The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Versailles on the Potomac (and Hudson): The American Political Media
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
comedian)[/img]Never forget.
Anyone who's been following the political threads in these here forums know that I have a special disdain for the American news media. Alternately, if you participated in either of my Daily Show Phallas you will know that I loathe them pretty passionately. Especially David Broder, even if he's dead. They're terrible at their jobs for one, but more importantly they face absolutely no accountability. But before we begin, a few caveats:
1) This is not the LOL Fox News thread. Nor is it the LOLGOP thread. While they are frequently ridiculous, the topic here is the news media. This is explicitly not a place to talk about whatever crazypants thing that Louis Gohmert said. You can criticize someone for not challenging said crazypants thing.
Example:
Did you hear that Gohmert said that Obama wants to kill all white children so there are only minorities in the future?
NO, BAD.
Jesus Christ, David Gregory just failed to challenge Jon Kyl lying about Planned Parenthood.
Correct!
Dammit, Ron Fournier, Obamacare is not like Iraq or Katrina. No one drowned/got shot waiting for the website to load. Moron.
Also correct!
2) As such, if you are a conservative and would like to point out failures of liberals in the media? Go for it. Hell, if you're a liberal and want to point out the failures of liberals in the media, I would encourage that. This is about document awful, stupid things the media does. We are bipartisan in our shitty media (as most of MSNBC in primetime will attest). Or Roger Cohen.
a ton
If you attack Rachel Maddow though, I will cut you.
With those caveats in place, let's talk about the media.
(I'm leaving this passage in because it amused me)
Recently I've been frustrated with the general tone of the coverage of the death of Osama bin Laden and the generally wrongness of most of what they say. Obviously they were mindlessly repeating everything the White House said initially and the White House's initial reports were confused, at best. This is a tendency the media has, to blindly repeat the claims of the powerful. Which is an obvious problem. The other issue I have with the tone is my Chris Matthews example up above. He conceives of the mission to kill Bin Laden in terms of cowboys and indians and dudes with big balls. And the same of politics generally. Bush was great back when he was flying out to the flight deck because the flight suit emphasized his groin.
Anyway, someone decided to actually do a study (link is a PDF) on a selection of media members and politicians used as pundits and see how accurate their predictions were. Senators did poorly, some of the better columnists (and Maureen Dowd, somehow) did well. Paul Krugman was the best, mostly because he tended to stick to his main areas of expertise when it came to making predictions. Cal Thomas was the worst. While I was reading some analysis of this study though, I came across something that made clear the extent to which pundits in particular face zero accountability (though the entirety of the Iraq War is pretty good evidence).
Behold:
George Will wrote:“Liberalization is a ploy…the Wall will remain”
George Will wrote that in Newsweek, in an edition of that magazine appearing on November 9, 1989. Within twelve hours of it being published, this happened:
George Will, as I'm sure you know, is still writing for the Washington Post as probably their premiere conservative columnist. These days he's mostly writing false things about climate change.
So there's no accountability, little accuracy, and general failure in the American news media. Obviously things aren't changing, but at least we can provide some catharthic relief by mocking them here.
One term of art: I tend to refer to the media collectively as "The Village." The origin of this term is from this post by Digby. Its general meaning is explained as such:
In political terms, the term “Villagers” denotes a kind of small-minded refusal to think outside an “acceptable” center-right consensus, and a refusal to acknowledge it when a majority of the American people take a view on a particular issue that is not in line with that center-right consensus. Thus, the “Villagers” include, in part, Democratic elected officials and consultants who insist that their party can’t succeed unless they ally their party with that center-right consensus; think-tankers who churn out position papers designed to prop up this elite consensus view; and elite pundits who insist that mainstream liberal views are radically leftist and insist on “bipartisanship” for its own sake, damn the consequences.
This elite consensus, in the view of the bloggers, represents this particular Village’s hidebound small-town values, which must be maintained at all costs to protect this elite’s status and interests.
