Opposition Dems

[troublesome one]

Harry Reid
Launched a screed
Designed to damage
The Prez
His "soothing tone" delivery
Disguises what he says

"Pull out!", I say
"The American
People have spoken."
"Iraq was fine,
But now it's broken."

"It's Bush's fault,
You know it's true.
He's from a red state.
I'm from a blue."

Just in time for the '08 roar
Soros will find
Tons of funds for Moore
He'll film an epic
And make history hazy
Make Saddam the victim
And not seem so crazy

Michael will declare
There's only one to cope
With Iraq's new chaos
Her husband's from Hope

She'll pander with Harry
To any news outlet
But unlike Howard Dean
She will not shout it

Her eyes on the prize
The White House her goal
On an Inconvenient Truth
She'll take her toll

This poem I know
Is incomplete
We have 12 months
To hear the Democrats bleat

[LuciusBeebe]

--Roses are Red
--Violets are Blue

the republicans have dismantled the bill of rights while cowtowing to every demand a hapless unqualified president has made. we are in a war against a country that never attacked us, in a conflict that is aiding terrorist recruitment, that is costing us billions, that is killing hundreds of thousands, that has squandered our credibility around the globe. Our judicial system has been hijacked by the political menace of the president. The people spoke, when they showed the republicans the door last november. We are sick of what you are trying to sell, red states.

--I can write vitriolic poems
--Just like you.

(if you wrote that)

[james_t]

Lucius:

The rhythm definitely needs some improvement. And remember the red states would say the same about the blue.

TO (troublesome one, not Terrell Owens):
Obama is conspicuously absent from your verse. Perhaps he's not seen as an "opposition" Dem, which might be another reason folks are flocking to him.

[troublesome one]

Beebe must chill
And not be so serious
His pressure will rise
And make him delirious

Obama won't survive
The Clinton steamroller
I figure by New Hampshire
It'll pretty much be over

That's the sadness
Of this front-loaded system
Where tons of cash
Ultimately picks 'em

We should all step back
And ponder the facts
Not their platitudes
Or their campaign acts

It's all for show
The media make sure
They mark up their score
And chew up the pure

Obama's got "IT"
And a glimmer of hope
If they catch Hillary
Smokin' some dope

Other than that
It's a rigged game
And the nomination
Hillary may claim

[LuciusBeebe]

leave the rappin' to Bulworth

James, yeah. My point was how easy it is to come up with mud to sling. But more importantly, that one has to dig to come up with mud to sling at the Dems in the past 7 years, while it doesn't take a googling to come up with some gripes on the Reps. But that's how it goes. Power see-saws, and mistakes are made by the ones in power at the time. The way I see it, when your guys have the power, be happy and stop trying to smear the ones who haven't been in power, making the decisions. What's the point? It only sets a precedent for future smearing. Look at Limbaugh. He started this wildly popular concept of smearing the president on the radio when Clinton was calling the shots. Yet his analytic razor never touches Bush, and when others copy the tactics he used on Clinton and use them on Bush, oh how the arms go in the air! In other words, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The reps/dems both live in glass houses, and both seem to have a handful of stones and Eastwood eyes. There's nothing healthy about the bickering. Its devisive and has been hurting the country for years. Its no longer enough to believe what one believes, one has to belittle the other guy as well.

[james_t]

Lucius:

I agree. That's why I don't listen to the radio guys, even the ones whose political views might be closer to my own. It's a lot easier to sling mud than to actually try to fix things.

[troublesome one]

Agreed, each party is guilty to one degree or another.

Let's see...who was it that said they wanted to "end the politics of personal destruction" and then sent their henchmen out to destroy any of his opponents with the help of an eagerly sympathetic media?

If Rove is guilty of the the same tactics, he learned from the master (Clinton) and is lacking the sympathetic media component. There may be scattered pockets of support for Bush in the media, but the rest is overwhelmingly negative toward him.

