It always makes me chuckle

[RIJIMMY]

here I go the crazy anti-liberal media guy, I know its all my imagination but....do remember all the media over the last few years on Iraq and Afghanistan and the military leadership? they were painted as Dark Lords operating for the evil #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. They were always under fire from congress and painted as incompetent death mongers.....
we'll Johnny D hates opinion pieces so here is a news piece (which wink wink IS an opinion piece for the libs) about Gen. Petraus

take a read and see if you notice a change in tone from the media? Gotta love the rock star comparison, it worked for O, might work for them.

Here is my favorite part -
"About Iraq he said, "in the three years since the surge was launched, levels of violence down by well over 90 percent now, violent civilian deaths down by well over 90 percent, high-profile attacks down by over 90 percent and all the rest."

hmmm, shouldnt a news report mention that the president and ALL OF THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS were against this surge??? Isnt that something to report????? I know, I'm looney.



What's Petraeus selling on his '2010 World Tour?' - CNN.com

[scottw]

I think you mean ... General Betray-US...isn't that what they were calling him back then?

the surge has failed...the war is lost...who said that??? I'm trying to remember....

[ecduzitgood]

Doesn't surprise me at all: if there is a Democrat in charge it all hunky dorey.

[basswipe]

ITS NOT HIS FAULT!!!Barack said so on TV today,so it must be true!

After one year we don't have a president...we have an apologist.Great,I feel better about the future.

[scottw]

did you catch the Cry Baby-in -Chief today ?

I can sum it up...

"Waaaa...haa..haaa...haaaa !!!"

"This is NOT about ME....I...I..ME...I....I....I...I...let me be clear...this is not about me...I..ME ...I....I....I...
...this is about YOU...I....I....I....ME....I....I...I...I..."

heh heh

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

....do remember all the media over the last few years on Iraq and Afghanistan and the military leadership? they were painted as Dark Lords operating for the evil #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

Do you consider Moveon.org part of the media?

They were always under fire from congress and painted as incompetent death mongers.....

For a time they were under fire, as civilians in charge of the Legislative Branch wanted answers as to why civilians in charge of the Executive Branch were making so many mistakes.

take a read and see if you notice a change in tone from the media?

So you're blending Moveon.org, some out for political gain in Congress and the media into one convenient soup?

That's mighty convenient of you. Sure makes your argument a lot easier.

Do you also bend spoons?

Here is my favorite part -
"About Iraq he said, "in the three years since the surge was launched, levels of violence down by well over 90 percent now, violent civilian deaths down by well over 90 percent, high-profile attacks down by over 90 percent and all the rest."

hmmm, shouldnt a news report mention that the president and ALL OF THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS were against this surge??? Isnt that something to report????? I know, I'm looney.

The report is about the superstar status of the General, not a chapter from a history book.

I'd note there are other Generals worth reading about.

Pick up a copy of "The Fourth Star" which is a great read...or if you're nice I could loan you my copy.

Amazon.com: The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army (9780307409065): Greg Jaffe, David Cloud: Books

-spence

[scottw]

I'm thinkin' that Faux-Bama ought to rethink the State of the Union...maybe have the teleprompter prepare a slide show lasting 50 minutes or so.... on Obama's golf game and handicap...since it's the only thing he's actually worked hard at and actually improved over the past year

[justplugit]

Ya, he told the people in Ohio at the Town Meeting ? it
felt good for him to get out of Washington.
Has he ever been there???

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Ya, he told the people in Ohio at the Town Meeting ? it
felt good for him to get out of Washington.
Has he ever been there???

President Obama’s Vacation Days | FactCheck.org

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Ya, he told the people in Ohio at the Town Meeting ? it
felt good for him to get out of Washington.
Has he ever been there???

Only for the parties ...

