ve been waiting for you.
Come on in and have a seat.
Beltway Boys is just starting.
Ok, before I’m reprimanded again, let me try to stay with MSM…
“On its face, this is the greatest encroachment on civil liberties since the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.” — “Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who was a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and author of an article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.
So, guys before you start putting some pennies together for my straight jacket, notice that this quote comes from a constitutional lawyer, whom I presum to be a Republican (having worked as a Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan administration.)
He is talking about an Presidential Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.
“The order’s liberal use of the word ‘or’ and inclusion of the highly subjective term ‘significant risk’ are particularly troubling in the hands of a White House that has suggested that domestic war critics are emboldening U.S. enemies in Iraq.” — San Francisco Chronicle, August 5, 2007 – Page E-4
Regarding the Coup D’état musings, highly respected military leaders discussed the issue in this Harper’s article: “American coup d’etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable”.
Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/0080995
This is just to set the record straight regarding the issue of whether these ideas really that “crazy.” The only reason I’m less concerned is because it seems like the Republicans are heading to an unprecedented and crushing defeat in 2008. The bottom line is that people are concern about a President who one more time disregards the U.S. Constitution in “one frontal assault on the Fifth Amendment, which decrees that the government cannot seize an individual’s property without due process. So now, in addition to claiming the powers of detaining any individual indefinitely and without due process, he can also take the property of anybody, also without due process. While some on the right keep cheering him on. Brilliant!
I hope we can move on from this topic, to more specific issues regarding the media.
Bruce Fein just has a hardon for impeachment is all.
You might want to note the following from the website of the firm he’s a principal with:
WRITING SERVICES
* Corporate executive speeches, addresses, legislative or administrative testimony before Congress, agencies, the United Nations or international audiences, think tanks, educational institutions, or otherwise;
* Newspaper Op-Ed columns;
* Letters to the Editor;
* Monographs or essays for magazines or policy and professional journals;
* Policy and issue research; opposition research.
Don’t tell me that’s too conspiratorial a suggestion for you. At the very least you have to admit that that’s one spooky-assed website,
My tv, I replaced it with a fishtank years ago. I will not be orcified so easily. Ever seen The Omega Man? All I needs is the car.
Am I the only lefty in these whereabouts? Talk about walking into the Lyon’s’ den! Help!
Ok, let me get serious here, finally. This one is for TheGueezer. He actually had some good points. Let me start with some numbers:
“Overall, the Democrats are much more confident: 40% of Republicans believe that the Democrats will win, but just 12% of Democrats believe that the Republicans will win.”
“The Democrats are also likely to keep Congress. The tide that enabled the party to pick up 31 House seats and six Senate seats in 2006, along with six governorships and 321 state-legislature seats, is still swelling. The Republicans will be defending more vulnerable Senate seats than the Democrats in 2008, and they are losing the race for cash. The public favours Democratic control of Congress by a margin of 10-15 points. Off the record, Republicans use words like “catastrophe†and “Armageddon†to refer to 2008.”
“The issues that people care about are also tipping the Democrats’ way. A Pew Research poll in March discovered growing worry about income inequality combined with growing support for the social safety net. The proportion of Americans who believe that “the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt†has risen from 41% in 1994, at the height of the Republican revolution, to 54% today.”
“In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew.”
“Republicans have also whipped up a storm of opposition among middle-of-the-road voters on social issues. The religious right’s opposition to abortion has always been an electoral liability: only 30% of voters favour overturning Roe v Wade. But in the past few years social conservatives tested people’s patience still further over a federal marriage amendment and Terri Schiavo. Fully 72% of Republican voters opposed the Republicans’ attempt to use the might of the federal government to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive.”
And my favorite one …
“Why the conservative crack-up? The obvious cause of the right’s implosion is the implosion of the Bush presidency. Mr Bush has the worst approval ratings since Jimmy Carterâ€â€29% according to Newsweek and 31% according to NBC News. Only 19% of Americans think that America is headed in the right direction under Mr Bush. An astonishing 45% of Americans, including 13% of Republicans, support impeaching Mr Bush, according to the American Research Group.”
