Letters to the Editor
-
WT...
I forget who complained earlier about the creationist crap on sale at the Grand Canyon
If it was recently, I missed it, but if it was some time ago, it might well have been me. I still think it's UNbeliev-able.
-
@Ondelette
I'm trying to contribute something based on my experience, and when I refer to on-air techniques and practices, I'm drawing on my own on-air work to help. I hope.
People who work on the air have to fill the time.
Commercial air time is very tightly managed. Air talent has to work their stuff in between commercial breaks. There used to be a bit more flexibility. But with digital cueing, if you don't know how to "wrap" a segment for the next break, you'll be cut off. So within the phony drama - and it is often a faux dramatic thing - talent has to "watch the clock" as if with a third eye.
Public broadcast is looser but still the hosts try do the "executive summary" version.
The example you cite, with Oates, is telling perhaps because I'll bet you picked up her irritation at being steered, and so she decided not to be steered. That's hard to do without coming across as rude. Under the rules, the guest is supposed to defer to the host, if "push comes to shove."
But to me, with this very interesting flap about Matthews, this all means we have to demand more from our public media. It's well past time. These extremely short segments aren't sufficient any more (I was always frustrated having to write to thirty seconds. It's kind of fun but it doesn't go anywhere.).
Here we have the Internet, and we can do any damn thing we want: text, image, sound, combinations.
And, unless Rupert Murdoch takes it all over, we can do what we want as intelligent free agents.
-
@ondelette, Dirigo
How about some media type who is easily recognizable take a camera and mike and just eavesdrop on pre or post voters conversations ala c-span. C-span may be my favorite channel and they do things that the M$M with a far larger audience could copy or improve on. The masses particularly those without cable might surprise the networks on what they would like and hey those rich CEOs might consider it a public service and do it even if the ratings were low. Cable created c-span. Why not do a poll among cable users and see what they think about c-span. Advertisers supporting such a show that seems altruistic would sure help their brand(ing). It doesn’t have to be live, so it could be made to seem lively through editing. Live would invite too many attention getters and distractors.
-
Habits of mind
Yes, Mike, the Newtonian universe suffices for us most of the time. It's easy to teach too, and the most valuable thing it teaches, in my opinion, is the mechanics of thought, and the virtue of thought in seemingly impossible situations.
When those lessons are learned by a majority, those who are still curious can go on to quantum mechanics, or philosophy, for that matter, without having to watch their backs. Wouldn't it be lovely -- even more lovely than a room somewhere, far away from the cold night air?
-
@ R.P.-L.W.M.
When you are good, you are very very good. :-)
-
Mike Sulzer
I don't disagree Mike. This type of survey process is unfamiliar to me, so I hesitate to say very much. I read Zogby as saying, "This is our methodology and we're sticking to it." to explain why they didn't release the information they had. The argument that somewhat echoes your own was made by Todd Beeton at MYDD (link at my sig),
If there's a lesson here it's not that all polls suck, but rather that pollsters would be well-advised to get large one day samples, particularly on election eve, rather than rely almost exclusively on multiple day rolling averages. With the primary schedule condensed as it is (only 5 days between Iowa and New Hampshire...) and an unprecedented access to coverage of the candidates, we're likely to have more 1 day swings like the one that changed the game for Clinton in New Hampshire yesterday.
Todd links to yellowdem1129, Polls were right; pollsters tried to spin
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/9/144017/8193
-
QM and philosophy
If you're going to dive into Quantum Mechanics, you'd better be ready for some philosophy (and some rather nasty surprises).
The ramifications for "free will" (that old standby of theists) alone are enough to make an educated layman quail.
Cheers,
Bryan
-
seconding WT
Your tax dollars are spent on research for high tech weaponry the New World Odor will use to subdue and oppress you!
Indeed it does stink!
-
Speaking of Zogby
He was on The Daily Show last night. In trying to be funny, he did his own take on "getting emotional" about how much he is attacked in the media. Didn't do a whole lot for my interpretation of his integrity.
-
-- Dirigo
"If they can't prognosticate, and talk to the consultants and various other soothsayers and court Rasputins, they can't keep their audience glued to the tube.
What a catastrophe that would be."
No catastrophe. Not at all. (Yes, my Snarkometer caught your meaning)
If they were actually forced (by the market) to report on the candidate's positions on the important issues, they would have plenty to do and their audience would appreciate the opportunity to actually learn something which would enable them to vote intelligently when it's their turn.
I can remember a time when one would turn on the evening news and a Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley or David Brinkley would actually report the news in a manner in which it was practically impossible to determine how they felt about it. One exception, of course, was when Walter Cronkite did give his opinion about Vietnam (Tet) and he was crucified by the rightwing for doing so.
So what happened?
My theory is based upon the Watergate expose' and the fact that two lowly reporters for the WaPo suddenly became STARS (and wealthy) due to their "investigative" reporting. Suddenly, all reporters wanted to be investigative reporters - for the stardom involved, if not the moolah. The CNN revolution expanended the number of positions for "anchors" and allowed personalities who received minimal training in actual journalism to step into positions which were once reserved for premier reporters (see also Blitzer, Wolf - Waste of Good Skin).
CNN also started the Softball Revolution shows like Crossfire where politicians became celebrities and it's been all downhill eversince. FOX is just the manifestation of the quest for turning a profit with the News department (which until CNN came along, was either a (necessary) money loser or revenue neutral for a network.) Newscasts were thought of as something with which to draw an audience toward a network's entertainment shows which followed. Now, "news" is entertainment and entertainment is junk.
The Public must DEMAND that their sources of information return to the job of providing actual accurate information and get out of the business of prognostication. Viewers will appreciate it (I predict that the first network to return to honest hard news will see an immediate increase in viewership) and our country will be better for it.