The slightly more generous term is "Versailles on the Potomac."
Once again: not a partisan thread, all media bashing/analysis is welcome here. And not an inherently political thread, or it will become locked.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
enlightenedbum on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Up here in Canada, our Senate functions a bit differently, in that our Senators are appointed for life / until they turn 75, whichever comes up first. Our Senators are also appointed by our Prime Minister, and not elected. Some places hold elections to try and influence the appointments to give their candidate more legitimacy, but it is non-binding.
Anyways, a bunch of our Senators were found to be claiming per-diem and housing allowances that they were not eligible for. There was a huge audit, with multiple senators having to step down or be removed.
One of the Senators is now being hired by a "gossip" newspaper / publisher to drive up their ratings. Which seems to be in especially poor taste. Though I know disgraced politicians getting media jobs is kind of old hat for you Americans.
MWO: Adamski
Disgraced politicians?
FOX hires war criminals (Ollie North).
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, yes, they keep upping their game it seems.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Don't forget, any critics who say anything about those guys are unpatriotic commies who don't recognize the brave sacrifices those men made in the service of their country!
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's what the liberal media, academically recorded history, proven factual knowledge, and the truth want you to believe.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes. I almost choked on pure confusion and rage.
It'd be like someone on CNN going on a tirade about softball journos hiding behind the facade of moral relativism to keep the Group Owners happy.
No but seriously, I only saw the clip because it was on the daily show, the only time I see the Kelly files is at the gym and mercifully its only in subtitle if I had to hear her stupid righteous indignation voice I'd stab my ear drum.
pleasepaypreacher.net
10: Malcolm Gladwell
9: Thomas Friedman
8: Peggy Noonan
7: Henry Blodget
6: Erick Erickson
5: Richard Cohen
4: David Brooks
3: Benny Johnson
2: Mark Halperin & John Heilemann
1: Mike Allen
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't know - Logan's made a strong play for it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yup.
Don't click this because it tries for sexy and ends up being... fucking creepy.
Wow. I'm not sure who to be disgusted with more : BMN or BuzzFeed.
Seriously though Cupp is a Palin. A grifter using her sexuality to get her somewhere she does not belong.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Most of the columns have done such a good job of impersonating these people I have a hard time actually reading them. Also I tend to think Gladwell is the most dangerous of them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, I'm going to stomp this line of discussion dead right now before it goes to an extremely unfortunate place.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not sure if this is ironic. This describes both Allen West and Barack Obama, but one gets a pass (and a Nobel Peace Prize to boot), the other is evil.
I'm hoping beyond hope the "hack of the year" award goes to Paul Krugman, but alas, I really can't imagine how would Alex Pareene incorporate a baboon throwing feces at people who disagree with him.
Geez. This is a classy place!
I'm not going to challenge you to defend stuff because this thread especially is supposed to be about shitty examples of media from either side. So if you've got some of Krugman's stuff of him being stupid by all means post it. You may want to steer away from stuff like the President comment simply because he isn't a member of the media. I don't think we have a general "President" thread right now but if you put together a decent OP this forum would be the place for it. I would suggest you be prepared for challenges in such a thread though. If you can tough it out, kudos to you. This is a rough patch for conservatives.
What guy did Obama torture?
Do explain why.
Seriously, though, this should be interesting.
Actually, an Obama thread would be subject to mod petition. The last one turned into a megathread and got mod'd to death.
Screaming about papists in 3...
Gladwell is so convincing that even when it's someone pretending to be Gladwell writing something he is still convincing.
Hack down to an art form. It's a writing style that makes everyone go "oh that's quite all right then" regardless of what is actually being said.
I eagerly await their information regarding sky color and just how wet water might be.
Like he couldn't think of a large group of poo(R) people who typically vote against thei(R) own inte(R)ests and get thei(R) news f(R)om a less than (R)eliable Fox, I mean sou(R)ce.
I'll bet that number will eventually be 100%!
pleasepaypreacher.net