I don't want to hear the redneck talk, did he actually claim to remember either of the world wars?
Transcript (taken from DailyKos, for what it's worth):
"I'll be honest with you. I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it's asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for'em. Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to downer--and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'Well look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."
There is an entire type of poetry that is called trench poetry that was written by soldiers that were dissatisfied and disenfranchised with the war.
Rose tinted glasses are fun!
Hell, we had the whole Lost Generation of people who were so fucked up by the war that they spent the next couple of decades writing about how meaningless and vapid life seemed to them now. "Soldier's Home" by Hemingway is my favorite example.
I remember guys like Joe from high school. They read a book like A Farewell to Arms or All Quiet on the Western Front and come away from it thinking the theme of the book was serving your country(tm). Although I doubt Joe reads books at all.
I remember guys like this from high school. They read a book like A Farewell to Arms or All Quiet on the Western Front and come away from it thinking the theme of the book was serving your country(tm).
She actually evoked Hillary Clinton during her first few public appearances, but stopped once she learned that the Clinton name tends to attract resounding "boos" from predominantly Republican audiences.
Fuck - has she not heard of, you know...Hillary Clinton?!?!?
Palin - or, more likely, whatever nefarious shadow entities are backing her 2012 run - are just throwing out any line they can come up with in hopes that she'll stay in the public consciousness. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense or not, as long as people remember her.
Not to mention the obnoxious persecution complex Republicans tend to have (while, paradoxically, claiming that they represent the desires of 'real Americans' - I suppose this means there's actually more fake Americans than real ones now).
Not to mention the obnoxious persecution complex Republicans tend to have (while, paradoxically, claiming that they represent the desires of 'real Americans' - I suppose this means there's actually more fake Americans than real ones now).
It's more that the minority immoral elitist Jew Ivy Leaguers have all the power. I mean, look, the DEMONcrats have the house, senate, and executive!!!!!!!11
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
What with their fancy pants edjumacations and penchant for examining reality with something approaching objectivity.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
Yes I know that, it is pretty implicit. My question is their reasoning as to why so many journalists skew Democratic, i.e. is it something in the culture or what?
I mean the obvious reason is that people who spend a lot of time around and reading about the news tend to have a more clear idea of what's actually going on in the world, which tends towards the Democratic Party. But clearly this isn't the accepted logic if you're a Republican who believes in liberal media bias.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
Yes I know that, it is pretty implicit. My question is their reasoning as to why so many journalists skew Democratic, i.e. is it something in the culture or what?
I mean the obvious reason is that people who spend a lot of time around and reading about the news tend to have a more clear idea of what's actually going on in the world, which tends towards the Democratic Party. But clearly this isn't the accepted logic if you're a Republican who believes in liberal media bias.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
Yes I know that, it is pretty implicit. My question is their reasoning as to why so many journalists skew Democratic
Because they're liberally biased.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
It's difficult to say. The idea of the "liberal media" has become such a prevalent concept in conservative thought that it's almost taken as a given - much like academia is similarly "liberal" (although that has a little more justification, since academics, unlike media figures and "the media" in general, do in fact tend to lean to the left). Also, fundamentalist Christians tend to overwhelmingly support Israel in hopes that the worsening situation there will bring about Armageddon more quickly. So, a lot of Republican politicians make a big show of demonstrating how anti-Semitic they aren't, and fortunately that sort of racism seems to be dying out as a result.
The really nasty anti-Semitic stuff these days comes not from the average conservative (the way would have, say, fifty or sixty years ago, when Anti-semitism was just as acceptable as racism against blacks or hispanics). Rather, it comes from the creepy libertarian Ron Paul types who will explain, at length, how "international bankers" or some other euphemism are "responsible for all the wars in the world" or some similar bullshit. If you press them enough, most of them will admit that they think many of the people behind these machinations are, indeed, Jews. It's scary, to me at least, how nonsense like that refuses to die even in this day and age.
I mean the obvious reason is that people who spend a lot of time around and reading about the news tend to have a more clear idea of what's actually going on in the world, which tends towards the Democratic Party. But clearly this isn't the accepted logic if you're a Republican who believes in liberal media bias.
That's not exactly the "obvious reason". I think the reason has more to do with a common notion of reporters as being noble crusaders trying to save the world, which has a certain glamour which appeals to the same mindset that wishes to save the world via grand social programs.
You know that most economists skew Republican, right? Do you take this to mean that clearly Republicans have the best ideas on the economy?
The military skews Republican. Does this mean that the Republicans have the best ideas on defense and foreign policy?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
Yes I know that, it is pretty implicit. My question is their reasoning as to why so many journalists skew Democratic
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
Yes I know that, it is pretty implicit. My question is their reasoning as to why so many journalists skew Democratic
Because they're liberally biased.
