Article

2006-01-11 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-01-11 03:09|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Okay, 2 hosed links. I'll stop, lol.

LINK.

Posted by .com 2006-01-11 03:13|| 2006-01-11 03:13|| Front Page Top

#2 However....
As I heard the other day, the average age of the CBS news [lower case intended] viewer is 60. Look who they got to replace Rather. Check out the who buys what products advertised. Marketing offices in business certainly know who's watching. I have no hard stats, but watching my mother's "Greatest Generation", they're still hooked on paper. That mass audience appears to be literally dying out. They won't completely disappear and though in smaller numbers the older population holds a lot of buying power to keep the commercial subsidies coming for a little while longer. The time is coming in about a decade when the strength of that subsidy will no longer sustain and we'll begin to see the collapse of the traditional outlets. Noticed any layoffs already? There will be no return to the 'good old days' for those institutions because they've demonstrated a complete lack of ability to evolve.

Posted by Speretle Thitle4440 2006-01-11 09:29|| 2006-01-11 09:29|| Front Page Top

#3
"Right-Wing bloggers, who have set themselves up as watchdogs of what they categorize, self revealingly, as the "Mainstream Media" have several qualities in common.

The class includes a wide range of conservative and reactionary blogs for which it's an article of faith that the traditional press is secretly devoted to inculcating the nation's innocent readers with their liberal agenda."

"None of these critics appears to be genuinely interested in correcting factual errors or improving this newspaper's, or any newspaper's, performance as a journalistic institution -- which are certainly legitimate goals. Their main purpose is to hunt down deviations from a political orthodoxy that they themselves define. Their techniques include a promiscuous use of labels as shorthand slurs ('leftist' and 'liberal' being, of course, their most popular denigrations). They no doubt find this technique valuable because once they can hang a label on a newspaper or a journalist, they can dispense with anything so fundamental as discussion or argument. Some also favor imputations of treason or unpatriotism; contentions that the offending reporters and editors are detached in spirit from their readership; and suggestions that what underlies their political deviancy is moral turpitude.

"To back up their assertions, they often quote articles selectively, take out of context what they do quote, and ascribe imaginary motivations to reporters and editors, which they then feel free to decry. As any student of history knows, these are tools and techniques that were used to great effect during the Stalinist show trials of the '40s and '50s. The functionaries who wielded them then had the same goals as the self-anointed press watchdogs on the right do today: To support the regime in power through intimidation and threat and to impose ideological conformity, while avoiding at all costs debate on the merits.

"These critics equate a newspaper's failure to parrot a conservative, Republican, or Bush Administration line with inaccuracy, or cavalierly interpret it as evidence of 'bias.' Unconcerned with a free press's duty to challenge official versions of events, they fault newspapers and newsmagazines for failing to fall into lockstep in support of George W. Bush and his policies . . .

"Such reveling in ignorance of one's subject is a new phenomenon in criticism. You don't hear movie critics bragging about never going to the cinema, TV critics dropping their cable subscriptions, or book critics swearing off reading. But it's not at all unusual to hear the blogging critics urge readers to cancel their subscriptions to their daily newspapers, as though their goal is to reduce their followers to the same state of blissful benightedness to which they aspire themselves."

excerpt taken from:

"Slanted Press or Slanted Blogs"
by: Howard Kurtz

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-11 09:47|| 2006-01-11 09:47|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't think anyone is trying to supress debate. The "left" has decided to take a diametrically opposed position to almost every topic that arises. This is unfortunate when it comes to things like national security, military operations and energy policies. Republicans are no doubt guilty too to some degree, but all my life I can not recall such a seething hatred for an administration, nor such unrelenting vitriol against people for doing what they think is right.
The left is not just saying "we should do it this way", they are saying "Do it this way or else".

