Does mainstream media suck…or what? I think we all know the answer to that one. Only a neo-liberal or a fool would say, "or what."
In the last couple of days I've had the "privilege" of reading a couple of really poor examples of journalism from the AP I'd like to share with you.
The first one entitled, Palin got zoning aid, gifts, lamented the "sad" fact that Sarah Palin received a facial, some salmon, and flowers from merchants. The article was written in a way which implied Palin recieved these "lavish" gifts in return for political favors. The writer did everything he could to leave the reader with that impression. Everything, that is, except deliver an outright accusation buttressed with actual proof. Talk about desperation, this is some of the sloppiest "news" reporting I've seen in a long, long time. It reads more like a tabloid than actual news. Then again, perhaps the libs figure that conservatives will think Palin is not fit for office because of her acuity for personal hygien and her love of fresh flowers and sea food. Read the article. I promise, you will laugh.
The second article, entitled, Palin facing voters who doubt her readiness, is just as bad for its bias and pushes the liberal printed media to dizzying new heights of stupidity. The article has Palin entering the next debate with Slo-Joe Biden while many voters doubt her readiness for the nation's highest office. It then goes on to cite a poll showing that soon after she was named as McCain's running mate, 41 percent of likely voters thought she had the experience to face the nation's highest office . However, that has now dropped to 25 percent. It never cites the voters' political orientation, which is quite an ommission, since the only voters who are really doubting Palin's readiness are the liberal ones and they won't be voting the GOP ticket anyway. This is just more misleading reporting designed to influence those who are already battle hardened to the media's wily ways. The irony is that evidently, mainstream media is ignorant of this fact, and so, continues to spew this blather thinking it will affect our vote. Imbecillic? I say, "YES!"
The article also points out some of Palin's alleged missteps during interviews while conveniently ignoring both Biden's and Obama's gaffes.
Finally, the article points out that conservatives have been critical over the choice of moderator for the upcoming debate between Biden and Palin. The writer of the article points out three things regarding the moderator: She's black; she's writing a book on how the black political landscape has changed since the civil rights era;(Of course, Obama is going to be the topic of an entire forthcoming chapter in that book.) and she's a journalist. The poor AP writer is confused (not surprisingly) thinking that conservatives have a problem with color and, proportionally, with civil rights. Actually, that isn't our beef at all; it's the fact that the moderator is a journalist. But not to worry my conservative friends, I'm sure her politcal leanings won't taint her ability to be "fair and balanced."
I have to take umbrage with your “liberals” are the only ones doubting Palin.
Other than you, I don’t know a Single Wingnut that likes her, and, as you know, most of the people I know are from Upper Wingnuttia.
Some are put off by her religious views, but the majority are upset about her views on Climate Change.
And then there’s that whole “Folksiness” angle. That may play in Middle America, but for many, it comes across as silly, and contrived.
She was a bad choice. She’s polarizing, and whether you agree or not, she’s just not that bright. I know she’s “One of us,” but we just spent eight years with “Average Joe/Joe Six Pack” running the show, and the show is about to be canceled.
Oh yeah??? Well, I take umbrage with your taking umbrage at my brilliant, poignant and utlra-incisive analysis, fairlane:)
…and I thought most of the people you knew/know were/are from Lower Libwockia…LOL.
I do agree that she’s polarizing and that’s exactly why I like her. Leaves no room for doubt about where she stands…unlike O’Bam Bam, who is a closet divider, just like all liberals.
I know you don’t like her and that’s okay; I know you don’t like Bomama either. Bottom line, Palin has a lot more in common with classical conservatives than her “running mate,” which explains why despite every “good” liberal’s intentions, she has energized McCain’s campaign.
Will it matter in the end. Uh…probably not, but it is worth noting that classical conservativism is a sleeping giant in America. Palin’s impact on the apathetic conservative base has proven that point, I think. Perhaps the GOP will take notice…like when pigs fly.
But none of that was really the point was it? The real point is that you’d like to get a balanced treatment in the media. It ain’t happenin’. And it never will. That’s true whether you like Palin or not. The real winners in the media will always be liberals and liberal ideas, the losers will be average Americans like me. Average six-pack people like yours truly. What can I say, man….I’m an average guy. Maybe that’s why she appeals to me.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. I’ll check you later, bro.
I must admit Chadly, I be’s confused, n’ stuff.
I can’t count how many conversations you, and I have had about how “Mediocrity” is overrunning this country.
“Average Joe,” is just another way of saying, “Mediocre Joe.”
I’m tired of “Mediocre Joe.” Whatever happened to “Extraordinary John” or “Exemplary Jane?”
“Classical Conservative?” She’s a spend-aholic. She loves Pork so much she puts it on her Sundaes.
Just like there is no such thing as a “Real Communist,” there is no such thing as a “Real Conservative.”
Mythology.
You like Palin’s Religious Views.
And, again, I must take umbrage with you taking umbrage with my umbrage.
Let’s look at Palin’s little go round with Katie Couric. Couric is no “Liberal.” She likes/ed Chimpy. Now, that may be an indication that she’s Bloody Stoopid (sic), but it doesn’t qualify her as a “Liberal.”