“Under the weather” – The Economist Magazine, August 11th, 2007, Page 20
Link: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9619083
——————
Look forward to discussing any of these issues.
Why do you people keep digging up that poor Teri Schiavo? I really doubt her carcass has another election cycle left in it, but knock yourself out.
Your “favorite one” is telling. Until you kids can replace that with a groundswell of support for some brilliant lefty scheme, instead of against someone who’s not even on the ticket in ’08, you guys are supremely vulnerable.
Katrina was your peak. Outside of a recession or a just perfectly timed defeat in Iraq, you guys have a much steeper hill to climb than you realize. All your schemes, the center and the right are oblivious to them. Not this fall but the fall after that, I think it’s a safe bet that things will be different than they were not that fall but the fall before that.
My friends, I’m doing my own research, and I’m about to publish my findings. In all the debates or discussions I have ever had with a self-described Conservative Republican (and I enjoy debating with them), I have never seen one instance, not even came close to, having any one of them ever admit they were wrong about anything. No matter the argument; no matter the source of any evidence I may put forward; no matter how hard-right the idea may be. Not once. It’s very illustrative. But I still have hope that one day it will happen.
We totally misjudged Spain’s value as an ally.
The putting a guy on Mars ain’t really working for us wither.
*either*
————-
#
Comment by happyfeet on 8/11 @ 10:07 pm #
Why do you people keep digging up that poor Teri Schiavo? I really doubt her carcass has another election cycle left in it, but knock yourself out.
Your “favorite one†is telling. Until you kids can replace that with a groundswell of support for some brilliant lefty scheme, instead of against someone who’s not even on the ticket in ‘08, you guys are supremely vulnerable.
Katrina was your peak. Outside of a recession or a just perfectly timed defeat in Iraq, you guys have a much steeper hill to climb than you realize. All your schemes, the center and the right are oblivious to them. Not this fall but the fall after that, I think it’s a safe bet that things will be different than they were not that fall but the fall before that.
————-
HAPPYFEET: Thank you. That’s respectful enough. I agree with you. When it comes to elections, one month is an eternity, never mind 18 months. Anything could happen, I agree. That’s why people on the left (I presume, as I am only one person) are concerned about protecting Constitutional rights, which if curtailed, could create an environment that could put our precious democracy at peril.
Also, I think it might have been a Republican at 20th that canceled Buffy. Bastard.
That’s just it Luis, the idea that you can sustain a politics that’s so fraught is wholly unrealistic. People have tolerance levels for that sort of thing, and that sort of politics demands that you become ever-fraughtier. Your media, it misleads you about how feasible this is, though I spect we can still expect oodles of angsty Katrina retrospectives come late summer ’08.
ruh roh raggy
—————–
That’s just it Luis, the idea that you can sustain a politics that’s so fraught is wholly unrealistic. People have tolerance levels for that sort of thing, and that sort of politics demands that you become ever-fraughtier. Your media, it misleads you about how feasible this is, though I spect we can still expect oodles of angsty Katrina retrospectives come late summer ‘08.
—————–
I agree with this 100%; I also saw your admissions of being “wrong”. So I’ll update my research findings. The first one: HAPPYFEET. That’s it for me tonight. My wife is going to kill me if I don’t get off the computer.
HAPPYFEET, I didn’t mean about being wrong in general, but abut Buffy, Mars, and Spain …
We’ll see you later –
Got it – I can probably come up with more, given enough tequila…
The putting a guy on Mars ain’t really working for us either.
Then along came Scott Thomas Beauchamp…
PWMF.
The putting a guy on Mars ain’t really working for us either.
Then along came Scott Thomas Beauchamp…
That’s why people on the left (I presume, as I am only one person) are concerned about protecting Constitutional rights, which if curtailed, could create an environment that could put our precious democracy at peril.
Thats why I, being a person of the left, am concerned about protecting those constitutional rights that we on the left think you should have in order to promote our version of what a democracy should look like.
There. Fixed that for you. Luis