Back to the primaries...the front-loaded system is flawed. It rewards huge amounts of cash and an early victory or two. If you don't prove your viability early, your cash dries up and donors flock to the frontrunner compounding the problem.

[LuciusBeebe]

Let's see...who was it that said they wanted to "end the politics of personal destruction" and then sent their henchmen out to destroy any of his opponents with the help of an eagerly sympathetic media?

Examples? Links? Anything?


If Rove is guilty of the the same tactics, he learned from the master (Clinton) and is lacking the sympathetic media component. There may be scattered pockets of support for Bush in the media, but the rest is overwhelmingly negative toward him.

Scattered pockets? Like the Wall Street Journal? Or FOXNews? Or nearly the entirety of Talk radio? Scattered pockets indeed...

[troublesome one]

Historical reference
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101d&L=ads-l&P=10502

In use by Hillary now...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/clinton_denounc.html

You want I should find a video clip?

[james_t]

As far as media bias, you could look up here:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#TV%20and%20Newspaper%20Journalists

With the caveat that the MRC is looking at this from a conservative viewpoint. I was trying to find Editor and Publisher's articles on the topic, but I couldn't pull them up readily, but from what I recall the news media (at least print) tends to vote significantly more Democrat than Republican.

Of course, as Lucius points out, there are media that cater to all ends of the political spectrum, and human nature is to gravitate toward the media you agree with, so it may not be as relevant as well all think. All the folks who hate Limbaugh will listen to NPR, and those who think NBC is too liberal will switch over to Fox.

[LuciusBeebe]

As far as media bias, you could look up here:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#TV%20and%20Newspaper%20Journalists

With the caveat that the MRC is looking at this from a conservative viewpoint. I was trying to find Editor and Publisher's articles on the topic, but I couldn't pull them up readily, but from what I recall the news media (at least print) tends to vote significantly more Democrat than Republican.

Of course, as Lucius points out, there are media that cater to all ends of the political spectrum, and human nature is to gravitate toward the media you agree with, so it may not be as relevant as well all think. All the folks who hate Limbaugh will listen to NPR, and those who think NBC is too liberal will switch over to Fox.

That's absolutely true. Which is what makes the "liberal media" myth so funny.


Historical reference
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101d&L=ads-l&P=10502

In use by Hillary now...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/clinton_denounc.html

You want I should find a video clip?

I meant examples of "then sent their henchmen out to destroy any of his opponents with the help of an eagerly sympathetic media". Not the source of the phrase.

[troublesome one]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30828.html

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/right012898.htm

CNN on the Livingstone FBI files
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/25/livingstone.hrc/index.shtml

[james_t]

I think "myth" is intellectually dishonest. There are enough studies, surveys and E&P articles out there that reflect that the media, in general, skew more liberal/Democrat than the general population that you can't claim otherwise - pockets of conservatism notwithstanding. And that's been my experience in the newsrooms I've hung around as well.

Whether that equates to biased reporting is, of course, another matter. I've known reporters and editors at both ends of the political spectrum who were good enough to not let it show up in what they produced (it works better if you've got one from each end), but I can't say whether that's universal or not, though it's certainly the ideal. And reports of a grand liberal media conspiracy are, I think, correctly labeled as myth, just as reports in the liberal media of a grand conservative conspiracy are.

And, as I said before, the effect is negated by people simply not choosing to use media they think is biased. That's probably another reason for the decline of the major network newscasts and major metro newspapers, as people ditch them in favor of more "niche" media they believe reflect their own values.

[LuciusBeebe]

I think "myth" is intellectually dishonest.

And reports of a grand liberal media conspiracy are, I think, correctly labeled as myth


Come again?

[james_t]

To say the media isn't liberal is inaccurate - they are, according to industry surveys, studies, etc. That's the part of your post I took issue with. However, to say there's some grand conspiracy by liberals to take over the world - which I've heard, and I suspect you have too - is overblown.