Palin looked like an Idiot in those interviews. Not because she was “Annoyed” or because it was “Gotcha Journalism.” No, it was because she looked like an Idiot.
There was a “Conservative” who put it best (Their name escapes me at the moment. Maybe you know). He essentially said the reason Palin looked so bad wasn’t because she couldn’t answer Couric’s questions, but because it was obvious she didn’t understand them.
She’s out of her element, and it’s not the job of the Media to smooth that over for her.
Now, the Pundits are an entirely different story, but both sides have their Pundits. I didn’t hear any Wingnuts getting angry with Limbaugh when he did his little “Osama, Obama, Hussein” BS, which was a “Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod” to those racist chain emails.
I don’t think you’re an “Average Joe,” at all. You might be a tad Loony, but who isn’t?
Well, I’m not, but that goes without saying.
By the way, since you Wingnuts like Bailouts so much, you think you could float me a couple million?
Oh, one last thing. I do agree with the idea that “Conservatives” are Asleep.
Like damn Zombies.
LOL…there you go…crackin’ me up again:) Didn’t know she liked pork. I thought she was Jewish, so of course, I’m fond of her religious views. It’s that whole Judeo-Christian thing.
But seriously my friend, Palin utilized the veto to slash more local projects than any other governor in her state’s history: Ten percent of Alaska’s budget this year, passing on $268 million in savings to Alaska’s residents. She also cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year.
“Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. NOBAMA voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor’s center in Louisiana.
Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.”
As for Katie, you’re dead wrong about her. She was born liberal. I’ll at least give her credit for voting her values. But she’s a poor excuse for a journalist, which is kind of like saying a dog is a poor excuse for a pig (don’t ask me to explain that one).
Anyway, YOU’RE RIGHT about one thing; It’s not the media’s job to smooth her (Palin) over. Never said it was and I don’t want them stop hitting hard. I do want them to stop lying and being biased. My original point wasn’t whether Palin looked silly in Katie’s interview; I think we can all agree she’s in the deep end of the pool here. My gripe was how stupid Biden looked in his Couric interview and none of it was worthy to print much less broadcast. Nor will they put Obama’s many “missteps” under a microscope as they have Palin/McCain. The only network with the guts to expose it was your friend and mine, FoxNews. They’re also the only ones who are willing to put liberals and conservatives on the air in hand to hand combat. Fair and balanced??? You better believe it.
I suppose I shouldn’t gripe, though. As long as the big three continue to let their overt liberal bias propagate through their stories like rabbits, their ratings share will continue to plummet. That’s a good thing for you and me buddy. It means they’re slowly putting themselves out of our misery. (And here’s the best part): They’re too dense to realize it.
Okay. That’s it for me. Time to hit the hay.
Come on, Chadly.
She didn’t oppose the Bridge to Nowhere because she suddenly had a “Moral Epiphany.” She opposed it because people all over the country were PISSED OFF. It was a political move.
And. She KEPT the money.
Alaska receives more Pork, per capita, than any other state in the Union.
She’s also involved in a possible corruption case.
I know, I know, it’s “Partisanship,” but I’m not a Moonbat or Wingnut. I don’t give a crap about Partisanship. I want the corruption to Stop.
The only way that can happen is, if they start to punish some of these people.
Corruption does Matter.
As for the idea that Obama is “getting by,” that’s not true. They just go after him in a different way.
Palin essentially called him a “Terrorist” the other day, which, again, is a “Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod” to those chain emails.
I read about her accusations, in the “Liberal Media.”
We talked about those emails. We both agreed they are/were, disgusting.
You said, “How can anyone believe that crap?”
Well, they do, and that “Crap” has now worked its way into the Mainstream.
You know, as well as I, that these accusations are really another way of saying, “Obama’s a n*gger. He’s not like Us.”
The irony in all this is, this is exactly what Wingnuts did to Mc Cain in 2000.
They used emails, and a “Phantom Campaign” to derail him, and I honestly believe, it cracked the man.
He’s never been the same.
Remember, I was going to vote for Mc Cain in 2000, but now? Now, he’s just a shell of the man he once was, and I have a hard time respecting him.
He’s kowtowing to the same people who once called him “Insane,” a “Traitor,” and compared him to the “Manchurian Candidate.” They also said his adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of a relationship he had with…wait for it…A BLACK WOMAN!
It’s despicable.
Hey! I want to play as well!
Fairlane, didn’t you call me a wingnut once as well? I love Palin. I don’t think she’s particularly experienced, but she seens honest and apolitical, and several steps up from Obama’s pitiful skill set.
And average does not equal mediocre. Did you see the movie 300? Are you telling me that the “average” Spartan was mediocre? Compared to what? I mean, clearly the point of the movie was the Spartans were ALL serious bad arses. And given the rump-loving extremes of the Republican far Right in recent times, and the tree-hugging, baby-killing extremes of the far Left, the middle sounds just peachy at this point.