He managed to use the word "I" 57 times in a speech that "wasn't about him" at that town meeting

Factcheck that Spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you consider Moveon.org part of the media?-spence

What the media chooses to report is a major "part" of the media. When it uncritically provides a platform for Moveon.org to present its point of view, that message becomes "part" of the media-- especially when that platform is so often provided to what most consider a fringe organisation and not so often given to other fringe organisations that have opposing views.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What the media chooses to report is a major "part" of the media. When it uncritically provides a platform for Moveon.org to present its point of view, that message becomes "part" of the media-- especially when that platform is so often provided to what most consider a fringe organisation and not so often given to other fringe organisations that have opposing views.

I guess I'm missing something. When again has the "media" provided an uncritical platform for Moveon.org?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

President Obama’s Vacation Days | FactCheck.org

-spence

Let's see on top of the approx month's vacation time, depending on his time out west, going on his word wide Apology tour, accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, a worthless Copenhagen trip, campaigning in Va. and Ma. and 3 times in NJ, and going to Ohio to escape Washington doesn't sound like he's been handcuffed there.

I thought he campaigned so he could be in Washington.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess I'm missing something. When again has the "media" provided an uncritical platform for Moveon.org?

-spence

Reporting (to which I was referring when I said "What the media chooses to report") as opposed to editorializing, is supposed to be unbiased, non-critical. (Often, admittedly, it is tainted by the reporter's attitude, tone of voice, facial expression on TV, which questions are asked and which are not, etc.)

So, the uncritical platform was provided every time the "media" reported a Moveon.org rally, protest. And whenever in those reports the "media" stuck a microphone in one of their faces.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Reporting (to which I was referring when I said "What the media chooses to report") as opposed to editorializing, is supposed to be unbiased, non-critical. (Often, admittedly, it is tainted by the reporter's attitude, tone of voice, facial expression on TV, which questions are asked and which are not, etc.)

So, the uncritical platform was provided every time the "media" reported a Moveon.org rally, protest. And whenever in those reports the "media" stuck a microphone in one of their faces.

Not sure that answers my question.

I watch a lot of news, and about the only time I can even think of Move.on even being mentioned in regular news was during some controversy like the General Betrayus ad, which didn't exactly receive a glowing endorsement. Some of the more liberal MSNBC personalities might mention them here or there.

You appear to be working under the assumption that it must be true as to you they're two peas...

Any anecdotes, examples or references?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure that answers my question.

I watch a lot of news, and about the only time I can even think of Move.on even being mentioned in regular news was during some controversy like the General Betrayus ad, which didn't exactly receive a glowing endorsement. Some of the more liberal MSNBC personalities might mention them here or there.

You appear to be working under the assumption that it must be true as to you they're two peas...

Any anecdotes, examples or references?

-spence

I have to admit to a late-night brain fog re Move.on. I was thinking of Code Pink and all the coverage it got whenever it protested. My bad there. But, in a way, as you say, to me they are sort of two peas in a pod and easy for my right wing conspiratorial mind to meld them.

But, then, ads ARE not only a part of the media, but it's life blood (not just for Limbaugh). And Move.on has made it's bones on the many TV ads and newspaper ads that it has sponsored. It has successfully urged its members to write thousands of letters to the editor to newspapers across the country. It has even used film media to produce a documentary against Fox News and a movie about itself--Moveon: the movie.

So, yeah, it has bought it's way into being a part of the media. The Constitution protects the "press" (media) for the specific purpose of protecting our right to free speech, and Move.on uses that right, through the media, quite well.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I have to admit to a late-night brain fog re Move.on. I was thinking of Code Pink and all the coverage it got whenever it protested. My bad there. But, in a way, as you say, to me they are sort of two peas in a pod and easy for my right wing conspiratorial mind to meld them.

But, then, ads ARE not only a part of the media, but it's life blood (not just for Limbaugh). And Move.on has made it's bones on the many TV ads and newspaper ads that it has sponsored. It has successfully urged its members to write thousands of letters to the editor to newspapers across the country. It has even used film media to produce a documentary against Fox News and a movie about itself--Moveon: the movie.

