-
Millionaire Rapper, Meet Billionaire Boone
June 1, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Re: Regrets Over Could-Have-Been GOP Contenders
November 2, 2011 | 7 comments
-
The Paul Ryan Primer
December 16, 2010 | 5 comments
-
Tim Pawlenty: Govt Unions Are a Silent Coup
December 13, 2010 | 10 comments
-
Re: Fey Still Isn’t Funny
November 17, 2010 | 10 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It actually kind of makes me giddy, in a morbid sort of way. John Dickerson at Slate says we should leave Obama alone on the Blago scandal. For now. He concedes that Obama’s first response was ‘flaccid’ and that reporters should keep asking questions.
But that “it would be a mistake to assume Obama is acting in bad faith.” I mean, really, “give the new guy a break.”
What?
Obama aside. Blago aside. Any connection—or no connection—aside, the bigger picture, the whole piece struck me as such an ironic, blatant—almost naive?—example of media bias I just had to chuckle (hence, the strange giddiness).
If this had been Bush, President-Elect in 2000, in some kind of similar-looking scandal, (pre any of the issues we know of now) Slate and everyone else would be saying, Feed him to the dogs! Barrage him with questions! Demand reasonable answers! Now!
Bob| 12.18.08 @ 4:29PM
C'mon, Nicole. At least deal with facts. Obama is not getting a free ride on this. At all of his daily press conferences he's asked about it. The Chicago press has been on Blago for years and constantly looked for an Obama connection and didn't really find any. I watch all the news channels and the questions are raised hourly.
It has even gone so far that both Newt and McCain have counseled the Republican party to tone it down. Here is Newt's letter to Duncan:
"I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.
The recent web advertisement, "Questions Remain," is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.
In a time when America is facing real challenges, Republicans should be working to help the incoming President succeed in meeting them, regardless of his Party.
From now until the inaugural, Republicans should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office.
Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.
This is the only way the Republican Party will become known as the "better solutions" party, not just an opposition party. And this is the only way Republicans will ever regain the trust of the voters to return to the majority.
This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation's troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008."
I know you think that "anti-intellectual" conservatives will buy this nonsense because they don't know enough to check it out, but you're not doing conservatism any good by treating your readers like idiots.
James Hovland| 12.18.08 @ 6:30PM
Giddiness and Fear is a sad platform, even for Republicans. Right now, soul-searching is by far the best plan in their agenda. Republicans are lost because they really don't have much of a platform anymore.
Vote for me or the Democrats will take your guns, is probably your biggest seller, but it's just not true and most people know it.
Fear your government and support my capitalist buddy is not going at all well in the Health Care debate. People actually have accesses to information now, and a comment section on every corner to voice their opinion. Profit vs Care is not a hard choice to make. We know America ranks 39th despite the fact that we spend the most.
The Republican talking points have been reduced to a handful of sarcastic punchlines intended to portray the opposition as foolish or naive. The strategy is to help the blind followers feel smart while keeping them in a ridiculous giddy state of ignorance.
The anti-environment stance the 'Right' has taken to oppose the 'Left' was probably the stupidest political move any party has ever made. Do you really hate liberals enough to attack the environment because they are trying to protect it? That's pretty sad.
Media bias is obvious, but you have to look at both sides to understand the different perceptions about bias. Take Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for example. Who do these people represent? McCain was not their favorite, in fact they both threatened to vote for Clinton if McCain won the Primaries. The people obviously didn't agree, and McCain took the nomination with ease. So, how do these out of touch voices from the 'far right' fit into your view of bias?
Jeremiah| 12.19.08 @ 1:43AM
Nothing in the usual litany of "conservative" complaints is less effective than the constant complaint of media bias.
There's something contemptible about blaming the refs.
However, there are other problems with this complaint:
1. Empirical studies of media regularly divide on this issue. Often studies will find that a majority of reporters identify themselves as "moderates" or "liberals." However, other studies will find narrative templates used repeatedly that favor more conservative agendas.
The fact is, EVERYONE thinks the bias is against them. Few stop to think how bias may help news gathering (news flash folks: biased journalism can deliver better stories than so-called "objective" journalism).
2. Complaints about "liberal" bias of media fail to explain the near dominance of conservative ideas in political discourse for the past three decades. Even Democrats use a language and terminology that is fashioned to suit a conservative agenda.
Either the press is not biased to the left, or the bias simply doesn't matter. You must choose. If it doesn't matter, the question becomes: why all the whining?
But the fact is that the press does matter. NOTHING matters more than the press, since the press is all there is between a democracy and a fascistic state.
James Hovland| 12.19.08 @ 3:08AM
Allowing unrestrained capitalism to dominate the free-press in a democracy creates the illusion of choice while dictating the options. It's the governing of the people, by the media, mostly for their corporate sponsors.
Bias and the two party system just adds to the illusion. As long as the blame can be shifted and the people offered an alternative, revolutions can be avoided and the game goes on.
I would agree with Jeremiah, the accusation of Liberal media bias is a tad ridiculous. Reporters might be, but they don't decide what gets aired. The editors have to reject a lot of material to keep their sponsors happy.
