On Sep 30, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:
> > On 30-Sep-08, at 8:05 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: >> >>> On 28-Sep-08, at 7:17 PM, Chris Bischoff wrote: >>> >>>> On Sep 28, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: >>>>> On 27-Sep-08, at 3:11 PM, Chris Bischoff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> WTF is this "gotcha" BS you keep rattling on about? >>>>>> >>>>>> Gibson and Katie both ... Even without my bias it wasn't that >>>>>> hard to >>>>>> catch. >>>>> -- >>>>> You bring it up constantly. >>>> Me? >>> -- >>> You're absolutely right, Chris. I mistakenly attributed this post to >>> Francis. >> >> Do yourself a favor and listen to what Bill Katz has to say about the >> coverage of our current presidential campaign: >> >> <http://urgentagenda.com/AUDIO/AUDIO%20-%20SEPT% >> 2008/9.30.08.AUD.html> > > -- > > I agree. > > Objective truth, as much as I believe there is one, is leaving the > "news". > > I think, in some ways, that this is completely unavoidable. > > I have to admit up front that I'm one of those leftist shits that > doesn't believe in objective truth. A victory IS a matter of > perspective, and there are 8+ billion perspectives on the planet. > There is no possible way to have a human report the news without some > bias unless they were to stand-off screen and read bullet points in a > monotone voice. And you have that option. You could easily restrict > yourself to an AP feed, which are normally shorter, fact based > stories by local reporters. Any news station or paper will have read > and processed these stories into editorialized pieces which do indeed > serve a perspective. There's news, and then there is editorializing, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two. When it comes to media bias, AP is one of the worst. > There are plenty of conservative outposts playing the exact same > ratings game. In fact, it has to happen that way. If your audience is > primarily conservative, the liberal contributors are out of place, > and receive complaints from readers and advertisers. The audience > itself forces the views apart. Capitalism forces any profit-driven > organization to seek out money above truth. Market driven economies > are really a republican mainstay, and naturally drive industries away > from seeing any problem as an ethical problem. The fact that there are "conservative" news outlets and "liberal" news outlets is not the problem. The problem is that those outlets insist that they're neutral when they're not. They should declare an allegiance, or preference, for one party or the other. That change alone would be adequate for me. > The tradition is that Democrats want their party to run the most > honest campaign possible, and Republicans want their party to win at > all costs. That's why nice guys finish last, and that's why you are > seeing far more unrepentant liberalism lately. You're views of Democrats and Republicans are rather sophomoric. There are significant differences between the two parties when it comes to policy. But, when it comes to honesty and lust for power, they're both the same. > I see the media and government as an adversarial arrangement. That was by design. Unfortunately, they're getting too close and too comfy with those in power (or about to ascend to power). With that comes fame and fortune for the so-called journalist. Take a look at Drudge this morning for one example regarding Gwen Ifill. > The > media should always be questioning the government, and then > investigating it's claims. That's especially true of candidates for high office. > They've been widely criticised during the > last few years for not asking tough enough questions, and for letting > a lot of crazy lies on to the airwaves direct from the government's > mouth. The press has special protections in this country. With that comes a special responsibility -- keep the American public well informed. I don't believe they've been fulfilling their responsibility. They're now keeping Americans well-supplied with information, but not well-informed, with the express purpose of getting Obama elected. Case in point -- do you think Obama would be the Democratic Party candidate if the John Edwards affair was revealed before the Iowa caucusus? I don't think so, nor do many of the Clinton supporters I know. You heard Mr. Katz -- Obama is the most poorly vetted candidate for president, ever. The press has more reporters digging through dumpsters in Alaska than they do looking into Obama's background as a community organizer. If Obama loses because the press started covering his ties to Bill Ayers and ACORN in October, that would be a shame. And very, very harmful to our country. Not because Obama lost, but because it tarnishes the winner. > There was a big push on the idea that being American meant not > questioning your government, and I think a lot of news sources bowed > to the almighty buck. > > Frankly, I think Republicans have always lied this much and we just > didn't know about it. You're painting with waaaay too broad a brush there, Michael. In your simplistic mind, only the Republicans lie. In my simplistic mind, only the Democrats lie. The truth is that both are capable of lying and they're both are capable of doing good things. Good government needs a strong majority and a loyal opposition. They need to consider those strong views from both the left and the right to craft good legislation. But the behavior of politicians is not the issue in this thread. It's the behavior of the press that troubles me. They've become a significant factor in this race (much more so than Obama's race), and that should never be the case. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
