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.
Cable News Sucks: The plight of journalism in the information age.
moniker
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A groundbreaking hypothesis, I know, but it truly is an embarrassment to what should be considered journalism. The most recent cavalcade of evidence? Last nights Presidential press conference. These things are normally pretty rare. Clinton and Bush only gave 4 of them during their 8 year tenure. That President Obama is making it a somewhat more common occurrence is mostly a result of circumstance and should not be seen as watering down its significance. And yet what are the questions that were asked by the big 3?
Really? The biggest issue on the economy isn't where we are, what we're going to do, how we can prevent shit like AIG from happening again, and what the newly proposed Treasury Plan is going to do, it's when did you get angry and why wasn't I invited to film it? This is, of course, the question which warranted President Obama's swipe that he likes to know what he's talking about before talking about it. The second part of his original question is fairly relevant. The numbers don't quite add up with President Obama's claim for deficit reduction within 4 years. Of course that's because a lot of what will reduce the deficit hasn't been introduced yet, but at least it's on an issue of some importance. But that's just the filler between the meatier 'is you angry?' question that apparently deserves a follow up. Because the American public cares about that more than fixing the damn problem.
This is not a war, it's an economic recession. Rationing out gasoline is useful when you need more gasoline available to run tanks up Hitler's ass. It is not useful when the lack of gasoline production and exploration leads to people getting fired. It is pretty much a perfect example of the paradox of thrift, and not something a President should be advocating given our circumstance. And how in the hell do you feel that Americans are not sacrificing? It may be out of fear or due to having lost their job, but people are going without in a lot of statistically observable ways. You get one question and this is it? What happened to the numbers guru?
So you spent your one question basically trying to squeeze Socialism, Communism, and global dominion into the broadcast? Really? Trying to paint the President as to the left of Mao Tse Tung is the most productive use of an extremely limited resource of getting answers from the President of the United States? Particularly when there are credentialed economists suggesting that he should be doing more anyway, T-notes are at extremely low yields thanks to everyone scrambling to buy our debt, and the Dollar effectively is the global currency and China can't do anything about it for quite some time. I realize you're Fox News, but come on.
The transcript is here to see other venues who asked substantive questions, and who asked some other extremely idiotic ones. This isn't an issue of coverage or spin amongst the commentariat after the fact. These are the actual journalists that they pay to dig stories up and ask tough questions. These are the people that are in the room. They have all failed quite spectacularly. So the era of cable news, as short as it was, is truly be over. Well, okay, it's been over. Still, the writhing corpse isn't even interesting at this point any longer. So what to do for quality journalism? There is the internets and the old standbys of network broadcasts, plus PBS. (and I
me Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff) Though the quality there can be rather varying and newspapers are struggling to make a go of it online. What is the future going to be for people interested in what's going on in the world?
Discuss and/or debate.
Ed Henry, CNN wrote:Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke again at the top about your anger about AIG. You’ve been saying that for days now. But why is it that it seems Andrew Cuomo seems to be, in New York, getting more actual action on it? And when you and Secretary Geithner first learned about this, 10 days, two weeks ago, you didn’t go public immediately with that outrage. You waited a few days, and then you went public after you realized Secretary Geithner really had no legal avenue to stop it.
And more broadly -- I just want to follow up on Chip and Jake -- you’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, â€When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.†You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?
...
So on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York in the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?
Really? The biggest issue on the economy isn't where we are, what we're going to do, how we can prevent shit like AIG from happening again, and what the newly proposed Treasury Plan is going to do, it's when did you get angry and why wasn't I invited to film it? This is, of course, the question which warranted President Obama's swipe that he likes to know what he's talking about before talking about it. The second part of his original question is fairly relevant. The numbers don't quite add up with President Obama's claim for deficit reduction within 4 years. Of course that's because a lot of what will reduce the deficit hasn't been introduced yet, but at least it's on an issue of some importance. But that's just the filler between the meatier 'is you angry?' question that apparently deserves a follow up. Because the American public cares about that more than fixing the damn problem.
Chuck Todd, MSNBC wrote:Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to a war, and in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this -- during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were talking about.
