Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
"Gotcha"??? What are you, 8 years old??


A few weeks ago, I was at a house party. The kids were playing outside, and the adults were inside talking about boring stuff. So all was going as expected, and we were all relaxed, having a good time. After a while, the hostess' 9-year-old daughter came inside. This girl, while not wanting for attention, nonetheless has the unfortunate (and all too common) trait of demanding more than her fair share. She walked up to our group, listened to what we were discussing (the gender politics of my wife's employer) for about 30 seconds, then announced, "He should stop being so mean to you because that's not nice. He should..." and she went on from there for about another 30 seconds. The hostess scooped up her still-talking daughter and sent her outside to play again, and we carried on our conversation from there.

Which is to say, next time I want to have a little light back and forth with Bilmore, I'll pm him.

Great, and next time I want to read something so stupid that it could only be taken as sarcastic, I'll be sure to look for you.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Yet another attempt by the Bush campaign to woo the undecided voters.

Well, I'm certainly undecided about Stephen Baldwin. Who the eff IS he? (I mean, besides the bro of the other.) Have we ever heard of him?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
Really? What about the commander on JFK's boat? Scroll backward and read bilmore's post from yesterday.

Four days ago, retired naval Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. seconded accusations made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam. But since then, Democrats have discovered that Schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.
...
Kerry has said Schachte was not on the boat that night, adding another mystery to the disputed events of 36 years ago. But other events are not in dispute. According to a March 18 legal filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists working for FastShip on issues such as the effort to win funding for a new marine cargo terminal. On Feb. 2, Philadelphia-based FastShip announced that it would receive $40 million in federal funding for the project.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug30.html

[also an interesting blurb further down about the different receptions for the Kerry and Bush progeny at the VMAs]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Most interesting aspect: At the beginning of the Swifties' thing, the mainstream media either totally refused to cover it, or, at best, mentioned that a lot of idiots were making dishonorable and baseless charges against Kerry, and that it reflected badly on Bush. Note the Kerry upswing during this period.

Then, when the non-mainstream media had been speaking of it for so long that the general public was getting the sense that "the NYT- et al are maybe pulling something here", and they had to actually cover things a bit more . . . er . . . fairly (in a relative sense, of course - still hasn't truly happened), you see the swing the other way.

I bet the Times et al crew are just pissed. They seem to be losing their monopoly.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
. . .Kerry has said Schachte was not on the boat that night . . .

Ah, well that settles it, then.

This was in Cambodia, right?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Most interesting aspect: At the beginning of the Swifties' thing, the mainstream media either totally refused to cover it, or, at best, mentioned that a lot of idiots were making dishonorable and baseless charges against Kerry, and that it reflected badly on Bush. Note the Kerry upswing during this period.

Then, when the non-mainstream media had been speaking of it for so long that the general public was getting the sense that "the NYT- et al are maybe pulling something here", and they had to actually cover things a bit more . . . er . . . fairly (in a relative sense, of course - still hasn't truly happened), you see the swing the other way.

I bet the Times et al crew are just pissed. They seem to be losing their monopoly.

There is actually a lot being written on this now, mostly by bloggers, who are understandably tooting there own horn. But I think this has accelerate the trend started when drudge reported the stain on the blue dress. Old Media, like Old Europe, is becomming a nonfactor.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I bet the Times et al crew are just pissed. They seem to be losing their monopoly.

Probably, though I think you misunderstand the real agenda of the mainstream media. It's the same as the alternative media that has risen to the fore --- to cover things that get attention and please the readers. Not all of this is positive, however.

The poster boy for this shift, Drudge, has fundamentally altered the nature of what constitutes a news story to the point that reporting on what the agenda-setters are saying is itself sufficient to justify coverage. Example: the Kerry intern scandal that went nowhere despite Drudge flogging it. If a mainstream politician had done what Drudge did there, or had directed it at Bush, you would have called him a character assassin and discounted all of his further statements as lies or worse. Instead, anything over a .500 batting average on accuracy, and the right thinks Drudge is a hero for printing things the NYT won't. Query whether new media like Drudge are using the "publisher" immunity in the CDA to print things that journalism has said for the past 500 years shouldn't be immunized.

As a person who thinks journalistic ethics should have at least the same force and effect as the ethics governing attorneys --- which of course don't include impartiality, but do involve fair play and responsibility for consequences --- I'm worried these alternative media sources don't seem to have developed a replacement scheme.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Most interesting aspect: At the beginning of the Swifties' thing, the mainstream media either totally refused to cover it, or, at best, mentioned that a lot of idiots were making dishonorable and baseless charges against Kerry, and that it reflected badly on Bush. Note the Kerry upswing during this period.

Then, when the non-mainstream media had been speaking of it for so long that the general public was getting the sense that "the NYT- et al are maybe pulling something here", and they had to actually cover things a bit more . . . er . . . fairly (in a relative sense, of course - still hasn't truly happened), you see the swing the other way.

I bet the Times et al crew are just pissed. They seem to be losing their monopoly.

Clearly, you have more confidence than do I in analyzing a chart of electoral votes (comprised of various state polls performed at different times, which adjust in big chunks based on a percentage point or two of variance) and attributing its movement over a couple of weeks to the gradual public awareness of the Swiftvets through non-traditional media, and the victories of non-traditional media over those stuffy liberal elitist media fucks. Well done.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Clearly, you have more confidence than do I in analyzing a chart of electoral votes (comprised of various state polls performed at different times, which adjust in big chunks based on a percentage point or two of variance) and attributing its movement over a couple of weeks to the gradual public awareness of the Swiftvets through non-traditional media, and the victories of non-traditional media over those stuffy liberal elitist media fucks. Well done.