Sorry. I are a communications perfessionul. :)

[LuciusBeebe]

To say the media isn't liberal is inaccurate - they are, according to industry surveys, studies, etc. That's the part of your post I took issue with. However, to say there's some grand conspiracy by liberals to take over the world - which I've heard, and I suspect you have too - is overblown.

Sorry. I are a communications perfessionul. :)

Yes, from what i've read the majority of people WORKING IN the media lean left. But that doesn't mean that their work does. When people say the media is liberal, they generally mean the content put forth by the media, not the people behind the scenes are liberal. I have no problem with people saying the people in the media are liberal. I have a problem with people saying the media is liberal. The media is neutral. The media reports what sells. How else can we explain all the Anna Nicole coverage on news networks? What I find dangerous are cable news channels that deliberately lean one way or the other. Its a slippery slope.

I know at the end of the day people will watch what they want to watch and listen to what they want to listen to. But I think there's something dangerous about FoxNews' slogan, "we report, you decide." If we allow the news to be exaggerated, manufactured or warped, then it loses all meaning.

[james_t]

Anna Nicole's actually an interesting example, because I've been wondering if the members of the media aren't a lot more obsessed with that story than the public is. Most folks I know, you and I included, couldn't care less about that story, yet each day the AP keeps moving stuff about her death, baby, lovers, drug use, career, swimwear, toenail polish, etc. Hopefully I'm right, the mass media will find it's not economically viable (and it's certainly not newsworthy), and the poor woman will rest in peace.

[LuciusBeebe]

So you think the people who work for the media are the ones who determine which stories run?

Anna Nicole, Jon-benet, any-kidnapped-white-girl... these stories move the meter. They have basically zero news value, but people eat it up and the networks know it. Pull someone aside on the street and they couldn't tell you what happened in Iraq yesterday, but they'll probably be able to tell you the latest about Anna Nicole's baby-daddy. *shrug* I gave up on tv and papers long ago. I get my news almost exclusively from the internet.

[james_t]

Obviously the media determine what they run - that's the whole notion of being a media "gatekeeper."

But you are correct in that they are influenced by what they perceive to be the tastes of their viewers. The larger media companies are driven by profit, and if good journalism is a means to that end, great, but it's not a requirement.

Internet journalism doesn't need the high profit margins - any yahoo can set up a Web site for little to no money, as Drudge has proven - but the news reader there has to take the time to investigate the quality of the information source. (Not saying you don't; just making a general statement.)

http://log.does-not-exist.org/archives/internet-dog.gif

[matt_s]

I get my news almost exclusively from the internet.

Just because I enjoy stirring the pot...

How many pure internet based news sources are out there that don't have ties and resources drawn from the infrastrucutre created by "traditional media" (I hate that term)?

[james_t]

It probably depends on how you want to define a news source.

There are plenty of sites out there purporting to give the news that don't have ties to major media. How credible they are is another question entirely. You can everything from Matt Drudge (who also includes a lot from major media as well as his own stuff) to paranoid right-wing survivalist news delivered straight from the bunker.

[troublesome one]

There's even postings from Dan "Slipperier than an eel cooked in sweet Texas crude" Rather. His stories are "hotter than a chicken fried steak sittin' on a West Texas cactus". They're also "truer than a shot from Ann Richard's gun". "Hold on to your hat, there's a gust of truth-tellin' blowin' across the prairie, comin' straight from Dan.":)

[LuciusBeebe]

Just because I enjoy stirring the pot...

How many pure internet based news sources are out there that don't have ties and resources drawn from the infrastrucutre created by "traditional media" (I hate that term)?

Stir away! I enjoy a good back-n-forth.

I frequent many forums, from the Indy Star to Something Awful. When I see a thread that grabs my attention, there is usually a link to a story... be it the AP, USAToday, or foreign news agencies. I rarely, if ever, refer to blogs as news. Occasionally i'll click on Drudge, who also references outside news stories.

So I guess i'd say, none of my sources are "pure internet based news sources".