You’re confusing the issue, fairlane, which is the fact that mainstream media isn’t being evenhanded. Obama and Biden are certainly getting by in the media. (I know everyone reading this is shocked by that statement.) Sure they reported that McCain and Palin are on the attack politically. They also made sure to report that even though Biden and Obama are being “agressive” in their political rhetoric, it wasn’t really an attack and it wasn’t really as bad as what the other side has said about their liberal meshiach nagids. In other words, they used the report as a way of defending the great liberal hope while simultaneously ripping apart McCain and Palin.
I don’t think for a minute the “accusations” (political rhetoric) are carrying racist undertones, any more than I think that, say, your accusations about Palin are sexist.
But Obama certainly is NOT like us. He’s an elitist politician who’s hopelessly out of touch with “folksy” people like me:)
My other comments need no further clarification. As for Palin keeping the money, there’s an explanation for that as well. But I’m all out of time now, Kemosabi. I gotta go.
See you tomorrow.
Trog- Being a “Bad arse” has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
You can train a monkey to be a fierce warrior.
The Spartans were taught absolute obedience, which, again, does not require even a modicum of intelligence.
You could take 50 Average Joes, and create a highly effective fighting force with them. No doubt. Our military does it every day.
However, if you took those same 50 Average Joes, and put them in an Algebra class, most would struggle, even with assistance.
Intelligence, and Education, matter.
Palin is not simply “Inexperienced,” she’s “Incurious.”
She hides behind glib, and clever remarks because she doesn’t know the answers to the questions.
You people, meaning Republicans, already fell for that once, and apparently, you’re chomping at the bit to do it again.
As for me? I’ve had enough, but thanks for offering.
Chadly- I’m not “Confusing” the issue. I’m merely pointing out, no matter how those points are addressed, they’re still out there, which is more than I can say for my own views.
When is the last time the Media, any media, did a report on how Democrats, and Republican both SUCK, and that if they’d just go away, the rest of us could live in peace?
I understand the desire to see one’s self reflected in the society as a whole.
But in my opinion, when people say, “I want balance,” they really mean, “I want them to stop reporting things I don’t believe or agree with. I want what I Want!”
Maybe you don’t, but, whether you like it or not, you ain’t no “Average Joe” when it comes to the old Noodle.
The majority of Americans are not “Folksy.” The majority of Americans do not live in the Mid-West or in rural communities.
Most Americans live around cities, and our “Average Joe” ain’t Sarah Palin.
In fact, the people she calls “Elitist” would probably call her a “Yokel.”
Who’s right?
To me, she comes across as a caricature. Artificial. Designed for one purpose. To drum up the most conservative of the conservative.
Her appeal is marginal.
Here’s what I experience.
On one side I hear Liberals say, “Everyone is special. Standing out is selfish, and wrong. Don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. Don’t fight or argue. Get along, NO MATTER WHAT,” and then from the other side, I hear the Wingnuts, “No one is special. Anyone can graduate from Harvard. Anyone can paint a Van Gogh. So what if he’s a scientist? I read a couple of books or a blog post, and I know just as much as he does. People who think otherwise are Elitists.”
It’s like watching an argument at a Co-Dependent’s Anonymous meeting.
You have two self-loathers arguing about this, and that, and the other, and Presto, Blingo- they come to the same Damn conclusion.
STOOPIDITY IS THE SOLUSHION!
Very incisive comments, Buddy. I know you’re generalizing in those comments, which is why, for the most part, I agree with you. Obviously, we disagree on the finer points of your assertions. But I think your distillation of the discontinuity between Dems and Reps are accurate.
I also experienced what it means to be “unbaised” when you, me, and T.R. were working for the same paper a couple of years ago. Basically (as you intimated in your comments), there are people out there who think that bias is directly proportional to how far away a view is from their own: The more similar the view in question is to their own, the less biased it is…and vice versa. I can still remember the mail I received from angry Red Bloods who accused me, of all people, of running a biased shop. Their anger was in response to printing Op-Eds of those whose views were disparate from their own. These were the same people who said they wanted balance. They wanted a publication without the bias. When I tried to give it to them, they hated me for it. That was the beginning of my education into the epistemological underpinnings of many otherwise normal, well adjusted human beings. Apparently, bias by any other name DOES NOT smell the same. (In this case it had the same name…but you get the idea.) It was an experience I will never forget. I finally understood; Most people don’t want balance. They want their own view regurgitated ad infinitum. And they either want all opposing sides muzzled, or they want opposing views caricatured so they can undermine them more easily. For them unbiased meant: Only print Op-Eds which reflect my values. And whatever you do, don’t write a news story which underscores any angle I personally disagree with. I’ll never work in printed media again….I’ll never drink the Kool-Aid again, either.
I’m outa here for today. Need to get some more content up this week. Lots stuff to review and edit.
See you:)
Not to change the subject, but you’ll love this.
A week after being bailed out, to the tune of $85 Billion, executives from AIG spent $440,000 on a “retreat” to a fancy resort in California.
That’s probably close to what most American spend in their entire lives.
I swear Kurt Vonnegut is behind all this, and that we’re living in one of his novels.