On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > Our discussion started with the idea of objective truth and > perspective, and I'll bring it back here.
That's a really disingenuous assertion, Michael. At best, objective truth and perspective were only mentioned in passing. From the initial response, this thread has been about media bias during the current presidential campaign. I understand your desire to take every opportunity to vilify Republicans and Bush in particular. I was hoping to have a reasonable discussion with you regarding media bias I've avoided taking any of your bait. At least mostly. We can resume after Palin kicks Biden't ass tomorrow night. But seriously, during these times we need the best that journalism has to offer. We're now getting the worst. I think it's a combination of incompetence and bias. I would vote for Ron Paul if he knew how to restore wide-spread confidence in every aspect of our news outlets. The subject is that important to me. I'm not singling you out, but phrases like 'No offense, but I'm not a big fan of your "facts"' serve to ensure we never agree on anything. That may be the right attitude to take, but it really sucks. And it's not just facts. It's fairness and uniformity and perspective and weight and presentation and hidden bias and a sense of history and pride in not becoming a part of the story. It's how they characterize the man or woman or group or corporation that is the subject of the story. The same event is presently differently on MSNBC and FoxNews, and wildly so. They're fans are just as ludicrous as English soccer fans. They relish every opportunity to speak in the most vitriolic terms that other news channel and the assholes that it. How dumb is that? Perhaps the problem will solve itself. The newsprint media continues to lose readership, subscriptions and ad revenue. Broadcast news outlets continue to lose viewers. I believe some of the extreme bias we're seeing is the result of an industry in it's death throes. It's only a matter of time before folks realize they can ignore the screaming heads, get off their asses and get some important things done. I know with the utmost of confidence that I'm getting the liberal (or Democratic) take on a story from the AP, just as you know with the utmost of certainty that Rush Windbag is giving you the conservative (Republican) take on a story. If both news/editorial outlets would simply declare their allegiance, we would spend more time on policy differences than disputing facts. We would spend a lot less time arguing about the facts or the manner in which a story is characterized if both news or editorial outfits made their allegiance clear. I've found that policy differences aren't that hard to work through. Especially when you're face to face. That really serves to alleviate a lot of stifling hostility. I'm not always successful, but I try to write as though you're across the table from me. You may look unbathed with a ferocious hangover and have blood shooting out of your eyes, but that still works better than assuming you're just another bundle of electrons from the ether. But hey, if you'd rather go Melville on me, here's a new thread for you. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