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-01-11 10:04|| 2006-01-11 10:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Following the money we see the group with the most spendable income is the gay men.
How many new cable/sat channels are now targeted to them. (I count at least 4 in the past few months) Then look at ad and show targeting.
Struggling middle class married folk are not targets as their income has little disposable value.
Now factor that into news reporting.

Posted by 3dc 2006-01-11 10:10|| 2006-01-11 10:10|| Front Page Top

#6 "Such reveling in ignorance of one's subject is a new phenomenon in criticism."

Don't you get it? This is precisely the problem. They think they know more than their readers, and that plainly isn't true. Did Dan Rather and his experts know more about typography than those people at LGF? Obviously not. Does any legal comentator about the law on TV know more than someone who has practiced for 1 year in a major metro area? Obviously not. Does any military comentator on TV know more that even the greenest, most inexperienced soldier? Obviously not.

For decades, the interpretation of what is news and how it should be viewed has been up to them. Now, with the Internet and widespread access to primary source material, everyone can see the evidence, weigh the arguments, and judge for themselves. But they still want to decide what is the truth, what is logical, and what is important to the readership. In reality, they are (just another) service business, and must respond to their customers, or die. Now that people have choice in consumption, we can see the results.

Just like tempramental artists, of course the loosers will rue the judges, the customers who have left their products, as too stupid and ignorant to get the sophistication of their product. After all, the vast majority of people we see on the TV (e.g anchors, reporters, etc.)are just actors, nothing more.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-11 11:33|| 2006-01-11 11:33|| Front Page Top

#7 "But they still want to decide what is the truth, what is logical, and what is important to the readership."

And even deeper than that, they want to continue telling us what to think.

Their bias is not what bothers me; everybody is "biased" in that we each have our own point of view and there's nothing wrong with that. What bothers me is the dishonesty about that bias, and the manipulativeness of their sneak-preaching.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-11 11:47|| 2006-01-11 11:47|| Front Page Top

#8 Acme BS meter is pegging on Howard Kurtz too.

Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-01-11 12:07|| 2006-01-11 12:07|| Front Page Top

#9 "Acme BS meter is pegging on Howard Kurtz too."

Right, Inspector. I've rarely seen a more textbook example of projection in my life.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-01-11 12:40|| 2006-01-11 12:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Howard Kurtz has right wing repubs/cons "nailed" on their constant whining and bitching about the so-called "MSM liberal media bias".

I totally concur with his conclusions and he could not have said it better.

.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-11 12:51|| 2006-01-11 12:51|| Front Page Top

#11 One thing the post misses is that Rush may not directly influence opinion because he's preaching to the choir and all, but he indirectly influences opinion by bringing data and talking points to that same choir.

Another thing the post misses is that when something is funny people tend to remember it and pass it along. The Liberals seem to be abandoning funny to the Conservatives.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-01-11 13:00|| 2006-01-11 13:00|| Front Page Top

#12 "Howard Kurtz has right wing epubs/cons "nailed" on their constant whining and bitching about the so-called "MSM liberal media bias"."

Sure. Yeah.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-11 13:12|| 2006-01-11 13:12|| Front Page Top

#13 Face it, BirdDog: you're just not tall enough for this ride.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-11 13:13|| 2006-01-11 13:13|| Front Page Top

#14 You know, I just wanted to add that stating that an individual who disagrees on an issue is too stupid, or evil (the quoted article compares blogges to Stalinist inquisitors), or both to understand or accept their argument is no way to convince someone that an argument is valid or true. You won't win many voters that way. I suggest you try and hide as best you can your utter contempt for people who disagree with you.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-11 13:20|| 2006-01-11 13:20|| Front Page Top

#15 Mark E.

I think Mr. Kurtz is saying in so many words that
repubs/cons are "brainwashed" by RNC Bush/Rove propaganda to the point THEY cannot be objective
about dissenting opinions. In other words the "bias" is coming from those that agree and support President Bush.Liberal media bias is in
THEIR MINDS, NOT THE MEDIA. LOL

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-11 13:37|| 2006-01-11 13:37|| Front Page Top

#16 Your position is that people who disagree with you are brainwashed? My point in post #14 stands. Good luck with that brainwashing argument, though....

