The Gretsch Pages: Discussions: Miscellaneous Rumbles: Question for able-minded American members

Question for able-minded American members

« » Page 1 2

- Rated: 16 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 1:05 p.m. Gigatron:

I think ol' Pete hit the nail on the head in "Won't Get Fooled Again".
- Rated: 20 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 1:11 p.m. TwangOmatic:

On the subject of green nuclear power, it is green, see.
- Rated: 19 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 2:37 p.m. cielski:

From the less than 50% voter turnout, most Americans vote for "None of the Above" usually. The media is just another part of Big Business. I ignore the hype and vote for the lesser of two Weasels. Fieldhdj's Dad has it right---"Throw the bums out!". The American public has donated millions(billions?) to presidential political campaigns in the last two years alone, for a job that pays $400K a year. Somebody doesn't understand basic math. The thing I find disturbing is that while running for office, the candidate is ignoring the job/elected position that he/she presently has to hunt for another. Would your boss pay you to hunt for another job?

It's a fantasy world that they live in.
- Rated: 41 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 2:47 p.m. J(esse James)D:

TwangO..........LMAO

That's funny, and GREEN
- Rated: 15 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 5:02 p.m. MacStevenXIII:

I don't think there really is an unbiased major news outlet available to the average American.

I go to news.bbc.co.uk for my news. Or The Daily Show and The Colbert Report....very entertaining shows.
- Rated: 22 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 5:23 p.m. jazzbo:

I love it when a CNN reporting traveling with McCain or Obama does a report, then it goes back to Lou Dobbs in the studio and he goes on the rampage, ranting in a raised disgusted voice directed AT the CNN reporter. The entire time, the reporter is also shown on the TV screen with this look like "Jesus Lou, stop ragging on me. I just report it. I'm on the CNN team, remember?"
- Rated: 74 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 6:13 p.m. bonedaddy:

Wenzel said: Cnn is pretty misleading a lot of the time and they seem to be biased a lot of the time rather than actually letting the Americans make up their own minds.
funny, I find that be the case with Fox news...
- Rated: 74 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 6:18 p.m. bonedaddy:

dang double post!
- Rated: 26 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 6:49 p.m. marctrain57:

I watch Lerher on PBS, read editorials on Real Clear Politics to get a variety of opinions, read the Wash Post for the liberal viewpoint and the Wall Street Journal for the conservative one. Most of the rest of it is overheated, drama central. cable TV news has ruined the idea of responsible journalism.

Gigatron said: I think ol' Pete hit the nail on the head in "Won't Get Fooled Again".

Oh you are sooo right!
- Rated: 25 ↑
Sep 26, 2008 7:19 p.m. Parabar:

There is no longer an independent mainstream news media in the United States. Over the last two decades, consolidation of media ownership has resulted in a very few corporate owners (Rupert Murdoch, ClearChannel, Time-Warner, Disney, etc.) controlling nearly all of the television and radio networks and print media/newsmagazines. Newspaper readership has declined dramatically, so newspapers have slashed reporting budgets and staff. The corporate owners are more interested in profits than in real news reporting, so they target the lowest common denominator (which in the United States is much less educated and literate than in either Canada or Europe), and we get fed a diet of tabloid-style "coverage" that focuses on the sensational rather than the substantial. I recently looked at a copy of Newsweek in the doctor's office, and it might as well have been "People" magazine. It seemed aimed at a junior-high school level readership, with an astonishingly superficial level of commentary about important subjects.

As MacStevenXIII mentioned, we've devolved to the point where there is more in-depth discussion of issues, and more truth spoken on late-night comedy shows than on the so-called news programs. I think intelligent voters on both sides have figured this out and no longer look to the mainstream media for any kind of in-depth commentary or analysis. Unfortunately, all too many of the "masses" don't read newspapers at all (let alone with a recognition of where their biases may lie) and so accept what the TV feeds them, making their decisions on the basis of emotional reactions rather than on a thoughtful consideration of facts and any kind of historical context.
- Rated: 44 ↑
Sep 27, 2008 3:02 p.m. Joel:

wenzel: said: Cnn is pretty misleading a lot of the time and they seem to be biased a lot of the time rather than actually letting the Americans make up their own minds.