Clever.
Isn't it? It's wonderfully insidious.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I mean the obvious reason is that people who spend a lot of time around and reading about the news tend to have a more clear idea of what's actually going on in the world, which tends towards the Democratic Party. But clearly this isn't the accepted logic if you're a Republican who believes in liberal media bias.
That's not exactly the "obvious reason". I think the reason has more to do with a common notion of reporters as being noble crusaders trying to save the world, which has a certain glamour which appeals to the same mindset that wishes to save the world via grand social programs.
You know that most economists skew Republican, right? Do you take this to mean that clearly Republicans have the best ideas on the economy?
The military skews Republican. Does this mean that the Republicans have the best ideas on defense and foreign policy?
Well these assumptions are closely held as truths by many people.
I think the whole liberal media bias came about more as a meme propagated as a good PR tactic by the Pub's, rather than a reality-begets-sterotypes thing.
That's not exactly the "obvious reason". I think the reason has more to do with a common notion of reporters as being noble crusaders trying to save the world, which has a certain glamour which appeals to the same mindset that wishes to save the world via grand social programs.
You know that most economists skew Republican, right? Do you take this to mean that clearly Republicans have the best ideas on the economy?
The military skews Republican. Does this mean that the Republicans have the best ideas on defense and foreign policy?
True, but I think with economics and the military it also has to do with it being a matter of keeping power. If more radical and social economic thought increases in influence then a lot of free-market capitalist economists are going to suffer. If a Democrat gets elected, the amount of influnce the military has is likely to wane. The news, on the other hand, isn't really going anywhere.
I think the whole liberal media bias came about more as a meme propagated as a good PR tactic by the Pub's, rather than a reality-begets-sterotypes thing.
Well, I think it's pretty well documented that journalists tend to skew liberal. Doesn't necessarily imply a bias in reporting, only that reporters self-identify a certain way. Similarly, editors tend to skew conservative, station heads probably skew conservative, and so on. Presumably if reporters were just swayed by all that unbridled truthiness, the effect would translate to editors to some extent, as well.
More likely, something about journalism on the ground attracts liberals and something about editing attracts conservatives. Just like education attracts liberals, engineering (in my experience) attracts conservatives, and so on.
Regarding your statement above, I'd wager that a bunch of conservatives noticed that not everything said about them in the news is rosy, they caught wind of the fact that journalists skew liberal, and suddenly they had a perfect "explanation" for why the media isn't always giving them a giant, editorial blowjob.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean the obvious reason is that people who spend a lot of time around and reading about the news tend to have a more clear idea of what's actually going on in the world, which tends towards the Democratic Party. But clearly this isn't the accepted logic if you're a Republican who believes in liberal media bias.
That's not exactly the "obvious reason". I think the reason has more to do with a common notion of reporters as being noble crusaders trying to save the world, which has a certain glamour which appeals to the same mindset that wishes to save the world via grand social programs.
You know that most economists skew Republican, right? Do you take this to mean that clearly Republicans have the best ideas on the economy?
The military skews Republican. Does this mean that the Republicans have the best ideas on defense and foreign policy?
They also tend to be college educated (at least), live in an urban area, and make a pretty good salary though not 'rich' (even though they have no idea what constitutes wealthy if Bob Schieffer is any judge) where voting Republican would be in their own self interest. All of that generally describes a Democrat.
What I don't get is how reporters suddenly have all the power and the largely Republican editorial staff has no influence over what gets covered, cut, or a page 1 spread. Their liberalness knows no bounds.
I think the whole liberal media bias came about more as a meme propagated as a good PR tactic by the Pub's, rather than a reality-begets-sterotypes thing.
Well, I think it's pretty well documented that journalists tend to skew liberal. Doesn't necessarily imply a bias in reporting, only that reporters self-identify a certain way. Similarly, editors tend to skew conservative, station heads probably skew conservative, and so on. Presumably if reporters were just swayed by all that unbridled truthiness, the effect would translate to editors to some extent, as well.
More likely, something about journalism on the ground attracts liberals and something about editing attracts conservatives. Just like education attracts liberals, engineering (in my experience) attracts conservatives, and so on.
Regarding your statement above, I'd wager that a bunch of conservatives noticed that not everything said about them in the news is rosy, they caught wind of the fact that journalists skew liberal, and suddenly they had a perfect "explanation" for why the media isn't always giving them a giant, editorial blowjob.
I believe that happened around the Watergate investigation. Taking down a sitting Republican president by talking about all the illegal shit he did tends to stick in the craw just a bit. It's a miracle the current administration survived the full eight years what with all that unfettered liberal bias oozing out of the news media.
