You are in over your head in this tangent of the discussion, but fine:
Marketplace runs a lot of fiscal-conservative-policy-bashing liberal commentary.
As well as quite a bit of conservative commentary as well. I was listening to it the other day, they were talking again about the social security crisis, and the commentary was very conservative, cutting back social security benefits, lowering taxes for the younger generations, etc.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
That's great, get some successful left-wing media up and running and we can see how that pans out.
Not everything contributes to the public discourse, and talking heads, either left or right, are more a cancer then any kind of cure.
Air America did pretty poorly. There are certainly enough self-described liberals to support such an endeavor, but mirroring the right-wing har har talk-radio approach I think left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of lefties (I know it did me). The Nation and the New Yorker are the best left-wing publications I can think of; any further out and you end up with Mother Jones and Adbusters.
You are in over your head in this tangent of the discussion, but fine:
Marketplace runs a lot of fiscal-conservative-policy-bashing liberal commentary.
As well as quite a bit of conservative commentary as well. I was listening to it the other day, they were talking again about the social security crisis, and the commentary was very conservative, cutting back social security benefits, lowering taxes for the younger generations, etc.
Hell, Ben Stein was on the other day bemoaning the war and Bush's mismanagement of the economy.
CNN and MSNBC (as well as Jon Stewart) are considered liberal media. Fox News is considered conservative media.
This is only conventional wisdom in conservative circles. Liberals certainly don't regard MSNBC or CNN as liberally-slanted and indeed the stations have no mandate to liberalism. Fox News is specifically and intentionally right-biased.
It depends a lot on the issues.
FAIR (a left-leaning organization) did a study of news media in the 90s and found that on social and moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, church-state divide) the major news networks do have a left-leaning bias. On economic and foreign policy issues, they have a right-leaning bias.
The modern conservative movement defines itself around social and religious issues, so in a way they're correct. The mainstream news media is liberally biased on the issues that grassroots Republicans find most important.
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 fucking hate Adbusters, don't really care for Mother Jones, although I will admit to reading a bit of the Utne Readers my mom gets.
They're both pretty terrible. I got Adbusters for a while since Frankie is a graphic designer and they're supposed to have strong layout and presentation or something. I can't really take the UTNE Reader either, but my tolerance for hippies is lower than you West-coasters'.
I might be a bit confused, because I'm not sure how neocons fit into this construct. There's what I consider conservative, people like Reagan, and even a lot of what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were forced to do during their presidencies, and then there's what I consider to be liberal, LBJ and JFK most notably I guess, and then there are these fucking neocons. Where do they fit?
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
What makes you think partisan media will cause debate? It isn't like Fox and NPR have conversations with eachother.
More like the audience of each just tune into whatever challenges them intellectually less.
Okay so you apparently don't get it. The debate doesn't happen between Fox and NPR, the debate happens when you have those two sides arguing their points, and then PEOPLE WHO WATCH THEM decide what is in fact truth. The news isn't supposed to do your decision making for you, you're supposed to actually soak in knowledge and then form opinions by them.
This whole thing is dependent on the people making decisions watching more than one source, which isn't hard because it takes five seconds to switch back and forth between channels (and even less time to surf the web). And before you say some people making decisions WOULDN'T watch both, learn from my newspaper background: people read you more, and respond more, when they disagree with you.
Learn from actually talking to people who consume news - Fox viewers rarely also listen to NPR. They think it is liberal trash.
NPR listeners seldom watch FOX - they think it is conservative trash.
Boston Globe readers may read and respond to a conservative columnist who writes in their newspaper - but they do not go and pick up a Boston Herald simply to read something they disagree with. News consumers will respond to content they disagree with - but they choose go to the news outlet which they agree with most overall to absorb content.
So I was just looking over Al Jazeera's site, and I read the article on the return of Muqtada al-Sadr. I had already read it on BBC's site so I would be able to compare the articles.
Al-Sadr said: "I say to our Sunni brothers in Iraq that we are brothers and the occupier shall not divide us. They are welcome and we are ready to co-operate with them in all fields. This is my hand I stretch out to them."
Al-Sadr also promised to protect Iraq's Sunni and Christian minorities from hardline Sunni factions, or Nawasib, such as al-Qaeda, if US forces would allow his fighters to deploy.