So, yeah, it has bought it's way into being a part of the media. The Constitution protects the "press" (media) for the specific purpose of protecting our right to free speech, and Move.on uses that right, through the media, quite well.

I'd wager that most people really don't know much about Moveon.org or Codepink.

I'd even be willing to double down that wager to say that if it weren't for right wing pundits using them as punching bags, the level of exposure would be nearly zero outside of some localized areas.

But there are plenty of right-wing action groups out there as well. Do these not cancel out the liberal ones?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd wager that most people really don't know much about Moveon.org or Codepink.

I'd even be willing to double down that wager to say that if it weren't for right wing pundits using them as punching bags, the level of exposure would be nearly zero outside of some localized areas.

But there are plenty of right-wing action groups out there as well. Do these not cancel out the liberal ones?

-spence

I would half or part way agree that right wing commentary (I prefer commentary to "using them as punching bags") on Code Pink's and Moveon.org's views and tactics helps to put a spotlight on them. But, for the most part, without the media's introduction, there would be no spot on which right winger's could shine. Right wing commentary is a reaction to what has been introduced, sometimes highlighted, by the media. Without, first, the media attention most people, as you say, would not know about Code Pink. As for Moveon, it has paid many thousands of dollars, maybe millions by now, for attention. Their message has been nationalized without the help of right wingers.

I don't think right wing groups, simply by existing, can cancel progressive ones. Either side must persuade through the media that it is right and the other wrong. That's why it matters that the media fulfill its supposed function as a watchdog rather than being a dog in the hunt. But objectivity is not so easy when you passionately believe in one side against the other. That is why right wingers so love Limbaugh, Fox, et al. They have felt for so long that the "mainstream" media was slanted against their view, but now have that all important means to deliver their message. This, of course, has raised the level of discord as will happen when there are two sides two an argument.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I would half or part way agree that right wing commentary (I prefer commentary to "using them as punching bags") on Code Pink's and Moveon.org's views and tactics helps to put a spotlight on them.

It's an appropriate description as there's rarely if ever any real debate on the issues. The punditry follow a simply formula where they pretend to be objective to tee the ball up, mock the organization incessantly while ignoring the real issue, make fun of all liberals and then usually take a few pot shots at the media just for fun.

This isn't to say that Moveon or Codepink are worthy of praise, but what hear is a long way from being "commentary".

But, for the most part, without the media's introduction, there would be no spot on which right winger's could shine. Right wing commentary is a reaction to what has been introduced, sometimes highlighted, by the media. Without, first, the media attention most people, as you say, would not know about Code Pink. As for Moveon, it has paid many thousands of dollars, maybe millions by now, for attention. Their message has been nationalized without the help of right wingers.

That's just utter nonsense.

In the information age, it's quite the norm for the smallest of issues to be given a national spotlight, without much context and to serve a bigger purpose. You don't think that Hannity, Rush etc... don't have interns surfing the web 24/7 to dig up that little gem they can use as a straw man to work their magic?

If anything the real news outlets are left trying to sort out which of these stories might actually be newsworthy. When there's no accountability (i.e your audience doesn't really care what's real) why should you care?

I don't think right wing groups, simply by existing, can cancel progressive ones. Either side must persuade through the media that it is right and the other wrong. That's why it matters that the media fulfill its supposed function as a watchdog rather than being a dog in the hunt. But objectivity is not so easy when you passionately believe in one side against the other. That is why right wingers so love Limbaugh, Fox, et al. They have felt for so long that the "mainstream" media was slanted against their view, but now have that all important means to deliver their message. This, of course, has raised the level of discord as will happen when there are two sides two an argument.

You're using different definitions for the word "media" to suit your needs at the time. Perhaps this isn't intentional but it is important none the less.

I'm not sure the idea of a liberal media conspiracy is really valid. Usually these accusations are borne of politics (i.e. Nixon, Bush 43) or by those who hope to capitalize. I'm not sure I've ever seen a person, on their own, come to the conclusion that their local paper is part of a broader conspiracy.