I think Fox News is way worse. They didn't even broadcast Steven Spielberg's little film during the Democratic Convention. They talked over it. I've never heard CNN really "bash" McCain. I have heard Fox bash Obama. They're all bad but really Fox comes off like propaganda. This opinion is coming from a registered Republican who really doesn't feel much like one these days...
- Rated: 115 ↑
Sep 27, 2008 3:07 p.m. wenzel:

I agree, I don't watch FOX anymore, at least I can decipher the B.S. on CNN most of the time and some of their anchor's aren't B.S.-ers. You can get a straight scoop sometimes, but others, it's B.S. as usual!
- Rated: 41 ↑
Sep 27, 2008 3:40 p.m. dubkitty:

to me TV news from any source is utterly useless nowadays; anything more complicated than a car crash with accompanying shock video is too complex to deal with in a 2-3 minute piece.

i'm not sure the European media or the EU's lowest common denominator are really any better, though...there's a whole stratum of trash "news" publications and broadcast media there as well that push scandal, sex, 'n' sport. look at Stern or The Sun, which make the New York Post look tame. "Baywatch" was so popular in Germany that David Hasselhof was able to parlay his TV fame into a career as a pop singer. the UK, that font of PBS propriety, also produced "The Two Ronnies" and Benny Hill. and every country in Europe of which i know anything has its equivalent to the US lowest common denominator of behavior and refinement; the UK's "chavs" are notorious for their ghetto/redneck behavior, football-related violence is still a problem across Europe, minority ghettos burn across France on a regular basis, and i've seen teenaged wanna-b-boys trying to act gangsta in the streets of Amsterdam. every modern industrial culture has its bottom level, and it's pretty much always the same bottom...they even have street gangs in Australia.

also, the bias in the broadcast media is even more blatant than it is here...the BBC, for example, gets dinged at least once a year for willful politically-influenced misrepresentations in their documentary programs. and Fox tycoon Rupert Murdoch's European operations are notorious for their political slant.
- Rated: 212 ↑
Sep 27, 2008 3:41 p.m. Proteus:

That's a fine analysis, Parabar, including the comments on consolidated corporate ownership, the decline of newspapers, and the (possibly intentional?) dumbing down of the general public. It's as if the population has been trained specifically for the level of decision-making it is taxed with.

I work with many small newspapers, and times are very tough for them – and for my business as well. But before things started eroding, it was already tough to find in many of them real writers, editors or publishers with that independent journalist's attitude, ability, and determination.

USA Today has replaced many local print outlets for national news, and it's pander-bland and homogenous.

A few individual broadcasters (I hesitate to say "broadcast journalists") have some authority and gravitas, appear to be serious-minded, prepared, and determined despite their own bias to dig for bedrock. (Some of them more so than our politicians, but let me not digress.)

I try to take my political feeds from C-SPAN so as to get no commentary, but that's not always possible.

I watched the debate last night, and – sans commentary – thought I was watching two honorable, serious men. Both had moments of weakness and moments of considerable strength. I thought both addressed issues better than I had feared; both resorted to their talking points more often than I'd hoped.

I thought the character of each was on clear display, for better and worse in both cases. It was clear that McCain quite sincerely has no confidence in Obama's experience and ability, and that Obama, while respecting and even liking and sometimes agreeing with McCain, seriously questions his judgment.

I didn't think either was a clear winner or a clear loser. Neither terrified me; neither gave me full confidence.

When the commentators started, I wondered if we'd all been watching the same event. I hadn't thought McCain combative or belligerent, or Obama cerebral or condescending.

The gaffes the commentariat put in either candidate's column were no worse than any extemporaneous public speaker's.

The commentators seemed to dwell entirely on who had delivered zingers, whether either or both had "done what they needed to do" to make some political point on behalf of his campaign. It was all about scoring points, all about the game, and nothing about the content.

Yet I'm afraid the commentators help determine what viewers think of what they saw. Didn't the two men speak for themselves? The post-game commentary, the bloviating of the punditry, trivialize and distort everything about the process.

A pox on'em.
- Rated: 41 ↑
Sep 27, 2008 3:46 p.m. dubkitty:

who are you going to believe, a panel of distinguished pundits or your own lying eyes?