He said: "I received complaints from brother Sunnis and some Christians about the aggressions of the Nawasib. I am ready to defend them and will be a shield for them, although the occupier would not accept that."
"I say that our houses and cities are open for them and that for Iraqis to kill Sunnis and Christians is a sin. What the Nawasib are doing to compel the Christians to embrace Islam is despicable."
Now that is interesting. BBC certainly didn't mention that. I had no idea that he was making statements that referred to Sunnis and Christians and brothers, while offering to help defend them. In all the media I've read he is always portrayed as an extremist nut. Now of course he could be lying in these statements (which would seem odd, since he'd probably have an easier time with an anti-Sunni stance), but in this case Al Jazeera has proven to be the more informative news source.
[Note, after checking, good old Reuters seems to be the most balanced. It mentions al-Sadr's comments about national unity, and spending more time on his clashes with the US and British than al-jazeera]
I might be a bit confused, because I'm not sure how neocons fit into this construct. There's what I consider conservative, people like Reagan, and even a lot of what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were forced to do during their presidencies, and then there's what I consider to be liberal, LBJ and JFK most notably I guess, and then there are these fucking neocons. Where do they fit?
Bill Clinton was not a neo-con, and JFK wasn't terribly liberal.
I would agree that you're somewhat confused.
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 fucking hate Adbusters, don't really care for Mother Jones, although I will admit to reading a bit of the Utne Readers my mom gets.
They're both pretty terrible. I got Adbusters for a while since Frankie is a graphic designer and they're supposed to have strong layout and presentation or something. I can't really take the UTNE Reader either, but my tolerance for hippies is lower than you West-coasters'.
Will don't even start with me ... UTNE Reader is some hippie bullshit, no doubt, but it still has some useful info from time to time. It's culture and arts section can fucking be burnt in the town square at any time, though, and I wouldn't so much as cough.
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
What makes you think partisan media will cause debate? It isn't like Fox and NPR have conversations with eachother.
More like the audience of each just tune into whatever challenges them intellectually less.
Okay so you apparently don't get it. The debate doesn't happen between Fox and NPR, the debate happens when you have those two sides arguing their points, and then PEOPLE WHO WATCH THEM decide what is in fact truth. The news isn't supposed to do your decision making for you, you're supposed to actually soak in knowledge and then form opinions by them.
This whole thing is dependent on the people making decisions watching more than one source, which isn't hard because it takes five seconds to switch back and forth between channels (and even less time to surf the web). And before you say some people making decisions WOULDN'T watch both, learn from my newspaper background: people read you more, and respond more, when they disagree with you.
Learn from actually talking to people who consume news - Fox viewers rarely also listen to NPR. They think it is liberal trash.
NPR listeners seldom watch FOX - they think it is conservative trash.
Boston Globe readers may read and respond to a conservative columnist who writes in their newspaper - but they do not go and pick up a Boston Herald simply to read something they disagree with. News consumers will respond to content they disagree with - but they choose go to the news outlet which they agree with most overall to absorb content.
Most people don't listen to NPR because it is BORING, not because it is liberal. And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment. Either way, you've said or written something that someone thought was important enough to respond.
But it was nice to hear your polling of people who watch news. What was the error magin, +/- 100%?
I might be a bit confused, because I'm not sure how neocons fit into this construct. There's what I consider conservative, people like Reagan, and even a lot of what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were forced to do during their presidencies, and then there's what I consider to be liberal, LBJ and JFK most notably I guess, and then there are these fucking neocons. Where do they fit?
Bill Clinton was not a neo-con, and JFK wasn't terribly liberal.
I would agree that you're somewhat confused.
Did I say Bill Clinton was a neocon? For fuck's sake man, can you read?
JFK was fairly liberal in his social policies, as I suppose was demanded by the time. While his foreign policy seemed to be classic conservative containment, much of his cabinet was most certainly liberal. Hell, the Kennedy Camelot is often cited as a bastion of liberalism, even today.
But yes, much of what Clinton did in his presidency could be considered fairly conservative. Health care reform? Absolutely not. NAFTA? Pretty conservative.
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
What makes you think partisan media will cause debate? It isn't like Fox and NPR have conversations with eachother.
More like the audience of each just tune into whatever challenges them intellectually less.