It's funny because so often when I hear one of those "you'll never hear about this in the liberal media" kind of remarks...often I've already read about the issue...in that liberal media they were just talking about.

I watch all the cable channels, read the WSJ, USA Today etc... I'd say when you take the pundits (left or right) out of the picture the "news" is pretty similar across the board.

The big difference is when you listen to "news" being reported from outside the USA. I don't think a lot of Americans appreciate this enough.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's an appropriate description as there's rarely if ever any real debate on the issues. The punditry follow a simply formula where they pretend to be objective to tee the ball up, mock the organization incessantly while ignoring the real issue, make fun of all liberals and then usually take a few pot shots at the media just for fun.

Sounds like what left wing pundits do to Rush.

This isn't to say that Moveon or Codepink are worthy of praise, but what hear is a long way from being "commentary".

You say potatoes, and I say putahtoes.

That's just utter nonsense.

I'm crushed.

In the information age, it's quite the norm for the smallest of issues to be given a national spotlight, without much context and to serve a bigger purpose. You don't think that Hannity, Rush etc... don't have interns surfing the web 24/7 to dig up that little gem they can use as a straw man to work their magic?

Occasionally, I hear right wing "pundits" comment on something garnered from the web. Most of the time, the comments are on stories from "real news outlets." I haven't heard about this 24/7conspiracy of interns. Is this something you found on the web or something documented by "real news"?

If anything the real news outlets are left trying to sort out which of these stories might actually be newsworthy. When there's no accountability (i.e your audience doesn't really care what's real) why should you care?
You're using different definitions for the word "media" to suit your needs at the time. Perhaps this isn't intentional but it is important none the less.

This sorting by "real news outlets" is part of the process of slanting "news." What you leave out can be more telling than what you report.

News is what is found and disseminated. Whether it is by a cumbersome "real news outlet" or by a perceptive individual, or by accident, the means to distribute information is not, now, limited to a bureaucracy. In effect, the media has expanded from the controlling grasp of "professional experts" into a world wide arena. This may make it more difficult to "get it all." But the world has always been far larger than what has been contained in the traditional "real news outlets."

I'm not sure the idea of a liberal media conspiracy is really valid. Usually these accusations are borne of politics (i.e. Nixon, Bush 43) or by those who hope to capitalize. I'm not sure I've ever seen a person, on their own, come to the conclusion that their local paper is part of a broader conspiracy.


It's not a conspiracy so much as a common attitude on how to view issues and on which issues to view. And both sides, liberal or conservative, each have their own common view. It has been said that the "mainstream" news used to have a conservative slant. The shift of attitudes began to gain a majority in the 1960's almost seamlessly changing toward liberal as the graduates from liberalized Universities began to dominate the thoughtwaves. Those who hold the majority view consider it normal, not biased. Those in the minority feel the sting of discrimination that the majority simply doesn't see. And it starts slowly, indeed, by "individuals on ther own" coming to that conclusion, talking to others and finding the same perception until the perception and attitude is crystillized.

The big difference is when you listen to "news" being reported from outside the USA. I don't think a lot of Americans appreciate this enough.-spence

Yes and no. There is also "news" from outside the US that confirm conservative views. And there are a myriad of out-of-country stories and points of view outside the scope of Western Europe (especially from Eastern Europe) that are not accessable. Anyway, it shouldn't be necessary to listen to "news" reported outside the US concerning what is happening in this country. And what makes any other country's bureaucratic, biased "real news" agencies more reliable than ours?

[RIJIMMY]

what what a great spence-ism. he adds move on.org to the discussion and then looks for others to explain it.
Spence, can you really tell me that media did not cover the congressional hearings on iraq and afghanisatn and HIGHLIGHTED the grillings by Kennedy and others? Can you really tell me that THE SURGE received no media attention? That the critics didnt get the bulk of the press??????