So, yes, all the news I read is tied to "traditional media". But I choose what i'm taking in. Television doesn't give you this option. Turn on CNN, you have to suffer through whatever gobblety gook they shove in your face until something of interest comes up, if ever.

In some cases, as with the following:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/do/2007/feb/19/566679623.html
I was linked to this story from a thread in the Something Awful forums. The thread was created by a member there whose work was being plagiarized by the artist who was written about in that Las Vegas Sun story. The forum members quickly ignited a firestorm of newsposts on their various sites and blogs, along with a mass email campaign to the Las Vegas Sun. Soon, the following story was reported:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/do/2007/apr/12/566637041.html
It was great fun. And something that traditional news sources would've never clued me in on.


edit:


There's even postings from Dan "Slipperier than an eel cooked in sweet Texas crude" Rather. His stories are "hotter than a chicken fried steak sittin' on a West Texas cactus". They're also "truer than a shot from Ann Richard's gun". "Hold on to your hat, there's a gust of truth-tellin' blowin' across the prairie, comin' straight from Dan.":)

Right. Destroy a man's integrity over one overblown incident. *golf clap*

[matt_s]

The ability to choose the news you consume has always been a benefit enjoyed by the print media and is now enjoying a complete renaisance online. I think that the Wall Street Journal was one of the first publications to realize this and really take advantage of it with how they have built their cover page in print. If you look at many news websites, for better or worse, many have tried to imitate this type of single point of reference for all content. I can't say I'm a big fan of it, but it does have its advantages.

On the content side, I've always looked at news sources and tried to differentiate between who is originating the content and who is spinning the content. If you don't have feet on the ground or at least an ear to a telephone with the story at the other end, chances are good that there is some spin on your story (not to say that it isn't there in the original reporting or that spin is necessarily a bad thing).

I used to work for a news company that owned the daily newspaper in Summerset PA. Not far from where an ill-fated flight made its final decent on 9/11. The reporters there where the guys reporting the news, especially in the first 24 hours while every other organization was trying to figure out how to get a reporter there. Everybody else is simply repeating or spinning the news (not necessarily a bad thing, just a statement of fact).

I have found on the internet that outside of the traditional media infrastrcture, "News" tends to quickly denegrate into conjecture, gossip, or very pointed attack that purposefully avoids all sides of the story. There are of course exceptions, and the traditional media can of course fall prey to these characteristics as well.

It can be hard to choose which sources to follow.

[LuciusBeebe]

I know just what you mean. Its easy for me to pick out when the story is ending and commentary is beginning, though not so easy for everybody. Like I said, this is why I avoid blogs like the plague. They are not constrained by the principles of journalism and can take whatever liberties they like. They're just like Countdown, Real Time, Scarborough Country, or any other show in which news is presented and then discussed. The news itself is quickly lost to the tide of opinion that is presented. I know news networks have time to fill and can choose their slots accordingly, but presenting opinion on a news network does erode the credibility of the news they present, in my opinion.

[LuciusBeebe]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30828.html

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/right012898.htm

CNN on the Livingstone FBI files
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/25/livingstone.hrc/index.shtml


Where is the destruction of others from the evil Clinton henchman?

I don't see anything in there as damning as the Plame incident.

[james_t]

... presenting opinion on a news network does erode the credibility of the news they present, in my opinion.

When I was in college, back in the dark ages when research still had to be done in the library and spam was something that was served in the college cafeteria, I attended a conference for college journalists where one of the speakers was the managing editor for the Chicago Sun-Times. (I'm not sure who owned them that particular day, though I believe this was post-Murdoch.)

The central point of his talk was that objectivity is a myth (his exact words) - that how one tells a story is shaped by their knowledge, experiences, and also by their attitudes, no matter how much they think otherwise. He said that instead of being objective, journalists need to strive to be fair.

Of course, fairness can be a pretty relative measuring stick, too - just ask my kids when they get in trouble what constitutes a fair punishment and you'll probably get an answer that's radically different from mine. I've seen stories, where in my mind at least, the writer was giving a lot more credibility than what was deserved to someone beyond the fringe all in the name of balance.

