Letters to the Editor
-
@ Paul
yeah, I'll resend it. I put the subject matter in the header, but being a dolt, I didn't put your name.
Re: Versailles. It's pretty obvious what it means for people that have been following this issue and reading this blog, but it would be nice (and I think beneficial) to have in one spot a bit explaining exactly what it means, given that is a phenomenon that seems to be overtaking the press at an increasing rate.
If Murdoch gets the Wall Street Journal I can't imagine what is going to happen to this country.
-
It's Not Just the Bubble
"They will chage when Clinton or Obama gets elected, right?
Don't worry -- everyone will suddenly remember their journalistic mandate to question government authority after 2008 when we swear a Democrat into office.
-- DrEyeBall"
This is why the "Beltway Bubble," "9/11" and "screaming wingnut" theories of "journalistic" behavior are all incomplete.
For 30 years, since Jimmy Carter, the MSM has consistently swung from attacking Democratic administrations to worshipping Republican administrations and back.
Originally, this phenomenon was not as nakedly partisan as it is today, but rather an accident of history. Journalists had to attack Carter to maintain the reputations Woodstein had given them during Watergate. With Reagan, they felt remorse for chasing a good man out of office, and gave Ronnie and later GWH the benefit of the doubt. Iran-Contra shamed them again, so they went after Clinton full-bore. Whitewater and impeachment made them look stupid (and they hated Gore), so they swung back to worship in 2001, long before 9/11.
This pendulum swing has been exacerbated, of course, by the power-fellating required by the bubble, greedy corporate ownership, paranoid wingnut screaming and other factors.
But underneath it all, the pendulum still swings to worship for republicans and attacks on democrats.
You won't change the coverage until you break the pendulum.
-
Brian Williams
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html is a web site which shows median household income in the USA, with dollar amounts adjusted for inflation.
Inflation-Adjusted Median Income
2005 46,326
2004 45,817
2003 45,970
2002 46,036
2001 46,569
2000 47,599
1999 47,671http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html is a web site which shows how many people in the USA had incomes below the official Census Bureau definition of poverty.
Below poverty
2005 12.6%
2004 12.7%
2003 12.5%
2002 12.1%
2001 11.7%
2000 11.3%
1999 11.9%http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html is a web site which shows what percentage of people in the USA were covered by private health insurance.
Private Health Insurance Coverage
2005 67.7%
2004 68.2%
2004 68.1%
2003 68.6%
2002 69.6%
2001 70.9%
2000 71.9%
1999 71.8%Here's Brian Williams, a multi-millionaire TV celebrity, interviewing President Bush on Monday, December 12, 2005.
WILLIAMS: Let's talk about the economy, a subject I know you're anxious to talk about.
BUSH: Thank you.WILLIAMS: Are you frustrated that more of the good economic news isn't front and center these days?
BUSH: I think it's -- a little bit, but I also think it's important to understand why people don't see or don't feel the improved economy. We do have a strong economy. It's -- third-quarter growth was great. We've added 4.5 million new jobs since April of 2003. Homeownership is at an all-time high. Small businesses are flourishing. I mean, this economy is good, and it's strong.
Williams's follow-up: none.
-
Speaking of fairness, unexamined conventional wisdom, and markets...
"I'd almost call it a market failure."
Could we also pay a little attention to the reverence for "the market," as though its "laws" of supply and demand are a science like physics?
The market or the marketplace is a human construct, designed by human beings to facilitate interaction between human beings. Its laws are mutable, its rules are readily changed, and its practices are whatever the community agrees upon. I'm all in favor of using markets, as long as we remember that its rules, regulations, and practices should serve PEOPLE and not the holy markets themselves.
Allowing markets to become completely unregulated is part of the problem that we're facing now--- with journalism, health care, media ownership, fairness in media, and many of the topics brought up here.
-
Video of Aravosis on Howie Kurtz' show
If in doubt about what John Aravosis said on Reliable Sources, go see the video and decide for yourself. He posted the video at his blog.
http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/john-is-on-cnns-reliable-sources-around.html
-
spot-on
Glenn,
The mainstream media news outlets fulfilling their obligation to provide public service, acting as a legitimate source of real news, in the iconic sense, is long dead.
Olbermann is more directly link-able to Murrow than just about anyone else I can think of. The fact that he is being equated with O'Reily is gross, but not surprising.
One thing: You often seem to write from dismay, as if these people don't know what they are doing. This is interesting to me.
This latest bit seems, to me, like just another directed attempt, a conspiracy of the like-minded, who will do anything to crush the honest assessment of the state of our nation, its leaders and our Democracy in general.
These vermin are not missing the point, or stupid. It's much worse, they launch these attacks with malice of forethought, and what may by more disturbing is that it works over and over again because as a nation, we have proven to be both pliable and willing to be moved by anything fixed in print.
We are daily being framed as intelligent consumers of information by the most cynical bunch of public voices/pens. This frame appeals to us for obvious reasons. As soon as you tell someone they are smart or competent, they are as quick to buy what you’re selling with glee.
-
The test....
Has Hume said anything negative about Bush?
Has Olbermann said anything positive about Bush?
When coverage is lopsided one way or the other with no relief, one can say partisan. Meanwhile this is not going to survive a change of administration....
That actually is -- or at least used to be -- called "journalism." What ought to define the function of a political "journalists" is that they exercise adversarial oversight over government officials. That is the only thing that makes a political press worthwhile.
"Adversarial" to the exclusion of all else is partisanship. More importantly, I have little doubt that sentiment will change as soon as a Democrat is elected President. Tsk.