What I don't get is how reporters suddenly have all the power and the largely Republican editorial staff has no influence over what gets covered, cut, or a page 1 spread. Their liberalness knows no bounds.
The liberal reporters outnumber them. Editors likely fear for their lives, and bow to the chaotic whims of their journalistic underlords.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think the whole liberal media bias came about more as a meme propagated as a good PR tactic by the Pub's, rather than a reality-begets-sterotypes thing.
Well, I think it's pretty well documented that journalists tend to skew liberal. Doesn't necessarily imply a bias in reporting, only that reporters self-identify a certain way. Similarly, editors tend to skew conservative, station heads probably skew conservative, and so on. Presumably if reporters were just swayed by all that unbridled truthiness, the effect would translate to editors to some extent, as well.
More likely, something about journalism on the ground attracts liberals and something about editing attracts conservatives. Just like education attracts liberals, engineering (in my experience) attracts conservatives, and so on.
Regarding your statement above, I'd wager that a bunch of conservatives noticed that not everything said about them in the news is rosy, they caught wind of the fact that journalists skew liberal, and suddenly they had a perfect "explanation" for why the media isn't always giving them a giant, editorial blowjob.
I believe that happened around the Watergate investigation. Taking down a sitting Republican president by talking about all the illegal shit he did tends to stick in the craw just a bit. It's a miracle the current administration survived the full eight years what with all that unfettered liberal bias oozing out of the news media.
Well, the thing is about reporting is that it's people doing the reporting. Words have straightforward factual meaning and will also often have more subtle but no less impactful secondary or implied meaning. You'll find many articles from respected journalists where the facts are presented partially, or weighted, or omitted entirely in favour of repeating statements from selected members of the public. Even when they *try* their hardest to be completely neutral, there are often assumptions made in the interest of preventing the article from being overly wordy or rambling on about defining things in context.
Bias exists, even when it's muted or explicitly avoided.
I havn't followed the Republican media narrative much recently, is there any logic given as to why the media would be liberally biased or is it still undercurrents of "JEWS?"
They don't give the Republicans sloppy blowjobs, so they're clearly liberal shils.
Of course not. Everyone knows that the only reason Obama got elected is because the media gave him a free pass and viciously and sexistly went after Palin. I mean, did you ever hear about Obama's ties to former terrorist Bill Ayers? Never. Rumours that he was a secret Muslims, with pictures to back it? Nope. Allegations that he would ban all guns? That he was the most liberal senator in the history of civilization? Inexperienced? Constitutionally unqualified? Not once did any of these issues ever come up.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin's extensive knowledge of foreign policy, remarkable executive experience, sound economic judgment, brilliant policy ideas, and legendary integrity were all ignored in favour of constant allegations about Trigg. Without the shadow of a doubt, if the media had been fair and balanced instead of liberally-biased and sexist, she would have won the presidency.
I really, really just love how this was crafted. I'd try and squeeze it into a sig if I could. :^:
Just for a second, imagine Barack Obama's chances of being elected to the presidential office if he had an unwed, pregnant, teenage daughter, and his wife was a secessionist. Fucking. Zero. The media would have had a goddamn field day.
9 fucking days away from a new president, and suddenly: PALIN! Who, who was the douche nozzle who decided that it would be a good idea to have this bitch on the ticket.
So is this whole thread just everyone telling each other how great of a job they did electing obama or what?
(Would still like to point out, again, I did not like palin in the least. But still.)
You're not much on reading are you? I think this more of "Man we dodged a bullet because Palin is a retard" thread.
If nothing else, she put Clinton's relatively minor gibbering into perspective. No matter what she or her campaign said or did, we can always fall back on "But she's better than Palin."
Posts
People who wonder why I seem so angry living in the state that's famous for giving us Joe the Retard and two terms of Bush are retarded.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/newsreel.html
Looks like it caught on a lot sooner than that.
There is an entire type of poetry that is called trench poetry that was written by soldiers that were dissatisfied and disenfranchised with the war.
Rose tinted glasses are fun!
I remember guys like Joe from high school. They read a book like A Farewell to Arms or All Quiet on the Western Front and come away from it thinking the theme of the book was serving your country(tm). Although I doubt Joe reads books at all.
Now let's not get hasty here.
Goddammit, humanity.
Fuck - has she not heard of, you know...Hillary Clinton?!?!?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Not to mention the obnoxious persecution complex Republicans tend to have (while, paradoxically, claiming that they represent the desires of 'real Americans' - I suppose this means there's actually more fake Americans than real ones now).
