How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Gingrich - the next target   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Gingrich - the next target

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 12-10-2011 04:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I see. Bush's record of drinking in college was given a lot of coverage by the press and Democrats. Obama's self- admitted about taking drugs in college was given almost none. Obama's dealing with Resko should have been open to a lot of investigation. It wasn't touched. His details of his buying of the Chicago house should have been discussed. It was ignored. His associations with past terrorists should have been given coverage. It wasn't. Bush was called unqualified for only being a governor for two terms of the largest state in the continental U.S. Obama's lack of qualifications was ignored. Every negative point about him was ignored or swept under the carpet. Without a doubt, those points attached to a republican candidate would have been front page news and yet Obama was given a pass on all of them. You know that. Everyone knows that, whether they want to admit it or not. That's fine but don't talk to me about equal scrutiny for all, please. It ain't so....

Republicans are targeted by the mainstream media, whether they are candidates or elected. Democrats are given free passes. That's just the way it is.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


26 posted 12-14-2011 02:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I don't know, this seems to be an article of faith that is difficult to tamper with.  I don't happen to agree with it.  I think one might easily build a case either way, though  it would be unpleasant to air it.  Rather than go into it in depth, a few low points might include some of President Reagan's passes from the press around Iran/Contra, some of his gaffes around our relationships with the right wing in Germany (praise for the SS left me a bit cold), and the fairly crass dealing with the Iranians around the timing of the release of the American prisoners.

     The suggestion that Dr. Gingrich might be an acceptable candidate for president seems to be a bit odd, given the way he was forced out of power by his fellow Republicans, and the suggestion that he might not be a candidate that the Democrats wouldn't find it a relief to face next year seems a bit odd.  Dr. Gingrich has enough problems with Republicans who remember him from his days in congress; he needs to get past them first before he has to worry about something so distant as the Democrats.  

     The Republicans have a problem because they don't have enough Republicans who can stomach any of their candidates to come to a clear decision at this point as to who might be more popular that Mr. Romney.  And Mr. Romney has substantial problems with finding enough conservative Republicans who will actually believe his conservative credentials.  I'm not sure what I believe about him myself in the same way that I feel uncertain about President Obama's political posture or backbone.

     The Republicans need an actual candidate of substance that they can pretty much all agree is a candidate of substance that represents Real republican values, whatever they believe they happen to be at this time.  I don't know whether anybody left in the field represents such a person from my point of view, but my point of view is naturally quite biased.

     More importantly, I see no evidence that the Republicans themselves have found a candidate to rally around, one they most of them can trust and support.  

     Don't blame the Democrats for that.  I wish we were powerful enough to accomplish something like that.  If we were, maybe we could accomplish a consistent Democratic Legislative agenda instead of being thwarted at every turn.  It doesn't really make sense that we're so strong and devious as to be able to accomplish the one, and so unorganized and weak that we fail to accomplish the other, now, does it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 12-14-2011 08:43 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No one is blaming Democrats for Republicans not having a strong candidate to rally around. That's the Republican's fault and I blame them solely for that. They allowed Obama to get elected in the first place for the same reason.

What I am blaming them on is (1) the sleaziness of their attacks on any Republicans that may present a challenge to them and (2) the way they use the eager and willing mainstream press to be their accomplices.

I feel confident that, if God himself were the Republican candidate, The Democrats and nightly news would bring up the killing of thousands of first-born babies, the "eye for an eye" philosophy, and the allowing of his Son to be born in less than sanitary (or stable) conditions by a woman claiming to never have messed around, as if anyone would buy that story. Further investigation would produce several men who would swear that Mary had been known to enjoy the taste of the grape and they "might have" had affairs with her. Dan Rather would be brought out of exile to interview these stalwart citizens.

There are plenty of things wrong with ALL candidates and little need to go around inventing more and using insinuation techniques in attempts to influence public opinion.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


28 posted 12-14-2011 09:50 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


No one is blaming Democrats for Republicans not having a strong candidate to rally around. That's the Republican's fault and I blame them solely for that. They allowed Obama to get elected in the first place for the same reason.

What I am blaming them on is (1) the sleaziness of their attacks on any Republicans that may present a challenge to them and (2) the way they use the eager and willing mainstream press to be their accomplices.

