Letters to the Editor
-
know1uknow
Perhaps we are innately adrenaline junkies and running from tigers has (d)evolved to running from each other.
It's entirely possible and even common to become addicted to adrenaline.
We are programmed by evolutionary pressures to be primed for "fight or flight" on a fairly regular basis and when there are no credible reasons for engaging in that behavior a large percentage of us will invent some reason or other for doing so.
There are any number of ways to artificially invoke an adrenaline rush, horror flicks, "amusement" parks, skydiving, bungee jumping, rock climbing, motorcycle riding (my particular choice) and on and on..
Existence in the industrial era is boring and mundane, it's no accident that many of us choose to change our mental state through drugs, risky behavior or whatever.
-
This reminds me of another article
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/27/the_correction/
All Time can say about this matter is that Republicans say one thing and Democrats claim another. Who is right? Is one side lying? What does the bill actually say, in reality?
That's not for Time to say. After all, they're journalists, not partisans. So they just write down what each side says. It's not for them to say what is true, even if one side is lying.
In this twisted view, that is called "balance" -- writing down what each side says. As in: "Hey - Bush officials say that there is WMD in Iraq and things are going great with the war (and a few people say otherwise). It's not for us to decide. It's not our fault if what we wrote down is a lie. We just wrote down exactly what they said." At best, they write down what each side says and then go home. That's what they're for.
It is amazing how much lies (or distortions, whatever nice things you want to call them) are quoted as the gospel truth.
-
on Tucker Carlson's cancelation...
Well, it won't be much better.
David Gregory is getting the timeslot for something called:
"Race for the White House.
Guess that means it's temporary, unless they plan to start right up again, after November with a new race. ;~) Frankly, I've had enough of so-called Reality programming. How about some decent writing?
Time to start posting that YouTube of Gregory doing backup for Karl Rove...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdvHwtRdg_I
-
If a Democrat is elected president you will see a change in the press
Great article Glenn. If Obama or Clinton win the White House the idea of balance and centrism will go right out of the window. I'd wager that the press will go through a metamorphosis from craven, right-wing enabler to truth-seeking, investigative journalists.
-
Laughter is the best medicine...
It is a sorry state of affairs, but one that seems impervious to critical evaluation and reason.
I no longer watch the news on TV and rarely pick up a newspaper. I don't consider what the main stream media put out for our consumption to be anything remotely similar to what I used to recognize as news. It is absurdly irritating when I hear news organizations like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and The Washington Post, making reference to their "fourth estate" status as if it were possible to appropriate for themselves once again the well deserved reputation of a press muzzled long ago. Just look at Bob Woodward. Who would ever suppose in our new press order that Bob Woodward once upon a time brought down the most powerful man in the world? Here is a man who became the consummate toady, a sycophant extraordinaire. I used to look up to the guy when I was a teenager. Oh, how the mighty have fallen...
Glenn is absolutely right about balance in the news business having degenerated into something like a game where progressive commentators are forced to play with a handicap, where the line of scrimmage has been moved forward in the conservative team's favor, and where the form of our Bushwhacked government is taken for the political center. Progressive political thought starts at a distinct disadvantage. A fairer reception from the mainstream media might come about through agitation by progressive readers and news sources, but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of that strategy given the new corporatist stranglehold on the media.
I am interested in, let's call it, "alternative news." I was shocked a year or two ago when I read that some unbelieveable percentage of young people get their news from "The Jon Stewart Show" and "The Colbert Report." Although these shows appear on Comedy Central, they do a great job of skewering governmental pomposity and political bullshit. Who knows what effect these two shows have had on Americans' views of the Iraq War, Islamofaschism, Katrina, etc. Politicians are leery of the power these shows have to shine a light on their inane statements and behavior. Many conservative politicians seem to go on in order to innoculate themselves against future attack. It doesn't seem to work.
I was also really surprised about the fallout from the Saturday Night Live skit spoofing the news media's infatuation with Barak Obama. Clinton supporters (of which I am one) have been furious over the perceived difference in the way news organizations have treated Hillary Clinton as opposed to Barak Obama. I'm sure many people who read this letter will disagree with my conclusion that there is a press bias in favor of Obama, but my point is that only after news organizations, reporters, and commentators saw themselves being turned into the butt of a joke did they actually even deign to consider the possibility that their preferences or the prejudices might be influencing their reporting and their editorializing.
Nobody likes to be laughed at. Personally, I can think of few people who deserve to be laughed at more raucously than the American press corps. From their lack of depth to their inane questions during debates, the press have abdicated their responsibility to present the news fairly and accurately. I sincerely hope that Tina Fey and the SNL writers keep up the attacks on the press, not just from the point of view of a pre-supposed bias towards Obama, but also on the more general problem of poor reporting, inept questioning, and amateurish follow up.
The news media is pretty impervious to a frontal attack. What I hope for is that the whole sorry lot of them will experience the humiliation of becoming topic A every Monday morning as Americans gather around the water cooler to discuss their weekend. There is also a lesson here I think for progressive commentators. My modest proposal would be to play offense, and the best offense is to hit your reader's funny bone. Satire, anyone? Ouch!