Bugs Bunny needs to start killing Japanese people again
ah the good old days
It's more that the minority immoral elitist Jew Ivy Leaguers have all the power. I mean, look, the DEMONcrats have the house, senate, and executive!!!!!!!11
The usual logic given is that the majority of journalists skew Democratic.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's a librul conspiracy, I tells ya.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes I know that, it is pretty implicit. My question is their reasoning as to why so many journalists skew Democratic, i.e. is it something in the culture or what?
I mean the obvious reason is that people who spend a lot of time around and reading about the news tend to have a more clear idea of what's actually going on in the world, which tends towards the Democratic Party. But clearly this isn't the accepted logic if you're a Republican who believes in liberal media bias.
Because they're liberally biased.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The really nasty anti-Semitic stuff these days comes not from the average conservative (the way would have, say, fifty or sixty years ago, when Anti-semitism was just as acceptable as racism against blacks or hispanics). Rather, it comes from the creepy libertarian Ron Paul types who will explain, at length, how "international bankers" or some other euphemism are "responsible for all the wars in the world" or some similar bullshit. If you press them enough, most of them will admit that they think many of the people behind these machinations are, indeed, Jews. It's scary, to me at least, how nonsense like that refuses to die even in this day and age.
That's not exactly the "obvious reason". I think the reason has more to do with a common notion of reporters as being noble crusaders trying to save the world, which has a certain glamour which appeals to the same mindset that wishes to save the world via grand social programs.
You know that most economists skew Republican, right? Do you take this to mean that clearly Republicans have the best ideas on the economy?
The military skews Republican. Does this mean that the Republicans have the best ideas on defense and foreign policy?
Clever.
Isn't it? It's wonderfully insidious.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well these assumptions are closely held as truths by many people.
I think the whole liberal media bias came about more as a meme propagated as a good PR tactic by the Pub's, rather than a reality-begets-sterotypes thing.
True, but I think with economics and the military it also has to do with it being a matter of keeping power. If more radical and social economic thought increases in influence then a lot of free-market capitalist economists are going to suffer. If a Democrat gets elected, the amount of influnce the military has is likely to wane. The news, on the other hand, isn't really going anywhere.
Well, I think it's pretty well documented that journalists tend to skew liberal. Doesn't necessarily imply a bias in reporting, only that reporters self-identify a certain way. Similarly, editors tend to skew conservative, station heads probably skew conservative, and so on. Presumably if reporters were just swayed by all that unbridled truthiness, the effect would translate to editors to some extent, as well.
More likely, something about journalism on the ground attracts liberals and something about editing attracts conservatives. Just like education attracts liberals, engineering (in my experience) attracts conservatives, and so on.
Regarding your statement above, I'd wager that a bunch of conservatives noticed that not everything said about them in the news is rosy, they caught wind of the fact that journalists skew liberal, and suddenly they had a perfect "explanation" for why the media isn't always giving them a giant, editorial blowjob.
They also tend to be college educated (at least), live in an urban area, and make a pretty good salary though not 'rich' (even though they have no idea what constitutes wealthy if Bob Schieffer is any judge) where voting Republican would be in their own self interest. All of that generally describes a Democrat.
What I don't get is how reporters suddenly have all the power and the largely Republican editorial staff has no influence over what gets covered, cut, or a page 1 spread. Their liberalness knows no bounds.
I believe that happened around the Watergate investigation. Taking down a sitting Republican president by talking about all the illegal shit he did tends to stick in the craw just a bit. It's a miracle the current administration survived the full eight years what with all that unfettered liberal bias oozing out of the news media.
The liberal reporters outnumber them. Editors likely fear for their lives, and bow to the chaotic whims of their journalistic underlords.
Well, the thing is about reporting is that it's people doing the reporting. Words have straightforward factual meaning and will also often have more subtle but no less impactful secondary or implied meaning. You'll find many articles from respected journalists where the facts are presented partially, or weighted, or omitted entirely in favour of repeating statements from selected members of the public. Even when they *try* their hardest to be completely neutral, there are often assumptions made in the interest of preventing the article from being overly wordy or rambling on about defining things in context.
Bias exists, even when it's muted or explicitly avoided.
They don't give the Republicans sloppy blowjobs, so they're clearly liberal shils.
edit: and this
Beat'd. And I thought I was the only one here that read that comic.
Steam: pazython
(Would still like to point out, again, I did not like palin in the least. But still.)
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
You're not much on reading are you? I think this more of "Man we dodged a bullet because Palin is a retard" thread.
If nothing else, she put Clinton's relatively minor gibbering into perspective. No matter what she or her campaign said or did, we can always fall back on "But she's better than Palin."