Why, given this new era of responsibility that you’re asking for, why haven’t you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery?
...
But you don’t think there should be a specific call to action that you want the American -- I mean, this is -- you’ve described this as an economic crisis like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression.
This is not a war, it's an economic recession. Rationing out gasoline is useful when you need more gasoline available to run tanks up Hitler's ass. It is not useful when the lack of gasoline production and exploration leads to people getting fired. It is pretty much a perfect example of the paradox of thrift, and not something a President should be advocating given our circumstance. And how in the hell do you feel that Americans are not sacrificing? It may be out of fear or due to having lost their job, but people are going without in a lot of statistically observable ways. You get one question and this is it? What happened to the numbers guru?
Major Garrett, Fox News wrote:Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in an international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.
I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar, and European governments, some of the center-left, some of them socialist, who say you’re asking them to spend too much?
...
Is there a need for a global currency?
So you spent your one question basically trying to squeeze Socialism, Communism, and global dominion into the broadcast? Really? Trying to paint the President as to the left of Mao Tse Tung is the most productive use of an extremely limited resource of getting answers from the President of the United States? Particularly when there are credentialed economists suggesting that he should be doing more anyway, T-notes are at extremely low yields thanks to everyone scrambling to buy our debt, and the Dollar effectively is the global currency and China can't do anything about it for quite some time. I realize you're Fox News, but come on.The transcript is here to see other venues who asked substantive questions, and who asked some other extremely idiotic ones. This isn't an issue of coverage or spin amongst the commentariat after the fact. These are the actual journalists that they pay to dig stories up and ask tough questions. These are the people that are in the room. They have all failed quite spectacularly. So the era of cable news, as short as it was, is truly be over. Well, okay, it's been over. Still, the writhing corpse isn't even interesting at this point any longer. So what to do for quality journalism? There is the internets and the old standbys of network broadcasts, plus PBS. (and I
me Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff) Though the quality there can be rather varying and newspapers are struggling to make a go of it online. What is the future going to be for people interested in what's going on in the world?Discuss and/or debate.
moniker on
0
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
True, but that generally is just a desire to be a new Edward R. Murrow in the middle of the blitz. And seeing how they're mostly human interest stories, it doesn't seem like much of a waste. When it comes to speaking truth to power, though, they want to be as far removed from the story as possible. Commenting on it from 40,00 feet rather than getting down in the muck. The job of a journalist is to be an asshole. A polite asshole, say sir and all due respect, but an asshole. Figure out what most people should probably know about the goings on and underpinnings of the events of the day and hold people's feet to the fire to get that information. The Daily Show using people's own words against them is a pretty classic move to try and get reality exposed. Only they do it to mock, and journalists/the sunday morning circuit are supposed to do it to educate. They are dropping the ball on this. Repeatedly. On issues of the most drastic importance.
Olbermann (who I dearly love) is a commentator, not a reporter. Always has been. His show is 60% opinion, 30% entertainment, and 10% actual news. But- contrast that to O'reilly- 90% opinion, 10% actual news- usually presented in a fashion that lets him further his opinions. Are either of these programs actually useful to the public? No, but it's what we get because everyday is a slow news day when you're on 24 hours a day.
And it's only getting worse. Glenn Beck's "Holy Crap- Liberals Are Going To Get Us All Killed" hour is definitely bottom of the barrell, but the ratings are obscenely high for such tripe. Why? Because we wouldn't know a quality news program anymore if it walked up to us, shoved a headline in our face and said, "hey asshole, this is important!"
To paraphrase: We're not getting the news we need- we're getting the news we deserve.
Morons.
As a sidenote, if you were to rank the questions in the order of their actual usefulness, it was my impression watching live that you'd get all the niche outlets (Ebony, Univision, Stars and Stripes, etc) at the top and all the mainstream outlets (AP, network news, etc) at the bottom. Funny how that works.
If we actually had the collective will to write a real politics blog, I would read it. Which is just a further indictment of the press. Pundits are wrong more often than monkeys flinging darts. That isn't hyperbole. There aren't any meaningful discussions or debates amongst knowledgeable commentators who are bringing in newly relevant information, even if just to laugh at it. The pundit class doesn't act as a stepping stone to further information or knowledge of the workings of whatever, they're a brick wall where knowledge goes to get mowed down. With very few, very fleeting exceptions to this rule.