Okay so you apparently don't get it. The debate doesn't happen between Fox and NPR, the debate happens when you have those two sides arguing their points, and then PEOPLE WHO WATCH THEM decide what is in fact truth. The news isn't supposed to do your decision making for you, you're supposed to actually soak in knowledge and then form opinions by them.
This whole thing is dependent on the people making decisions watching more than one source, which isn't hard because it takes five seconds to switch back and forth between channels (and even less time to surf the web). And before you say some people making decisions WOULDN'T watch both, learn from my newspaper background: people read you more, and respond more, when they disagree with you.
Learn from actually talking to people who consume news - Fox viewers rarely also listen to NPR. They think it is liberal trash.
NPR listeners seldom watch FOX - they think it is conservative trash.
Boston Globe readers may read and respond to a conservative columnist who writes in their newspaper - but they do not go and pick up a Boston Herald simply to read something they disagree with. News consumers will respond to content they disagree with - but they choose go to the news outlet which they agree with most overall to absorb content.
Most people don't listen to NPR because it is BORING, not because it is liberal. And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment. Either way, you've said or written something that someone thought was important enough to respond.
Um, what? I disagree with Fox, and I dont watch it because its a conservative propaganda machine and ridiculously biased. And this insult should not be taken as a compliment, because, well, its a fucking insult.
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
And yes, I have listened to NPR many times. I used to have it as my alarm clock in the morning because I knew I'd be so annoyed with how boring it is that I would actually wake up.
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
Those are the "big" newspapers with congressional staffers. No one reads them besides political junkies and lackeys. And you're right that the Times is a terrible paper with fairly meagre subscription numbers, but that's largely owing to the fact that pretty much the only conservatives who live in DC are already busy reading their subs to Rollcall or The Hill.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
And yes, I have listened to NPR many times. I used to have it as my alarm clock in the morning because I knew I'd be so annoyed with how boring it is that I would actually wake up.
Newspaper circulation numbers are reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Best-selling papers as of September 30, 2006 in the U.S.A., according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, [4] are USA Today, 2,549,695; The Wall Street Journal, 2,074,127 and The New York Times, 1,623,697.
So... do you just like being wrong on principal?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
He's talking about the Washington Times. It really is terrible, and mostly seems to exist as a way for Rev. Moon to try to win sympathy from the right wing in DC.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
And yes, I have listened to NPR many times. I used to have it as my alarm clock in the morning because I knew I'd be so annoyed with how boring it is that I would actually wake up.
Newspaper circulation numbers are reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Best-selling papers as of September 30, 2006 in the U.S.A., according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, [4] are USA Today, 2,549,695; The Wall Street Journal, 2,074,127 and The New York Times, 1,623,697.
So... do you just like being wrong on principal?
Edit: covered above, I'll limit my snarky replies to snarky comments.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
And yes, I have listened to NPR many times. I used to have it as my alarm clock in the morning because I knew I'd be so annoyed with how boring it is that I would actually wake up.
Newspaper circulation numbers are reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Best-selling papers as of September 30, 2006 in the U.S.A., according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, [4] are USA Today, 2,549,695; The Wall Street Journal, 2,074,127 and The New York Times, 1,623,697.
So... do you just like being wrong on principal?
Edit: covered above, I'll limit my snarky replies to snarky comments.
Ah.. well, when someone says Times, I think New York.
My bad.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
In Phoenix, if you're a conservative, you read the Republic or the Tribune.
If you're a liberal, you also read the Republic or Tribune, because they're the only papers available and they're both owned by the same company.
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
In Phoenix, if you're a conservative, you read the Republic or the Tribune.
If you're a liberal, you also read the Republic or Tribune, because they're the only papers available and they're both owned by the same company.
That's kinda like Arkansas, where you have the choice between reading the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or a McDonalds coffee cup. Personally I think the coffee cup has more content. We used to have two newspapers, The Democrat and The Gazette, but The Democrat bought out The Gazette and our entire state wept quietly.
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
In Phoenix, if you're a conservative, you read the Republic or the Tribune.
If you're a liberal, you also read the Republic or Tribune, because they're the only papers available and they're both owned by the same company.
That's kinda like Arkansas, where you have the choice between reading the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or a McDonalds coffee cup. Personally I think the coffee cup has more content. We used to have two newspapers, The Democrat and The Gazette, but The Democrat bought out The Gazette and our entire state wept quietly.