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-11 14:03|| 2006-01-11 14:03|| Front Page Top

#17 The thing that BirdDog fails to realize is how many of us arrived here from the starting point of supersaturation with the cream of the so-called mainstream media. BirdDog, let me tell you of my own voyage:

In the summer of 2001 we finally got an internet connection. I immediately discovered that my favorite newspaper, the New York Times, was available (for free!!) and, instead of reading that paper only on Sunday, I was now able to read it every single day -- and with no mass of paper to be recycled. Heaven! I gorged myself on its pages and archives for hours each day, and felt ever so superior to the benighted masses who chose not to educate themselves about the world beyond their doorsteps.

But, as time passed, I noticed something disconcerting: some of the articles I read stated as incontrovertible fact things that I knew to be untrue. Things about Israel for instance (Daddy was involved in the early years of that country's formation; his mother used to kaffeeklatch with Golda Meir about educating the nation's youth, her profession). And things about Europe, where we'd lived for a number of years, and where Mr. Wife had played a part in his company opening new markets in the recently freed Eastern Europe and Russia.

And then, Mr. Wife got an on-line extension to his Wall Street Journal subscription, which he shared with the home computer. Double heaven! I discovered the WSJ has a page of links to the editors' favourite on-line resources -- and some of those were web logs. So I checked that out. (You'll have concluded by this point that I'm a bit of a news junkie.) And the blogs were full of posts "fisking" articles from the NYT and others, pointing out the same errors of fact that I had noticed, and giving links to sources... just like proper researchers are supposed to do. (This is where I mention that my father was a research professor, and I was set to editing his publications from the moment I could read English -- for language use, of course, not content -- because English was something like his 8th learnt language, and he tended to use Germanic (one of his four mother tongues -- he's from Latvia originally) sentence structures underneath the classic scientific one. Imagine a half-page long sentence with five references, three chemical formulae, and the verb at the end. I spent a lot of time relocating his verbs. And I developed a firm understanding of the use of foot/end notes.)

At this point my supersaturation (see paragraph 1) crystallized. It wasn't just me, y'see. There were a lot of us who noticed the errors and outright falsehoods of the media elite which had informed our understanding of world events. And some were clever enough to tear apart the falsehoods, and some were clever enough to put the original sources from all over the world in one place, so that I could draw my own conclusions unfiltered by the prejudices of the New York Times' reporting staff. I didn't find Rantburg because I was a Conservative Republican (neither holds true for me, nor even for a majority of Rantburgers as far as I can tell -- rock-ribbed Conservatives and Republicans tend to wander off after a short period of frustrated argument), nor because I watch Fox News or listen to Conservative talk radio (I don't, and the few times I did by accident, I was highly distressed by all the shouting at people. I prefer people to listen politely to one another.). I found Rantburg because here was a one-stop shop for news straight from the places where things are happening, and for comments from people who know from personal knowledge and experience what they are talking about. And those that spout cant, like you BirdDog dear, are challenged immediately by experts in the subject. For a news (and, to be honest, learning) junkie, this is as close to heaven as I expect to find in this lifetime.

So if you want Rantburgers to respect the positions you take on anything, BirdDog dear, you would be wise to claim your bona fides up front, and let the experts size you up. As far as I can tell you are a noisy party-liner who's learnt to post articles that support your viewpoint. Tell me whence comes your expertise, if you wish me to give your words more weight than the zero I've given them thus far.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-11 15:51|| 2006-01-11 15:51|| Front Page Top

#18 TW, marry me! ;-)

(Figure of speach, I know that you have your Mr. Wife).