Indiana Alex| 12.19.08 @ 7:42AM
There you go again Bob, with your "anti-intellectual conservatives". It's your contempt for dissenting opinion that gives you away every time. If you consider your nonsense intellectual conservatism throw me a beer and call me a hick all day long. Just stay on your side of the fence and don't pretend you belong here.
Michael Dooley| 12.19.08 @ 8:45AM
Dear Jeremiah:
1.) No one. No one appointed the "media" to be the "referees". This "fourth branch" of the government crap is just that: crap. It is quite enough for the "media" to speak and write freely among a free people. Its roll in the public forum of ideas and discussion of politics and news is invaluable. But the press is not the "rule keeps" in civil affairs. No one gave it the rule book much less lets the media write the rulebook. It is the "media's" inflated sense of itself that pisses a whole lot of people across the political spectrum.
2.) The media's bias would be far more acceptable if its practitioners would simply identify themselves so that listeners and readers can evaluate what is written or said.
3.) Your statement that no conservative bitchin' is “less effective than the constant complaint of media bias". This is true and not true. Media bias is simply there and nothing is more tiresome than some sanctimonious, self-appointed "referee" tell us he's above it all. The to the point, we conservatives can go on and on detailing media bias but the media is what it is and will be leftwing biased for the foreseeable future. Our job is to stop bitchin' and develop our own channels to the public's attention.
Jeremiah| 12.19.08 @ 9:15AM
Michael --
Your posting is and is not reasonable.
"Blaming the refs" is an expression not meant to imply that the press has power over the state. I might just as well have said "blaming the spectators."
Limbaugh has made a multi-million dollar industry out of "explaining" news bias to people: don't fool yourself by thinking your a David vs. Goliath.
Here's how the field stands:
Corporate giants expressing "liberal" and "conservative" biases dominate the "media" -- distracting and entertaining the multitudes.
Through the storm, a number of good journalists continue to work, and their politics don't matter anymore than a good pilot's politics.
Now, if you want news sources that actually identify their biases, you'd have to look at the newspapers that are so (moronically) disparaged around here.
Everyday the NY Times publishes the opinions of its owners to allow you to correct for any bias you receive, while the supposedly "fair and balanced" Fox News network simply claims it "reports" while you "decide," as though it were "objective." This is of course total nonsense. MSNBC is no better.
My advice?
Read newspapers. Watch the Lehrer News Hour. You'll get a slight liberal bias, but at least the news will be pitched to you as though you are an intelligent adult and not a numb-skull.
Cable news is degenerate trash, no matter what station or show.
Lastly, in a sense the press does act as a referee. Unless you can tell me which politician or government agency I should call to ask if the government agency or politician in question is telling the truth.
That is, your beloved Lewinsky scandal was not published on government websites, nor did Clinton volunteer the information. The PRESS found it. (The liberal press, i.e.). Watergate was broken by the press, the coming torture scandal will have been found out and reported by the press.
Jeremiah| 12.19.08 @ 9:32AM
Mr Jefferson's comment:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson
Jeremiah| 12.19.08 @ 10:17AM
Keep in mind too that Jefferson wrote at a time when newspapers were almost hysterically "biased," the whole weird concept of "objective" journalism not even having been considered yet.
Consider, folks, that last sentence too:
"I should mean that every man should receive those papers..."
Does that not sound like a publicly funded newspaper?
Like Harpers?
Bob| 12.19.08 @ 10:48AM
Alex --
Yes it is true that I think the biggest problem with Republicans in general and conservatives in particular is that they are anti-intellectual. How do I define that? If you use APPROPRIATE data and analysis, you are "intellectual". It has little to do with education, but education, especially at the Ivy League schools, concentrate on good, solid analysis.
The contributors at AmSpec have the tendency to substitute belief for reason and choose data that supports their point rather than analyzing the data and coming to a logical conclusion. Nicole, for example, neglects to point out Fox News, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, conservative magazines and blogs, and most evangelical churches as a counterbalance to the dying newspapers and some cable channels on the left. Left wing radio receives very little viewership. In the face of that logic, to say that there is significant bias is ridiculous.
Another example was the article by Quin the other day on Reagan and limited government. Under Reagan, the debt grew dramatically and the size of government grew more than most other recent Presidents. How is that "limited government"? Quin used specific data at a point in time rather than the sum of what occurred during the entire Presidency. That is NOT being "intellectual".
There are always statements that Palin helped the ticket. This is fundamentally NOT TRUE if you look at all of the trend data and place an event timeline against it. Add to that the polling data, and the only logical analysis is that Palin hurt the ticket.
There is a reason most journalists lean to the left -- they use data and analysis to do their stories rather than belief and feeling. This grates me because there are good analyses for a fiscal conservative position.
I constantly blame social conservatives for this "anti-intellectual" bent since their positions are based totally on belief and feelings rather than data and analysis. When it comes to public policy, the best solutions are secular, not religious.
I believe that fiscal conservatives can make excellent, intellectually based arguments for limited government based on analysis of trends and data. The sooner conservatives learn to use intellect rather than feelings, the better off this country will be.
biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:44PM
bikini
bikini swimwear
pigment Red | 4.5.10 @ 11:06PM
pigment Red
czmaxpct@gmail.com
Although Obama has run his campaign Organic Pigmentsalmost completely as a to the administration of one George Ink Pigments the parallels between their campaigns are apparent