It always makes me chuckle

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I would half or part way agree that right wing commentary (I prefer commentary to "using them as punching bags") on Code Pink's and Moveon.org's views and tactics helps to put a spotlight on them.

It's an appropriate description as there's rarely if ever any real debate on the issues. The punditry follow a simply formula where they pretend to be objective to tee the ball up, mock the organization incessantly while ignoring the real issue, make fun of all liberals and then usually take a few pot shots at the media just for fun.

This isn't to say that Moveon or Codepink are worthy of praise, but what hear is a long way from being "commentary".

But, for the most part, without the media's introduction, there would be no spot on which right winger's could shine. Right wing commentary is a reaction to what has been introduced, sometimes highlighted, by the media. Without, first, the media attention most people, as you say, would not know about Code Pink. As for Moveon, it has paid many thousands of dollars, maybe millions by now, for attention. Their message has been nationalized without the help of right wingers.

That's just utter nonsense.

In the information age, it's quite the norm for the smallest of issues to be given a national spotlight, without much context and to serve a bigger purpose. You don't think that Hannity, Rush etc... don't have interns surfing the web 24/7 to dig up that little gem they can use as a straw man to work their magic?

If anything the real news outlets are left trying to sort out which of these stories might actually be newsworthy. When there's no accountability (i.e your audience doesn't really care what's real) why should you care?

I don't think right wing groups, simply by existing, can cancel progressive ones. Either side must persuade through the media that it is right and the other wrong. That's why it matters that the media fulfill its supposed function as a watchdog rather than being a dog in the hunt. But objectivity is not so easy when you passionately believe in one side against the other. That is why right wingers so love Limbaugh, Fox, et al. They have felt for so long that the "mainstream" media was slanted against their view, but now have that all important means to deliver their message. This, of course, has raised the level of discord as will happen when there are two sides two an argument.

You're using different definitions for the word "media" to suit your needs at the time. Perhaps this isn't intentional but it is important none the less.

I'm not sure the idea of a liberal media conspiracy is really valid. Usually these accusations are borne of politics (i.e. Nixon, Bush 43) or by those who hope to capitalize. I'm not sure I've ever seen a person, on their own, come to the conclusion that their local paper is part of a broader conspiracy.

It's funny because so often when I hear one of those "you'll never hear about this in the liberal media" kind of remarks...often I've already read about the issue...in that liberal media they were just talking about.

I watch all the cable channels, read the WSJ, USA Today etc... I'd say when you take the pundits (left or right) out of the picture the "news" is pretty similar across the board.

The big difference is when you listen to "news" being reported from outside the USA. I don't think a lot of Americans appreciate this enough.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's an appropriate description as there's rarely if ever any real debate on the issues. The punditry follow a simply formula where they pretend to be objective to tee the ball up, mock the organization incessantly while ignoring the real issue, make fun of all liberals and then usually take a few pot shots at the media just for fun.

Sounds like what left wing pundits do to Rush.

This isn't to say that Moveon or Codepink are worthy of praise, but what hear is a long way from being "commentary".

You say potatoes, and I say putahtoes.

That's just utter nonsense.

I'm crushed.

In the information age, it's quite the norm for the smallest of issues to be given a national spotlight, without much context and to serve a bigger purpose. You don't think that Hannity, Rush etc... don't have interns surfing the web 24/7 to dig up that little gem they can use as a straw man to work their magic?

Occasionally, I hear right wing "pundits" comment on something garnered from the web. Most of the time, the comments are on stories from "real news outlets." I haven't heard about this 24/7conspiracy of interns. Is this something you found on the web or something documented by "real news"?

If anything the real news outlets are left trying to sort out which of these stories might actually be newsworthy. When there's no accountability (i.e your audience doesn't really care what's real) why should you care?
You're using different definitions for the word "media" to suit your needs at the time. Perhaps this isn't intentional but it is important none the less.

This sorting by "real news outlets" is part of the process of slanting "news." What you leave out can be more telling than what you report.

News is what is found and disseminated. Whether it is by a cumbersome "real news outlet" or by a perceptive individual, or by accident, the means to distribute information is not, now, limited to a bureaucracy. In effect, the media has expanded from the controlling grasp of "professional experts" into a world wide arena. This may make it more difficult to "get it all." But the world has always been far larger than what has been contained in the traditional "real news outlets."

I'm not sure the idea of a liberal media conspiracy is really valid. Usually these accusations are borne of politics (i.e. Nixon, Bush 43) or by those who hope to capitalize. I'm not sure I've ever seen a person, on their own, come to the conclusion that their local paper is part of a broader conspiracy.


It's not a conspiracy so much as a common attitude on how to view issues and on which issues to view. And both sides, liberal or conservative, each have their own common view. It has been said that the "mainstream" news used to have a conservative slant. The shift of attitudes began to gain a majority in the 1960's almost seamlessly changing toward liberal as the graduates from liberalized Universities began to dominate the thoughtwaves. Those who hold the majority view consider it normal, not biased. Those in the minority feel the sting of discrimination that the majority simply doesn't see. And it starts slowly, indeed, by "individuals on ther own" coming to that conclusion, talking to others and finding the same perception until the perception and attitude is crystillized.

The big difference is when you listen to "news" being reported from outside the USA. I don't think a lot of Americans appreciate this enough.-spence

Yes and no. There is also "news" from outside the US that confirm conservative views. And there are a myriad of out-of-country stories and points of view outside the scope of Western Europe (especially from Eastern Europe) that are not accessable. Anyway, it shouldn't be necessary to listen to "news" reported outside the US concerning what is happening in this country. And what makes any other country's bureaucratic, biased "real news" agencies more reliable than ours?