Posted by twobyfour 2006-01-11 16:19|| 2006-01-11 16:19|| Front Page Top

#19 The definition of a Liberal [circa 2000 CE] is 1) one who can hold two contradictory concepts at the same time and remain sane and 2) believes that there are one set of rules for those of his beliefs and another set of rules for all others [see Inner Party, Outer Party; 1984 by George Orwell].

For generations liberals have shamed the culture for allowing institutions composed of 95% percent old white males to run our schools, our businesses, our government. They forcefully declared that such a population could not in the least understand the entire body of the people composed of women, minorities, etc. They established âdefactoâ discrimination and segregation based solely upon statistical analysis of such population and imposed quotas of every form and manner to wiggle around the 14th Amendment. With this power they created imposed diversity.

Now when it comes to their MSM composed of a population which is 90 to 95% registered Democrats while the electoral figures show a distribution about evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, these same miscreants just shut their minds off from the very argument they make about the fundamental need for diversity for the rest of us. As Lincoln intoned, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.

Posted by Crereper Ulart7104 2006-01-11 16:35|| 2006-01-11 16:35|| Front Page Top

#20 Ahh, twobyfour, had events but been different... ;-)

(Besides, you know my sheer wordiness would drive you crazy in no time!)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-11 16:36|| 2006-01-11 16:36|| Front Page Top

#21 trailing wife:

thanks for your civil comments.

first of all, I really dont think you actually read the post of the regulars in here. They are highly partisan right wing republican conservatives, who absolutey hate the democratic party and its leaders. The host of this site Fred,
had the absolute audacity and unmitigated gall to tell me that: "The leaders of the Democratic Party make me want to spit". They slander & bash
democratic politicians in here on a daily basis. What happens is when a democrats fights back in here they cannot deal with it. I think they are bullies and cowards and furthermore I havent seen anything written in here by those on the right that makes me think they are experts on anything.

Second of all, I really dont think you actually read, the things i am posting or the articles I
reference.

I think that some of the postitions that the right wing repub/cons take are absolutely absurd and have little or no basis in reality. I believe that many of them are brainwashed by the rnc/bush rove connection and they spout their propaganda as if it is all fact & truth, which it isnt.

Anyone that disagrees with them is quickly labeled a "troll" which is pure bs. I say exactly what I think. What is really taking place is that they absolutely cannot stand anyone that disagrees or debunks their right wing propaganda.

Yes I am a democrat, but I get my news from several sources which could be considered liberal or conservative. I try to examine both sides then make up my own mind. Try it, try to think outside of your own republican box.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-11 16:50|| 2006-01-11 16:50|| Front Page Top

#22 The [regulars here] are highly partisan right wing republican conservatives, who absolutey hate the democratic party and its leaders.

You haven't been here long. The former is true. Most folks here have supreme distaste for the direction the Democrat Party has taken as a result of the leaders it has chosen and the positions it has taken in the GWOT. For that reason, many of them have left the party, or in the worlds of Ronald Reagan, the party left them. They aren't necessarily Republicans yet and they certainly aren't right wing. Some of us are, but not nearly so many as you assume, particularly when you get away from defence issues.

The interesting thing is that you are so unpersuasive in your commentary here. Like others from your side of the aisle, you are more interested in picking a fight than in proving a point. You are not seeking converts to your cause, you are striking out at your enemies. That's fine for you if it makes you feel better. But it is the reason the Democrats are going to become the permanent minority party for the next 60 years. And that's fine with me.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-11 17:05|| 2006-01-11 17:05|| Front Page Top

#23 You are clearly young, BirdDog. Whether chronologically or just to the news gathering experience, I wouldn't venture to say. It doesn't matter anyway, as youngness (like its analogue, youth) is a naturally self-correcting.