Well, there is the Arizona Daily Star, but that's a Tucson paper and has limited circulation up here.
The main thing I know about them is that they frequently give good reviews to shitty movies. Their review of the Yu-Gi-Oh movie was the only positive review on Rotten Tomatoes.
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
In Phoenix, if you're a conservative, you read the Republic or the Tribune.
If you're a liberal, you also read the Republic or Tribune, because they're the only papers available and they're both owned by the same company.
That's kinda like Arkansas, where you have the choice between reading the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or a McDonalds coffee cup. Personally I think the coffee cup has more content. We used to have two newspapers, The Democrat and The Gazette, but The Democrat bought out The Gazette and our entire state wept quietly.
Well, there is the Arizona Daily Star, but that's a Tucson paper and has limited circulation up here.
The main thing I know about them is that they frequently give good reviews to shitty movies. Their review of the Yu-Gi-Oh movie was the only positive review on Rotten Tomatoes.
The only credible news in Phoenix I found was The Other Paper... and they were all the way at the other end of the spectrum, and barely a newspaper anyway. But they did have some excellent articles on the pile of shit that is Sheriff Joe Arpio...
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That's kinda like Arkansas, where you have the choice between reading the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or a McDonalds coffee cup. Personally I think the coffee cup has more content. We used to have two newspapers, The Democrat and The Gazette, but The Democrat bought out The Gazette and our entire state wept quietly.
That's kinda like Arkansas, where you have the choice between reading the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or a McDonalds coffee cup. Personally I think the coffee cup has more content. We used to have two newspapers, The Democrat and The Gazette, but The Democrat bought out The Gazette and our entire state wept quietly.
You staff for Boozman, don't you?
I have friends that work in that office, but no I don't. I'm working in marketing off the hill now for grassroots advocacy. I find it much more relaxing.
EDIT (to below me): Yeah, that's one of the things I loved about my prior job. I met all sorts of people from all over Capitol Hill. One of my good friends just became a Chief of Staff, which is pretty sweet, and I am close with at least four other CoS's. I even managed to get one office to cosponsor H.R. 2060 to save Internet radio. I am a technologist above all else.
It only took me four years to get up to 1,337 posts. Leetsauce.
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
My brother used to staff for the McCain, then Bingaman, then the DLC, so I got to know a number of people across the offices.
edit: also, you have a postcount of 1337. Don't fuck it up.
Did I say Bill Clinton was a neocon? For fuck's sake man, can you read?
Sorry, I misread. Yes, Clinton was conservative in many ways, especially after the '94 elections saddled him with a GOP-controlled congress.
JFK was fairly liberal in his social policies, as I suppose was demanded by the time. While his foreign policy seemed to be classic conservative containment, much of his cabinet was most certainly liberal. Hell, the Kennedy Camelot is often cited as a bastion of liberalism, even today.
He was liberal in his social policies because he had little choice. Not to say that he wasn't in favor of those policies, or that he shouldn't receive credit for implementing them, but his base would've shit a Cadillac if he hadn't acted as such. His foreign policy was extremely conservative, even neo-conservative, and his fiscal policy was also very conservative. Hell, he was responsible for the largest tax cuts in the nation's history. The fact that a lot of people mistakenly assume that he was a bastion of liberalism can largely be attributed to the fact that he was a Democrat who was shot in the head. Being assassinated exaggerated his heroism and established him as a symbol of perfect liberalism, even though the label is extremely inaccurate.
Let's put it this way: I like JFK. That should tell you something.
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.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
JFK laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act, the Great Society and started the Peace Core.
You hippy, Jeff.
He also almost destroyed the world with his Cuba posturing and got us inexorably tied up in Vietnam for no good reason at all.
Did I say Bill Clinton was a neocon? For fuck's sake man, can you read?
Sorry, I misread. Yes, Clinton was conservative in many ways, especially after the '94 elections saddled him with a GOP-controlled congress.
JFK was fairly liberal in his social policies, as I suppose was demanded by the time. While his foreign policy seemed to be classic conservative containment, much of his cabinet was most certainly liberal. Hell, the Kennedy Camelot is often cited as a bastion of liberalism, even today.