Gatti, why do you always have to be such a skeptic? It's right there in the chart, between the lines . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
As a person who thinks journalistic ethics should have at least the same force and effect as the ethics governing attorneys --- which of course don't include impartiality, but do involve fair play and responsibility for consequences --- I'm worried these alternative media sources don't seem to have developed a replacement scheme.

Your points seem predicated on the assumption that any "bias" that we can discern in the main media is attributable to the vaguaries of story selection rules that foster larger audiences. I don't buy that. I think that, for the NYT and the LAT especially, and for a lot of others, the story selection rules, and the writing rules, and the level-of-proof-needed rules, are different based on whether a story serves a liberal agenda. I forget his name, but See the Newsweek guy, an avowed liberal, who, in a moment of candor, said "sure, most of us are very liberal, and will write to help Kerry, and we're probably worth fifteen points to him on that basis alone"? See the LAT editor's memo to his collegues some time back about their bias. I could go on and on - but what we are seeing is a concerted effort to foster one agenda and defeat the other. It's nothing so innocent as "oh, well, Swiftboat stories just don't meet our level or proof" - something quite easily discernable after three years of the many-many-story episode of "AWOL".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Clearly, you have more confidence than do I in analyzing a chart of electoral votes (comprised of various state polls performed at different times, which adjust in big chunks based on a percentage point or two of variance) and attributing its movement over a couple of weeks to the gradual public awareness of the Swiftvets through non-traditional media, and the victories of non-traditional media over those stuffy liberal elitist media fucks. Well done.

I'm certainly not going to pay a lot of attention to the specific numbers. But displayed gross trends, I think, are valid.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
If Bush loses, will he leave? Where would he go?

Vancouver.

Atticus, are you still driving?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Vancouver.

Atticus, are you still driving?

I think that's en route to the commune in Whistler, so if the guy pays his share of gas, I think Atticus can make room in the Eurovan.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four days ago, retired naval Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. seconded accusations made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam. But since then, Democrats have discovered that Schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.
...
Kerry has said Schachte was not on the boat that night, adding another mystery to the disputed events of 36 years ago. But other events are not in dispute. According to a March 18 legal filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists working for FastShip on issues such as the effort to win funding for a new marine cargo terminal. On Feb. 2, Philadelphia-based FastShip announced that it would receive $40 million in federal funding for the project.[also an interesting blurb further down about the different receptions for the Kerry and Bush progeny at the VMAs]

And it is Kerry's account, not Schachte's, that is backed up by the enlisted men on the Whaler that night...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...on_their_side/

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Your points seem predicated on the assumption that any "bias" that we can discern in the main media is attributable to the vaguaries of story selection rules that foster larger audiences. I don't buy that. I think that, for the NYT and the LAT especially, and for a lot of others, the story selection rules, and the writing rules, and the level-of-proof-needed rules, are different based on whether a story serves a liberal agenda. I forget his name, but See the Newsweek guy, an avowed liberal, who, in a moment of candor, said "sure, most of us are very liberal, and will write to help Kerry, and we're probably worth fifteen points to him on that basis alone"? See the LAT editor's memo to his collegues some time back about their bias. I could go on and on - but what we are seeing is a concerted effort to foster one agenda and defeat the other. It's nothing so innocent as "oh, well, Swiftboat stories just don't meet our level or proof" - something quite easily discernable after three years of the many-many-story episode of "AWOL".

You've mistaken me for a poster who believes that line reporters are neutral. They're not. They're leftist because they make $15K to perhaps $75K a year, and they're overeducated and feel underappreciated --- a classic recipe for liberal thought. This is the reason college professors are liberal: they do not personally experience that the market (as constituted) places an appropriate price on their contributions. "Reporters are leftist" has the same argumentative weight as "College students are leftist" or "Union workers are leftist." The right has done nothing in its policies to persuade the metropolitan college-educated low-earning demographic of which almost all reporters are members.

Ty's view (which I'm inclined to adopt) is that the corporations and high-level editors largely keep this instinct (mostly) in check, which certainly explains why the alternative weeklies (which are not owned by major for-profit corporations) are left of the metro dailies and newsmagazines. There are such things as right-wing metro dailies (though living where you live you might not know that) and right wing newsmagazines (as you well know). The right raises the hue and cry against media liberalism, all while maintaining its own outlets in that marketplace. The vast majority are analogous to comparing Bob Jones U. to Amherst, though --- say what you will, you're going to send your kid to Amherst just the same way you're going to watch the mainstream news rather than read Newsmax.com or listen to Rush. It's the hell of being an intellectual conservative. After you read the NRO and the Weekly Standard, are you going to delve deeper into the mass consumer market for rightwing media?

Shit, my overeducated reactionary sister-in-law, after finishing the National Review and the Weekly Standard and Crisis and the American Rifleman, still reaches for the Utne Reader and Harper's and the Atlantic. That's because when she's done reading the agenda-driven journalism of the right, she's either hungry for the agenda-driven journalism of the left, or, more likely just some stories written by guys who can write well about interesting things.

Drudge and most of the online neocon stuff has the journalistic depth of a gossip column. "Look what I found!" They leave the analysis and fact-checking to reputable journalists on both sides of the aisle. Meanwhile, much of America thinks the story is about the story-breaking.