On 1-Oct-08, at 6:04 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > >> 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. --
Confidence in the truthfullness of media is becoming passé. That's not an endorsement, just an observation. Values change. Institutions change. >>> 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. -- Sorry, no. Bush changed the rhetoric. "You're either with us or against us". That was not business as usual, it was control tactic. Rule by fear. > But that's not the point. News outlets that editorialize should wear > their allegiance on their sleeves. -- Like I said, I agree in principal, but not in this climate. >> 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. -- And? All media is supported by advertising. >> 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. -- Incompetent is the same as complicit. They've failed to report the news in context. They were in full force to report every little detail of a blowjob, but managed to make all of Bush's lies and disregard for the law look like business as usual. Nixon was impeached for hiding evidence, but Bush somehow managed to sidestep fabricating evidence, or even declaring the office of the Vice President above any and all law. I think the media played a part in making this seem like "no big deal" for fear of being "with the terrorists". >> 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. -- The last eight years. >>> 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. -- No, I'm criminalizing crimes. Bush and Cheney have both broken the law. >> 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. -- For what? >>> 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. -- And? >> 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. -- It's so much easier when you know what I'm going to say. >> 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? -- No, I don't care what you believe about my judgement. I think the democratic party and Obama specifically has been very truthful and very forthcoming about his past, about campaign finances, about everything. I expected you to respond to that moral stance with some scandal about a democrat, and I've been paying attention, it just doesn't matter. Yes, there are crooks in politics, and yes, they are on both sides. But for some reason, being a crook seems to be a part of the Republican culture. They are exposed so often that it just seems like money, and the acquisition of it, is of primary importance to Republicans. >> 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. -- Because I think McCain is running a crappy campaign, and I don't think reducing the media's impact here would change much. Both the liberal and conservative sides of the media have had their opportunity to spin all aspects of the campaign. >> 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. -- He fought back where he needed to. The ivory tower approach didn't work for Kerry. Liberals need to show teeth, I've been saying that recently. The difference is that McCain has been running deceitful ads, not attack ads. Framing the education of young kids on protecting themselves from strangers/predators as "sex education for kindergarden" is just a flat out lie, and most of the commercials have kept up that level of slander. >> 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. -- Possibly. >> 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. -- Gee, you're so smart. Why didn't I think of that? Presentation means something. There is a reason they don't do these debates in their sweatpants. How a person acts under pressure is a relevant observation. McCain is quick to anger and quick get flustered and lose his composure. I know how this works, and every flaw that your candidate displays becomes a "meaningless sideshow" driven by the media. Our discussion started with the idea of objective truth and perspective, and I'll bring it back here. The candidates position on issues are ultimately filtered through the candidate themselves, and if they can't sell their viewpoint effectively, or appear shakey when questioned about it, then it hurts their credibility and calls into question their leadership skills. -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