So there may be more overlap between news and opinion than what you think, although I can't say I agree or disagree with his thesis - just that it's something I ponder as I read and post the news.

[matt_s]

I had Philosophy class in college where we discussed perception and the nature of "Truth". I couldn't for the life of me give you the philosophers name or the name of the theory, but the short version, which to me holds a lot of credibility can be boiled down like this:

Everybody builds filters in their minds (to maintain a basic equilibrium in their life) that are shaped by the experiences they have had and the people they have encountered in their lives. These filters are unique to them and constantly evolving. No individual filter is "the right one". Events happen. Everything is processed through the filter. What we hold on to are our perceptions and is no longer fact. Once filtered, everything is relative.

I tend to put a lot of credibility in this theory. When I look at a lot of the conflicts in the world, to me it often boils down to the fact that people aren't acknowledging their filter and are attempting impose their filter on others.

Ok, enough of "Matt's Philosophy of Being".

[james_t]

I had a similar theory in a Mediated Political Reality class. I think it's useful in discussing how people shape their attitudes, but there are certain things that are true no matter how they are filtered. Two plus two always equals four whether I believe it does or not.

Of course, the big argument is over which of the truths are universal and which are a product of our filters.

OK, enough philosophy. The rest of the Fence Post is probably asleep by now. Except for Lucius, who's given up on us and is now playing Guitar Hero.

[LuciusBeebe]

I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't think there's much influence that someone can exert when reporting the five W's, well, until "why" is reached. What worries me is that there has been a steady erosion in the importance of trying to even seem objective. "FOXNews... We report, you decide!" What sort of confidence is that supposed to inspire? The National Enquirer could adopt that slogan.

[james_t]

It can definitely affect whether a story is covered. The national media knew about Monica Lewinsky before Drudge Report broke the story, but didn't think it newsworthy. US newspapers from the World War II era carried some coverage of massive killings of Jews, but it was way inside (something like page 38 of the New York Times, if I recall correctly).

Even complicating the matter more is that the media member has their own perception of what they believe their audience sees as important, which is affected by their own "filter". Thus we are flooded with Anna Nicole stories because the media perceive that it is important to their audience, whether it actually is or not.

[troublesome one]

I think you underestimate the power of subtle persuasion. Watch Brain Williams on NBC. His intonation, his brow inflections, the way he uses his head. He is a skilled communicator with a calculated way to get his (or his producer's) message across to the viewing public.

By your own admission, you are sophisticated enough to know when news stops and editorializeing begins. Unfortuantely, I'd have to say you're in the minority. The majority of the public is as maleable as sheep. They take what is presented as fact and either have no skills or inclination to delve deeper.

Speaking of slogans, how about changing the NYT's to "All the news that's fit to fabricate"?:)

[LuciusBeebe]

By your own admission, you are sophisticated enough to know when news stops and editorializeing begins. Unfortuantely, I'd have to say you're in the minority. The majority of the public is as maleable as sheep. They take what is presented as fact and either have no skills or inclination to delve deeper.

Yup.


Speaking of slogans, how about changing the NYT's to "All the news that's fit to fabricate"?:)

I wouldn't know about that, I don't read the Times. I just think its very telling about one's adherence to objectivity when they come right out and say, as their slogan, "eh, we're just talking here, you decide whether its true or not".

[troublesome one]

It could also be said, "We cater to hinking individuals who might actually use the mind God gave them." Or, "We trust people to make up their own minds.":)

P.S. I'm not a Fox News devotee

[LuciusBeebe]

It could also be said, "We cater to hinking individuals who might actually use the mind God gave them." Or, "We trust people to make up their own minds."


You're a big hinker, eh?

[james_t]

You're a big hinker, eh?

A few months back the Herald-Republican ran a photo of a road sign that had Steuben County spelled Stuben. I warned them that the local newspaper is the last one to be making fun of anyone's typos...