Letters to the Editor
-
But how many people read or watch the Village idiots?
The Village. The Kewl Kids. You know, the jackass elitist pundits. (Thank Kos and others for those disparaging labels).
Are we bothering ourselves too much over the inane and utterly biased "reporting" of the fools who populate cable news and major newspapers? Don't only a few million souls watch CNN, MSNBC, and GOP-TV (a.k.a. Fox)? Of those who do, how many are discerning enough to see through the crap, and how many are partisan enough one way or the other not to care and/or believe the big, bad and sleazy MSM? That leaves a tiny section of the populace which actually falls for the crumbs tumbling out of Candy Crowley & Co.'s mouths.
Same goes for newspapers, except even fewer people read those, and fewer still read the news and opinions sections.
That leaves the Internet, partisan magazines, and gossip. The latter are far more reliable than much of the MSM.
-
By the end of this thread
we will have conclusively determined which Democratic candidate is the most worthy.
Or we will have conclusively determined that they all suck (!), at least the viable ones. The American experiment has failed!
"You support ___??? You probably don't even realize that he/she is a horrible, __ist, __ist __ist!!!"
"See, here's a URL (or painfully long block quote) that proves it!"
-
How Would a Patriot Act?
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=325
The Mises institute's Davis Gordon gives Glenn's book one hell of a nice review. Well worth a read, even if you already have Glenn's book
"In this remarkable book, Glenn Greenwald solves a difficult problem. President Bush has for several years authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap telephones within the United States without a judicial warrant. Doing so is illegal, but Bush claims that security against terrorism requires it. Here our puzzle arises. ..."
-
The infantile press
I'm not surprised at the attitudes of reporters toward candidates. As a group, they are infantile little worms who think they have the right to literally destroy any politician they dislike personally. Examples: Al Gore. He was not a good candidate, but the press portrait of him was so distorted and ugly that they certainly played an important role in bringing down to the point where the election got close enough for Jeb Bush and his little brother to steal it in Florida.
-
@DCLaw1
"See, here's a URL (or painfully long block quote) that proves it!"
I'd consider Pat Lang's assessment definitive, but I know him well enough to rely on him) wrt to Obama being a neocon/interventionist. putting U.S. Ground troops into Pakistan in force, as Obama has said he would do, with or without Musharraf's OK. How do you all feel about that? This is not just a Spec Ops unit going in to secure nukes in the event of a coup. This is US Ground troops in force.
-
@bucky1
oh uh....
Mises? Are you implying that GG is a holocaust denier?
Maybe he is a racist like those California Environmentalists.
16 states sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its refusal to allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.
State's Rights? That's racist talk! First come the Emmissions Standards, then it's Jim Crow 2.0! There are also White Supremicists that live in California and pay taxes. Since when did California start hating Jews?
-
Validation of Extant Infotainment Overtaking Journalism
Glenn has picked up and elaborated on an example of transparent bias on the part of the press. Given that very little coverage and attention has been paid to core issues: Constitutional restoration, intended use of executive power, domestic and foreign policy platforms, economic and military perspectives, it comes as no surprise that the "reporters" on the campaign bus reference junior high school in their language, descriptors and attitudes towards the various candidates.
It explains the hostility towards Edwards: he's just too cute. Hillary - Glenn nailed that one - she's the smartest girl, answering all of the tough questions, and speaking in complexity and nuance. Obama: he's the new kid, athletic and he talks a good game.
If one uses junior high playground and cafeteria culture as a press reference point, the coverage lines up accordingly.
Interestingly, I recently attended a conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities called, "No News Is Bad News: The Role of the Media In Our Democracy." The sole blogger among the panelists was Marcy Wheeler, and she addressed the inequalities of coverage by the media of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. None of the panels or panelists addressed the quality of the presidential campaign coverage.
The blogosphere, I believe, acts as a collective filter, fact checker and verifier (I love Josh Marshall's term, veracifier) of media reports. Bloggers dive deeply and broadly, and collectively they expose false reporting, misreporting and lack of reportage. However, as was pointed out at the symposium, and as Glenn has done, the weakness is the lack of funding for citizen journalism and bloggers to be able to get full press access to sources, there is a general lack of credentialing for bloggers, and there is no organization in the blogosphere as there is in media corporations.
Several of us commenters here recently tossed out some models of organizing new media.
I think the time is ripe to move forward with new models that demand and deliver transparency, accurate reportage, blogosphere communal editing and accountability for standards and practice in reportage and commentary, and to develop and fund bloggers to work as integral members of the media so that news is reported on time, accurately and with accountability to all potential and actual readers.
-
As an Old Press Advance Man ...
The relationship the press has with the candidates will tell a lot about the candidate. You are essentially in a bubble 24/7 with the candidate and a handful of full time travelling staffers and the press contingent. It is a very insular world, to be sure.
If the press does not necessarily like a candidate, that also tells you something about them as a person. It can indicate a personal testiness, for example, or an obnoxiousness.
Does it mean this opinion proves they are a better or worse leader because of their affability or testiness?
I don't know. It does tell you about their ability to remain civil over an extended period of time.
The article talked about excellent meals and chocolates on the pillows ...
Are you kidding me? I recall having to get hot dogs on the run, getting up at 7 am, flying through multiple campaign stops, and getting back to a hotel again around 10 pm to midnight with yet another 7 am start time the next day.
It was a hell of a lot of fun, but it was certainly NOT a five star gastronomical experience.
The press having an icy relationship with HRC really does not present any new information about a woman who's been under the microscope for 15 years. Rumors of her, uh, crankiness, have been around for years. That those covering her might find acts of kindness from her "going against type" ought not surprise anyone.
The press is human. If it is in close proximity with a person for months on end, they can't help but form personal opinions about the candidates.
And don't think they want to see these people fail. They know if these clowns go all the way, they get a four to eight year ride as the White House correspondent in the process.