I feel confident that, if God himself were the Republican candidate, The Democrats and nightly news would bring up the killing of thousands of first-born babies, the "eye for an eye" philosophy, and the allowing of his Son to be born in less than sanitary (or stable) conditions by a woman claiming to never have messed around, as if anyone would buy that story. Further investigation would produce several men who would swear that Mary had been known to enjoy the taste of the grape and they "might have" had affairs with her. Dan Rather would be brought out of exile to interview these stalwart citizens.

There are plenty of things wrong with ALL candidates and little need to go around inventing more and using insinuation techniques in attempts to influence public opinion.




     Well, there are plenty of things wrong with all the candidates, Mike; but this is a Republican on Republican discussion, isn't it?  The media are reporting what everybody's saying, yes, but the majority of the criticism's still what the Republicans have to say about themselves.
Nobody has to make things up about any of these guys, Democrats or Republicans to make a telling comment.

     I don't want to go over the various things folks have said about Republican candidates, but there's really not much need to slant any of it in the fairly clever way you slanted the Christmas Story.  The point is well taken as well:  Anything the least bit critical one says about an icon to a true believer will be wounding.  Language is difficult to find that is kind enough or soothing enough, even when an attempt to do so is made.

     There are no Republican candidates that at this point appear to me to present a viable challenge to President Obama.  There may well be further on.  There may also be third party challenges that could tip the balance seriously further on in that election; it is by no means a done deal.  To my mind it would be a better Democratic move to try to offer covert support to whichever Republican candidate will most likely appeal to the most conservative of the Republican base, because they would likely throw a larger number of Independants to the Democrats during the General election.  Trying to knock off a weak candidate would only be helpful for the Republicans in the long run.  That's my perhaps overthought and over-devious thinking on the matter.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 12-14-2011 11:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

but this is a Republican on Republican discussion, isn't it? - BobK

Actually, no, Bob. As I said in post #2..

The question is not whether or not they have negative baggage....they all do. The question is how much and how it will be portrayed by the media.

The discussion is how negative Democrat issues are given a pass by the media and how negative Republican issues are jumped on by the same media, who take their marching orders from Democrats.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


30 posted 12-15-2011 02:44 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


The discussion is how negative Democrat issues are given a pass by the media and how negative Republican issues are jumped on by the same media, who take their marching orders from Democrats.



     We Democrats tend to make the same complaints about the press being more or less unduly influenced by the Republicans, Mike.  You may remember conversations about some of the Republican talk show hosts, about the Washington Times and some of the publications I've mentioned that don't research their facts or  that cherry-pick them or take them out of context.

     My opinion is that it is not such an even playing field as such a description might indicate, however.  When politicians screw up seriously, I believe the press is pretty much there no matter which side the politician is on.  They were on Gary Hart for his foolishness in daring the press to catch him in an affair, for example.  They were on LBJ for his refusal to to listen to the protesters, even though he was one of the great liberal voices of his time.  They were on Jimmy Carter for trying to deal with oil and human rights, and I think dealt with the man badly.  They certainly gave him a very hard time for all sorts of reasons.  Clinton was roundly criticized for his morals and his politics from both sides of the aisle, and certainly in the press, who were all over him.

     That some would have wished that the criticism would have been more severe in the case of all these democrats seems fooish to me.  In some cases, the criticism was career ending, and in almost all cases it was serious and it was based on  — in the case of the major media — based as much on solid information as they could get it.  The fact that some of the information may have been distorted came out later, and was reported by these papers as well.

     I don't see that the treatment the Republicans had was all that more damaging except that some of the allegations the Republicans made were more patently false.  The number of voters registered that shouldn't have been registered is apparently very small, though the Republicans have whipped up a large amnount of hysteria on the subject.  The actual number of qualified voters thrown off the rolls, on the other hand, is fairly high, and is disproportionately composed of minorities who tend to vote for the Democrats.  The number of these were very high in Florida prior to the 2000 election according to Greg Pallast, and he suggests that that was also the case in a number of other swing states as well.

     It was very difficult to get much coverage for that story here in the United States, in direct contrast to the suggestion that Mike was making, which was that anti-Republican stories were given lots of air time and print inches.  Were Mike correct, you'd find things working out the other way around.  Were Mike correct, you'd find the stories coming from England about the lies worked out between the English Government and the Bush administration about yellow cake Uranium and aluminum tubing would get wall to wall coverage here.  They did not.  They were scarcely reported.

     I can't say that I think the American Press is the best in the world.  I don't believe it is.  I do believe that the view that Mike is suggesting is true, that there is national press plot to dis the Republicans and please the Democrats, is straightforwardly in contrast with the facts.

