Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. Demonize an opponent by showing that he shares that one attribute that you are fighting to make acceptable. On all sorts of psychological levels, this is strategic idiocy.

The point is not that he is gay. The point is that he is a hypocrite. If his constituents agree with him that homosexuality is a mortal sin, should it not matter to them that he engages in that same mortal sin?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. Demonize an opponent by showing that he shares that one attribute that you are fighting to make acceptable. On all sorts of psychological levels, this is strategic idiocy.

I still think it's a little hypocritical to call boy-on-boy chatlines, when you're on record as wanting to get rid of don't ask don't tell in order to quiz people about their sex lives and eliminate homosexuals from the military. But then again, maybe he wanted to use the "are you gay" questions in the military instead of the boy-on-boy chatlines. Or maybe he was just trying to figure out what sort of questions to ask once don't ask don't tell was lifted. If he really thinks don't ask don't tell isn't a good idea regardless of his own orientation, I think his being queer would much more interesting perspective and could give a little strength to the argument.

But like I said, I don't really like forcing people out of the closet.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
One exception being the Chicago Tribune, which was long a right-wing paper under the stewardship of Col. McCormick. Not so much anymore, but they still have a slight lean to the right. Of course the Sun-Times balances it out, though even that paper seems to have moderated a bit.

I think the exception you are thinking of is the "there are 2 papers in town" exception. If there are two meaningful papers in town, one will lean right and the other left. If there are more than two, there will be at least one right and one left.

Unfortunately, many many cities both large and small have only one paper now.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
(BTW, in my experience, recently outted men are a fucking pain in the ass.)

Putting the seriousness of the statement aside, I'm sure that's very true... NTTAWWT.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Your logic escapes me.

Sometimes it escapes me as well.

The quote on the taxes appeared to me to deride the Dems by saying if they really cared about the poor they could donate their tax breaks to the poor and end poverty. But because they kept the hated tax breaks they clearly are clinging more to the "facial excuse" rather than fixing the problem. Whereas in the media discussion, you appeared to assert that the bias complaint should stand on its own, despite AG's point that this could be addressed by action from those who feel that the conservative viewpoint is underrepresented in the big papers that most people read.

Seemed like a goose and gander thing to me (and this while agreeing with you that the class warfare argument is a nonstarter). Did I misread?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I still think it's a little hypocritical to call boy-on-boy chatlines, when you're on record as wanting to get rid of don't ask don't tell in order to quiz people about their sex lives and eliminate homosexuals from the military. But then again, maybe he wanted to use the "are you gay" questions in the military instead of the boy-on-boy chatlines. Or maybe he was just trying to figure out what sort of questions to ask once don't ask don't tell was lifted. If he really thinks don't ask don't tell isn't a good idea regardless of his own orientation, I think his being queer would much more interesting perspective and could give a little strength to the argument.

But like I said, I don't really like forcing people out of the closet.

I understand all of this. I'm mostly speaking to the underlying, maybe subtextual message this sends to The Masses (?) - he's gotta quit, 'cuz, damn!, he . . . he's . . . GAY!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Sometimes it escapes me as well.

The quote on the taxes appeared to me to deride the Dems by saying if they really cared about the poor they could donate their tax breaks to the poor and end poverty. But because they kept the hated tax breaks they clearly are clinging more to the "facial excuse" rather than fixing the problem. Whereas in the media discussion, you appeared to assert that the bias complaint should stand on its own, despite AG's point that this could be addressed by action from those who feel that the conservative viewpoint is underrepresented in the big papers that most people read.

Seemed like a goose and gander thing to me (and this while agreeing with you that the class warfare argument is a nonstarter). Did I misread?

My argument on the bias doesn't go to, there should be countervailing lies - it's that a "journalist" should be ethical. Whether you have a liberal or a conservative daily paper, you should be able to depend on it for news. So, I have standing to complain when someone else is actively doing wrong. My complaint needn't await my starting a new paper. If I think that your action hurts, I can call you on it.

If you think I am not doing enough to foster your own values, however, you don't need to wait for me to start before you foster them yourself. You can still complain about me not doing enough - but if your immediate contributions will help what you call a dire need, you shouldn't wait. Provide that "ethical act" yourself. By doing so, you don't have to commit the unethical act of which you complain. The big difference, in my mind, is that the press's unethical behavior misinforms all by itself, and to "fix" it, I should do something unethical myself? - that won't stop the damage, it will only cause a countervailing damage - while my disinclination to fund all of the things that you want funded has no negative effect - it merely doesn't bring funding as far up the continuum as you would like.

No flip. Not even a flop.

[bilmore]

Cool story by a guy I like about how Bigmedia isn't just biased - it's dumb.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/083104B.html

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
My argument on the bias doesn't go to, there should be countervailing lies - it's that a "journalist" should be ethical. Whether you have a liberal or a conservative daily paper, you should be able to depend on it for news. So, I have standing to complain when someone else is actively doing wrong. My complaint needn't await my starting a new paper. If I think that your action hurts, I can call you on it.

I'd be interested to see where major news outlets are lying in Kerry's favor. If that's the case, my comment is cheerfully withdrawn.