He was liberal in his social policies because he had little choice. Not to say that he wasn't in favor of those policies, or that he shouldn't receive credit for implementing them, but his base would've shit a Cadillac if he hadn't acted as such. His foreign policy was extremely conservative, even neo-conservative, and his fiscal policy was also very conservative. Hell, he was responsible for the largest tax cuts in the nation's history. The fact that a lot of people mistakenly assume that he was a bastion of liberalism can largely be attributed to the fact that he was a Democrat who was shot in the head. Being assassinated exaggerated his heroism and established him as a symbol of perfect liberalism, even though the label is extremely inaccurate.
Let's put it this way: I like JFK. That should tell you something.
You're right about JFK I suppose. I know more about LBJ than I do JFK for some reason.
So, that leads to my question, what exactly is a neocon? I always hear Ann Coulter labelled as a neocon, but I'm not really sure what it means. And how do they fit into this liberal-conservative interaction? They don't seem to have anything to do with real conservativism, and instead seem hell-bent on fighting liberals at every passing chance.
If you ask 4 people what a neo-con is, you will get 5 answers. Most people don't even know, they just know that it's a pejorative of some sort. Largely, "neo-con" translates to "someone sort of conservative who I really don't like". It started off being a term for traditional liberals who had once supported the USSR and had seen the light, so to speak. The most useful contemporary definition is something akin to "those who wish to use aggressive foreign policy to maintain US security and well-being". You'll also see it used to basically mean "pro-Iraqi war", or "pro-military action in the Middle East".
Others will have different definitions, which is to be expected since it's a loaded, largely useless term.
Regardless, this is wildly off-topic, so I apologize.
On topic:
I've never really watched BBC on television, but I've read the online version quite a bit. I fail to see what's so special about it - it seems roughly on par with the NYT or CNN online.
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.
So, that leads to my question, what exactly is a neocon?
On social issues, they believe in the promotion of conservative values (religion, family, chastity) but are not as uncomfortable with the intrusion of government into personal life as old-guard conservatives.
On economic issues, they believe in a long-term balanced budget but are comfortable with deficit spending in the short term if it means that tax cuts will promote economic growth. They are generally opposed to welfare systems but tolerate them. They are also much more tolerant of spending money on government projects in defense and infrastructure as long as they'll create jobs. Old-guard conservatives believe much more firmly in a balanced budget and are far less comfortable with heavy government spending.
On foreign policy issues, they believe in the active involvement of the US in foreign affairs (including active use of the US military) in order to strengthen our relative position in the international playing field. Old-guard conservatives tend to be much more isolationist; believing that the US should only get involved in foreign affairs if the US is directly compelled to.
The combination of these three stands contributes to an overall philosophy that a strong federal government is tolerable or even desirable as long as it promotes American interests worldwide and conservative social values at home. Old-guard conservatives believe in a minimalist federal government.
Does that help?
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.
And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment.
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
And yes, I have listened to NPR many times. I used to have it as my alarm clock in the morning because I knew I'd be so annoyed with how boring it is that I would actually wake up.
NPR is only boring if you're too fucking stupid to appreciate intelligent, thoughtful discourse and need everything glitzed up with whiz-bang CG titles and musical stingers.
Azio on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
My understanding was that neoconservatives were pretty much centrally defined by their crusading and muscular foreign policy fixation. I didn't even know that they generally had a social or economic agenda except insofar as it served their foreign policy approach.
My understanding was that neoconservatives were pretty much centrally defined by their crusading and muscular foreign policy fixation. I didn't even know that they generally had a social or economic agenda except insofar as it served their foreign policy approach.
Once upon a time, neo-conservatism was a consistent world-view that applied to domestic and foreign issues. It was basically pro-military liberalism that wanted communism to die in a fire. When the USSR caved, the whole point of neo-conservatism sort of evaportated, but right around 9/11 some people decided they liked the label and decided to slap it on a new class of people.
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.
Posts
As well as quite a bit of conservative commentary as well. I was listening to it the other day, they were talking again about the social security crisis, and the commentary was very conservative, cutting back social security benefits, lowering taxes for the younger generations, etc.
Air America did pretty poorly. There are certainly enough self-described liberals to support such an endeavor, but mirroring the right-wing har har talk-radio approach I think left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of lefties (I know it did me). The Nation and the New Yorker are the best left-wing publications I can think of; any further out and you end up with Mother Jones and Adbusters.