It's really too bad we're a bunch of slacker nerds.
*cue Cafferty rant*
I wouldn't say that they are bastions of excellence in a sea of depravity, but I would say that they tend to be islands of Gomorrah like denizens in a sea of depravity. All sodomizing angles and shit. They at least permit the long form work to take route whereas cable tends to immediately jump from topic to topic before anyone really runs out of talking points to say anything worthwhile. Of course, the Grey Lady did employ Bill Kristol for how long regardless of the number of factual retractions they had to print because he's a moron.
Yes, but the barrier to entry for a real journalistic entity is too high for anyone to rely on rebellious underdog outfits. It may not take much to start a blog, but good luck getting that blog to work as a pass into a Presidential Press Conference &c. Which is where you need the tough and newsworthy questions to be asked. As the less mainstream become more accepted, and Univision becomes a Spanish Times or Newsweek, what is going to replace it to be called on and not ask breathtakingly stupid questions?
Though given the furor of debate over a publicly owned/subsidized news source being a propaganda outlet rather than a free press; Stars and Stripes seems to be doing pretty good. As is the Newshour, Frontline, &c. meanwhile the commercial press is sucking out loud. It seems far more likely to wind up with an American BBC than a Politburro Post Dispatch. Which is one avenue that the future of news may take. Non-profit journalism that's basically dependent on the charity of people who recognize that the news is important since the current revenue model is doomed to failure.
Obama: "I advise every American to give up cable television."
Personally, I think that two best question of the night were asked by the Univision and AFP correspondants. They were short, didn't take 3 minutes to ask, and were not whiny. AND THE CORRESPONDANT DIDN'T INTERRUPT THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT.
This isn't a CNN invention. This is a Dan Rather invention.
Glenn Beck is feeding the conspiracy nutjobs. Conspiracy theories have more life among the people out of power. I think Republicans are extra susceptible though.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302972.html?hpid=sec-artsliving
But yeah, fuck cable news for getting information to help you form your opinion. They're often not presenting news honestly, their love affair with "fair and balanced" has made people think that facts are subjective, and the elevation of self-important, partisan pundits has been a huge detriment to public discourse.
I like to think of them as "The Dead White Girl Channel."
Fixed.
I think that whatever we can do to educate the public with as much un-skewed information as possible should be done.
It's an interesting idea. Though I wonder what influence it would have on local elections since small town reporters can be biased just as much as normal people even if they can't explicitly endorse a particular coroner. It woudl certainly seem like it'd help the larger conglomerates diverge their small town locals who probably don't contribute much to revenue in order to streamline/focus on the big brands like the Trib, Times, &c.
Before 9/11 HN was great. Only have 25 minutes to spend in front of a TV today? No problem - here's a quick overview of what happened worldwide in the last day, with a focus on America. Now it's not even worth flicking to during a commercial break when watching something else.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I enjoy clueless people.
Yeah, but how often is that ever the case? I'm all for holding someone's feet to the fire when they evade a question, except when that question is 'when did you really get angry, like, for serious' or some other non-issue. Or when he actually does answer the damn question but they don't like what the answer is. Which is how it almost always works out.
Oh, and Anderson Cooper wasn't half-joking.
But good to know you got high-fives from the 'publicans. Hannititis is apparently not just on the radio.
That's why this is accurate too: ...except strike "quality". The American public doesn't know what a news program ought to be, period.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It seems to be more relevant than "Hey Barack, who do you have in your Final Four?" and "How would you fix the BCS?", at least.
Most of the questions are stupid, and most of the people want stupid questions answered. It's why Obama can pull 20 million viewers when he goes on Leno and all anyone cares about is bowling and the Special Olympics, but he couldn't pull 20 million to McNeil-Lehrer. Mr. President, boxers or briefs?
I suppose to be fair the most popular question for his internet town hall thingy today was about legalizing pot. At least that's a real issue, though not a super important one in the grand scheme of things.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12