Or, if by "lies" you are referring to AG's more nuanced "story selection and emphasis" definition, I guess I totally disagree. Does FNC "lie"? Is it unethical to start more news outlets on the FoxNews model? If not, you have a drawn a distinction without a difference.

It seems to me that you're saying "well, you guys have control, and it's unfair." Much like those that snipe from the left about the widening gulf between the haves and the have-lesses.

etft

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Few dailies, from what I've seen. I speak of the daily, leader-of-the-city newspapers that people generally read every day. Froim these, I think they get a very left-centric view. I agree that there are rightist sources out there, but not of this same genre (in terms of what kind of media we think of when we hear "honey, where's the paper!?" ) And, if your response is, put out a rightist one of the same character, I think that begs the question. My demand for ethics should not be met with "well, then, drop your own ethics, and it'll be fair."

Are you speaking of the Rushes, the Coulters, the NROs - all of which are specifically, and explicitly, setting out one defined viewpoint as a goal, not as news deliverers? When you hear or read those people, they tell you right up front what they believe and cherish. The NYT gives us "news" - they decide what to tell us, and their selection process is defined by what they want us to know that fosters their ideology, but they frame it so that an unsuspecting reader might think they've heard a neutral source.

I see you are not familiar with Freedom Communications:

Headquartered in Irvine, Ca., Freedom Communications publishes 28 daily newspapers and 37 weekly publications. The newspapers' combined daily circulation is slightly more than 1.2 million subscribers.

Freedom's flagship newspaper is the Santa Ana, Ca.-based Orange County Register with a circulation of 360,000. With its innovative design, use of graphics and color, and three Pulitzer Prizes, The Register has gained a reputation as one of the finest newspapers in the world.

These guys are trying as hard as they can to be the conservative equivalent of the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Trouble is, self assessment to the contrary, they suck. The writing just isn't very good. I say this not as a liberal, but as a former journalist. I also have it on good authority that they pay like shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'd be interested to see where major news outlets are lying in Kerry's favor. If that's the case, my comment is cheerfully withdrawn.

Or, if by "lies" you are referring to AG's more nuanced "story selection and emphasis" definition, I guess I totally disagree. Does FNC "lie"? Is it unethical to start more news outlets on the FoxNews model? If not, you have a drawn a distinction without a difference.

It seems to me that you're saying "well, you guys have control, and it's unfair." Much like those that snipe from the left about the widening gulf between the haves and the have-lesses.

etft

Do you remember the NYT story I posted that had a topic line basically saying the Bush had fucked up the economy so bad that people still were joined the military even though any sane person wouldn't if they had a choice because Bush is war-crazy?

That was an example of bias turning the fact that enlistment was not down into a double Bush slam, w/o any support. Of course, it doesn't matter because anyone who reads the NYT knows it has the bias, or is so crazy Dem anyway that the bias doesn't matter.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you remember the NYT story I posted that had a topic line basically saying the Bush had fucked up the economy so bad that people still were joined the military even though any sane person wouldn't if they had a choice because Bush is war-crazy?

That was an example of bias turning the fact that enlistment was not down into a double Bush slam, w/o any support. Of course, it doesn't matter because anyone who reads the NYT knows it has the bias, or is so crazy Dem anyway that the bias doesn't matter.

Do you have the cite? I am genuinely curious to read exactly what you guys mean by the NYT's lies. Because frankly, on many of the lefty blogs I happen across the NYT is derided just as much. See, e.g., anything written by Elizabeth Bumiller.

And, to be honest, after your summary of that disenfranchisement story I am beginning to think you might be a little biased, yourself.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
It seems to me that you're saying "well, you guys have control, and it's unfair."

No, I'm saying that, when one purports to deliver news, one should not sneak partisan cheerleading into the effort, no matter what side you're on.

My local paper keeps talking about the "discredited Swiftboaters". It speaks as if the subject has been closed. It simply does not quote any of the rather conclusive evidence the other way, and, in fact, walks very lightly around how Kerry has admitted that his Cambodia stories were "not quite accurate". It certainly never speaks of how the central points that Kerry was trying to make as he attempted to sway US policy depended on the very anecdotes that he now dismisses as mere details.

So, yes, dishonest.

Oh, by the way, over 700 arrests of protestors at this point, and what does the NYT have to say about it?

"Until now, the organized protests that have drawn hundreds of thousands of people have proceeded mostly without violence."

Tell me - which side does this misstatement serve?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, by the way, over 700 arrests of protestors at this point, and what does the NYT have to say about it?

"Until now, the organized protests that have drawn hundreds of thousands of people have proceeded mostly without violence."

Tell me - which side does this misstatement serve?

Ummm. Would you concede that maybe not all of those arrested were violent? That maybe some of them were arrested for peaceful demonstrations outside of the free-speech zones, rather than for being, well, violent?

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
Oh, by the way, over 700 arrests of protestors at this point, and what does the NYT have to say about it?

Let me take a shot:

• Ashcroft Orders the Arrests of Thousands of Democrats; Decries them as Felons and Demands their Names removed from Election Rolls