Hell, Ben Stein was on the other day bemoaning the war and Bush's mismanagement of the economy.
It depends a lot on the issues.
FAIR (a left-leaning organization) did a study of news media in the 90s and found that on social and moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, church-state divide) the major news networks do have a left-leaning bias. On economic and foreign policy issues, they have a right-leaning bias.
The modern conservative movement defines itself around social and religious issues, so in a way they're correct. The mainstream news media is liberally biased on the issues that grassroots Republicans find most important.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They're both pretty terrible. I got Adbusters for a while since Frankie is a graphic designer and they're supposed to have strong layout and presentation or something. I can't really take the UTNE Reader either, but my tolerance for hippies is lower than you West-coasters'.
Learn from actually talking to people who consume news - Fox viewers rarely also listen to NPR. They think it is liberal trash.
NPR listeners seldom watch FOX - they think it is conservative trash.
Boston Globe readers may read and respond to a conservative columnist who writes in their newspaper - but they do not go and pick up a Boston Herald simply to read something they disagree with. News consumers will respond to content they disagree with - but they choose go to the news outlet which they agree with most overall to absorb content.
Now that is interesting. BBC certainly didn't mention that. I had no idea that he was making statements that referred to Sunnis and Christians and brothers, while offering to help defend them. In all the media I've read he is always portrayed as an extremist nut. Now of course he could be lying in these statements (which would seem odd, since he'd probably have an easier time with an anti-Sunni stance), but in this case Al Jazeera has proven to be the more informative news source.
[Note, after checking, good old Reuters seems to be the most balanced. It mentions al-Sadr's comments about national unity, and spending more time on his clashes with the US and British than al-jazeera]
Bill Clinton was not a neo-con, and JFK wasn't terribly liberal.
I would agree that you're somewhat confused.
Most people don't listen to NPR because it is BORING, not because it is liberal. And you're saying people don't switch from Fox News to NPR, don't you think that the people who listen to radio news are just a little bit different than people who watch television news?
People will and do watch things they disagree with. It's one of the first things we were taught in journalism, as well as to treat each comment back (negative or positive) as a compliment. Either way, you've said or written something that someone thought was important enough to respond.
But it was nice to hear your polling of people who watch news. What was the error magin, +/- 100%?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Did I say Bill Clinton was a neocon? For fuck's sake man, can you read?
JFK was fairly liberal in his social policies, as I suppose was demanded by the time. While his foreign policy seemed to be classic conservative containment, much of his cabinet was most certainly liberal. Hell, the Kennedy Camelot is often cited as a bastion of liberalism, even today.
But yes, much of what Clinton did in his presidency could be considered fairly conservative. Health care reform? Absolutely not. NAFTA? Pretty conservative.
-edit-
After checking wiki, looks like before.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
What? How is NPR's presentation boring? Have you listened to it?
This is not true in my experience. When I lived in DC, conservatives read the Times and everyone else read the Post. In NYC, libs generally read the Times, fiscal conservatives read the WSJ and social conservatives read the Post or the Sun or some shit. In Boston, libs read the Globe and the more conservative types tend to read the Tribune.
Um, what? I disagree with Fox, and I dont watch it because its a conservative propaganda machine and ridiculously biased. And this insult should not be taken as a compliment, because, well, its a fucking insult.
NPR is not boring.
Pretty much nobody reads the Times, liberal or conservative. We have a policy not to even advertise with them because the saturation rate is so low. You'll find the "big" newspapers to read in DC are Rollcall, The Hill, and The Politico, and you'll find them in almost every congressional office.
And yes, I have listened to NPR many times. I used to have it as my alarm clock in the morning because I knew I'd be so annoyed with how boring it is that I would actually wake up.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Those are the "big" newspapers with congressional staffers. No one reads them besides political junkies and lackeys. And you're right that the Times is a terrible paper with fairly meagre subscription numbers, but that's largely owing to the fact that pretty much the only conservatives who live in DC are already busy reading their subs to Rollcall or The Hill.
So... do you just like being wrong on principal?
Edit: covered above, I'll limit my snarky replies to snarky comments.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Ah.. well, when someone says Times, I think New York.
My bad.