I actually do read your posts, and chuckle quietly to myself, having once upon a time been in your shoes. Clearly, however, you did not read the above of mine in its entirety, else you would not still accuse me of being a Republican, either big or small R. I actually read all the posts, often enough several time a day, because for a few years I've been a semi-invalid housewife whose time is her own, at least until the after-school chauffeuring starts (but it looks like lately things are much improving on that front!). The ones who've attacked you the strongest are the old hands, many of whom have been contributing to this site since Fred put floated it in the ether around 9/11. You aren't the first of your type to discover Rantburg, nor the first to come in spitting venom, and we regulars fondly hope that you will actually think about the comments of those who disagree with you. You see, those with the mental honesty to learn from these discussions have become some of our most productive and beloved members.

Until you reach that point, however, please do us all the politeness of giving up your favorite terms of insult, Republican and Conservative, because they apply in perhaps as much as 50% of the cases here, and demonstrate a certain refusal to think to the rest of us.

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that Fred isn't a Republican Conservative, either. He's what's formally known as an Independent, and informally as a cynic. And only partly because of the years he spent as an intelligence analyst for the government. Disliking the antics of entirely too many elected representatives of the Democratic Party is not a preserve of registered members of the Republican Party, but is freely partaken of by many of us who think for ourselves, and may not even be aware of the Party line (what I, myself, know of the Party line I have learnt from your posts).

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-11 17:45|| 2006-01-11 17:45|| Front Page Top

#24 Never mind that bogus offer from twobyfour, take mine!

Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-01-11 18:20|| 2006-01-11 18:20|| Front Page Top

#25 My apologies to all for my wordiness. I just read on another thread that BirdDog has also been known here as Cassini and Left Angle. Shame on him for changing names just so he can fly under the radar to drop his (as he fondly hopes) bombs! Moderators, please ban his IP -- he isn't here to learn, just to disrupt, as Nimble Spemble and others more perceptive than I have pointed out. Such behaviour is not only stealing Fred's bandwidth, but rude as well; a gentleman does not hide under series of identities, but presents himself honestly and proudly to the world.

Inspector, you are a dear. Tell you what: all the ladies and gentlemen are invited for tea. Milk, sugar and lemon are over there, and the liquor is on the sideboard for those of you who prefer it. Inspector, if you would be so kind as to pour out for a moment, I'll fetch the cakes I baked earlier. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-11 18:55|| 2006-01-11 18:55|| Front Page Top

#26 TW, my honor...and a nice table you have prepared. Hospitality is a shared pleasure. :)

Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-01-11 19:26|| 2006-01-11 19:26|| Front Page Top

#27 I KNEW it! Rantburg is a DATING service!

LA/BD whoever you are - who are YOU looking for!

Posted by Bobby 2006-01-11 21:23|| 2006-01-11 21:23|| Front Page Top

#28 bird dog....

I started out far far left...... (starting being college) by 85 I was right wing republican because JIMMY and Friends drove me their.
To top it off they are TWITS!
Demo arguments tend not to be. They are really forms of bullying or intimidation.
Would I switch to a third party if it lots the TWITS from the democrats and had a more responsible additude to toward the common citizens in the US?
Yes! But I don't see it. What I do see is that the democratic TWIT leadership is so dangerous that putting those children in power would seriously hurt the survival of normal humans at home in the USA.
The adults in the Republican party may have lots of negative aspects from my viewpoint but they are not following TWIT ideas that lead to the end of a USA.

Posted by 3dc 2006-01-11 21:37|| 2006-01-11 21:37|| Front Page Top

15:59 BirdDog
23:59 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:43 smn
23:35 Danking70
23:33 .com
23:30 rjschwarz
23:12 jules 2
23:06 Alaska Paul
22:33 Bomb-a-rama
22:29 Bomb-a-rama
22:18 Inspector Clueso
22:18 Zenster
22:17 2b
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:16 Bomb-a-rama
22:14 2b
22:10 Penguin
22:08 Bomb-a-rama
22:05 JosephMendiola
21:58 SOP35/Rat
21:56 Chuck Simmins
21:54 DanNY
21:40 JosephMendiola