On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:
> > On 1-Oct-08, at 9:49 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> 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. > -- > > Rueters then? > Why distinguish? Just assume all "news" has been editorialized. I already do. But that doesn't restore my confidence in broadcast and print news outlets. Confidence the media is key. If my candidate wins, I don't want supporters of the other candidate to believe it was because the media helped him and hurt his opponent. >> 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. > -- > > Because Bush has labeled liberals/dissenters as unpatriotic. I would dispute that claim, but even if he did, that's politics as usual. You may not have noticed, but Democrats say some pretty awful things about Republicans, too. But that's not the point. News outlets that editorialize should wear their allegiance on their sleeves. > What television station in their right mind would attach that stigma > to themselves and risk losing advertising? It's not just broadcast TV. It's cable TV and print as well. >>> 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 don't agree with you. Sorry. > > >>> 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. > -- > > They've been waaaay too comfy with the Bush administration, and I > think the Democrats deserve some unvarnished support from the media. Way to comfy with the Bush administration? I don't agree with that at all. If you want to argue that they've been incompetent in their coverage of the Bush administration, then I could agree. But to suggest that they're covering for the Bush administration is just plain silly. > You don't agree with imbalance towards the Dems, but didn't really > complain when it went the other way, so I don't feel bad about you > being slighted. If you're going to justify insidious press bias by my approval of it when it benefits conservatives, then please provide some specific examples. >>> 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. > -- > > After several years of keeping Americans pacified while the Bush > administration consistently broke the law and deceived the american > people. There you go again criminalizing political differences. > I agree, truth would be better, but since we're not getting that, > I'll settle for a Democrat in office. > > >> 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. > -- > > According to Mr.Katz. No offense, but I'm not a big fan of your > "facts". No offense taken. You might want to brace yourself, though. >>> 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. >> >> 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. > -- > > I'm still waiting for the Republicans to do something right. Now you're being silly again. You apparently disagree with their every position, so of course they aren't going to do anything "right" in your eyes. > Of course people lie in general, politicians doubly so. Dems and > Repubs alike. There has been less deceit in general on the Democrat > side of the fence. Can you point out Dem scandals? Sure you can. But > I can list 5 Repub scandals for every one. How far back do you want to go? And what will be the result if the Democrat scandals outnumber the Republican scandals? Never mind, I already know the answer. > In terms of the campaign specifically, every single McCain ad has > been tainted by misdirection and deceit. > > I prefer the liberal agenda, so I'd rather have liberal liars in > office. I get it -- he's a crook, but he's your crook. And you want me to believe your judgment is sound? >> 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. > > -- > > Look, I know you've got a bone to pick with the Media in general, but > cut them out of the equation for a moment. Why? That's the subject of this thread. > Look at the quality of Obama's and McCain's campaign advertising. > McCain's is mean-spirited and adversarial (and frequently just > untruthful), and Obama's is clean and dignified. I guess you missed a few of those Obama negative ads. Not surprising you being in Canada and all. > Face to face, Obama remains calm and talks about how he and McCain > share a lot of the same ideas and values, where McCain looks like a > crusty old coot that would just as soon walk across the stage and > slug Obama. That might get him a few votes. > Whatever experience deficit there is between Biden and Palin, at the > very least, Biden looks like he understands the issues, and Palin > looks like she's been coached to within an inch of her lfe. > > Media and values aside, the McCain camp seems to be having a lot of > trouble keeping their shit together. It's not nearly as polished as > Bush's two runs were. I see. You want us to select our president on style and appearance. Sorry, but I prefer to select them based on substance and their position on issues that are important to me. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