If you're a liberal, you also read the Republic or Tribune, because they're the only papers available and they're both owned by the same company.
That's kinda like Arkansas, where you have the choice between reading the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or a McDonalds coffee cup. Personally I think the coffee cup has more content. We used to have two newspapers, The Democrat and The Gazette, but The Democrat bought out The Gazette and our entire state wept quietly.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
The main thing I know about them is that they frequently give good reviews to shitty movies. Their review of the Yu-Gi-Oh movie was the only positive review on Rotten Tomatoes.
The only credible news in Phoenix I found was The Other Paper... and they were all the way at the other end of the spectrum, and barely a newspaper anyway. But they did have some excellent articles on the pile of shit that is Sheriff Joe Arpio...
You staff for Boozman, don't you?
I have friends that work in that office, but no I don't. I'm working in marketing off the hill now for grassroots advocacy. I find it much more relaxing.
EDIT (to below me): Yeah, that's one of the things I loved about my prior job. I met all sorts of people from all over Capitol Hill. One of my good friends just became a Chief of Staff, which is pretty sweet, and I am close with at least four other CoS's. I even managed to get one office to cosponsor H.R. 2060 to save Internet radio. I am a technologist above all else.
It only took me four years to get up to 1,337 posts. Leetsauce.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
edit: also, you have a postcount of 1337. Don't fuck it up.
Sorry, I misread. Yes, Clinton was conservative in many ways, especially after the '94 elections saddled him with a GOP-controlled congress.
He was liberal in his social policies because he had little choice. Not to say that he wasn't in favor of those policies, or that he shouldn't receive credit for implementing them, but his base would've shit a Cadillac if he hadn't acted as such. His foreign policy was extremely conservative, even neo-conservative, and his fiscal policy was also very conservative. Hell, he was responsible for the largest tax cuts in the nation's history. The fact that a lot of people mistakenly assume that he was a bastion of liberalism can largely be attributed to the fact that he was a Democrat who was shot in the head. Being assassinated exaggerated his heroism and established him as a symbol of perfect liberalism, even though the label is extremely inaccurate.
Let's put it this way: I like JFK. That should tell you something.
You hippy, Jeff.
He also almost destroyed the world with his Cuba posturing and got us inexorably tied up in Vietnam for no good reason at all.
You fascist, Jeff.
You're right about JFK I suppose. I know more about LBJ than I do JFK for some reason.
So, that leads to my question, what exactly is a neocon? I always hear Ann Coulter labelled as a neocon, but I'm not really sure what it means. And how do they fit into this liberal-conservative interaction? They don't seem to have anything to do with real conservativism, and instead seem hell-bent on fighting liberals at every passing chance.
Others will have different definitions, which is to be expected since it's a loaded, largely useless term.
Regardless, this is wildly off-topic, so I apologize.
On topic:
I've never really watched BBC on television, but I've read the online version quite a bit. I fail to see what's so special about it - it seems roughly on par with the NYT or CNN online.
On social issues, they believe in the promotion of conservative values (religion, family, chastity) but are not as uncomfortable with the intrusion of government into personal life as old-guard conservatives.
On economic issues, they believe in a long-term balanced budget but are comfortable with deficit spending in the short term if it means that tax cuts will promote economic growth. They are generally opposed to welfare systems but tolerate them. They are also much more tolerant of spending money on government projects in defense and infrastructure as long as they'll create jobs. Old-guard conservatives believe much more firmly in a balanced budget and are far less comfortable with heavy government spending.
On foreign policy issues, they believe in the active involvement of the US in foreign affairs (including active use of the US military) in order to strengthen our relative position in the international playing field. Old-guard conservatives tend to be much more isolationist; believing that the US should only get involved in foreign affairs if the US is directly compelled to.
The combination of these three stands contributes to an overall philosophy that a strong federal government is tolerable or even desirable as long as it promotes American interests worldwide and conservative social values at home. Old-guard conservatives believe in a minimalist federal government.
Does that help?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Once upon a time, neo-conservatism was a consistent world-view that applied to domestic and foreign issues. It was basically pro-military liberalism that wanted communism to die in a fire. When the USSR caved, the whole point of neo-conservatism sort of evaportated, but right around 9/11 some people decided they liked the label and decided to slap it on a new class of people.