     Were this true, I, as a Democrat, would be pleased with with way the Press deals with my party, and I'm not; and I would be pleased with the way that the press deals with Republicans, and I'm not.

     Among the many assumptions in the suggestion that the Democrats give the Press their marching orders would have to be that there is a Democratic point of position that seems firm enough to issue orders from.  I'd be curious what that position might me, and look forward to hearing what the common position is that issues the orders that hold together the common positions of these publications.

     In fact, I'd be pleased to hear what those common positions might be, especially in language concrete enough to cover general editorial policy of these information sources.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 12-15-2011 03:46 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The discussion is how negative Democrat issues are given a pass by the media and how negative Republican issues are jumped on by the same media, who take their marching orders from Democrats.



For example?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 12-15-2011 10:46 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:


Rick Perry received the most favorable coverage of any candidate for president during the first five months of the race, but now Herman Cain is enjoying that distinction, according to a new survey which combines traditional research methods and computer algorithmic technology to code the level and tone of news coverage.

Perry lost the mantle of the candidate enjoying the most favorable treatment to Herman Cain two weeks ago, after the Florida straw poll in which Cain scored a surprise victory. Meanwhile, though he has often led in the polls, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has received less coverage and less positive coverage than the shifting casts of frontrunners -- and that remains true even now. He ranks second in the amount of attention received, and the tone of that narrative has been unwaveringly mixed.

One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone.

These are some of the findings of the study, which combines PEJ's ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. The report introduces a new research tool for the Pew Research Center, which will continue to track the level and tone of coverage of the candidates throughout the campaign.

The study includes sections on each of 10 GOP figures as well as the president. It also contains a separate analysis of blogs. In that sphere, Ron Paul, the least covered candidate in the news, is the most favored contender.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2116/media-primary-news-coverage-blogs-republican-presidential-race-barack-obama-rick--perry-herman-cain



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 12-15-2011 05:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Interesting link, Reb, but fairly worthless. First of all, in politics where one can hear Dinah Washington singing, "What a Difference a day Makes" in the background, bringing up an article over two months old doesn't mean a lot. Perry got favorable treatment. Cain got favorable treatment. Ok...so what's happened since? Perry is now considered to be a bumbling fool and Cain, a serial masher now out of the campaign. If I wanted anything to prove my point, your link does it nicely. It also doesn't specify where this positive or negative coverage is coming from so it's a little difficult to point out what network news is doing it, doesn't it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 12-15-2011 06:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Examples? Well, we can go ahead and leave out Clinton, which would take a book. John Edwards? Mainstream media completely downplayed him until The National Inquirer and other news agencies brought it to the attention of the people and, even then, they touched it only lightly. COmpare his coverage to that of Cain's, where bankrupt women show up with expensive lawyers, speaking of how they really like Cain and are only coming forward to save his soul. THAT gets a lot of attention. Edwards saying he had no contact with the woman whose hotel room we was found in at 3 a.m. didn't even get asked about that discrepancy.  Gore and his involvement in in the Swedish car company reaping millions thanks to murky behind the scenes governmental dealings. Bob brings up Gary Hart. Ok, if we are going into ancient history, JFK, quite possibly the greatest feminine rover of all times and the author of Viet Nam was made a hero of the country. Bush criticized for drinking in college and Obama ignored for using drugs. Bush was barbequed for the cost of Afghanistan while no one has mentioned that, under Obama, Defense Dep't spending in Afghanistan has increased by 50% and troop strength has doubled. Bush blasted for Gitmo and noone saying a word or mentioning Gitmo under Obama, even though he promised to close it 2 years ago. Bush blasted for the Patriot Act while, under Obama, a law passing that will allow citizens to be arrested and held without any charges whatsoever.

....and on and on and on....

As my old high school history teacher used to say, "If you have to ask for examples, you ain't been paying attention."
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


35 posted 12-15-2011 10:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If you have examples Mike, then, you disprove your own point.  The only real question is what does 'giving them a pass' mean?  

The information is available,  what further information do you have that the public doesn't?  What your real complaint seems to be is that in spite of the information, voters don't vote the way you want them to. Or, conversely, because of the information, voters don't vote the way you want them to.  

Your complaints about Afghanastan for instance, are that Obama did there, exactly what he said he was going to do during his campaign for the presidency.  We all seem privy to the information don't we?  If your complaint is that liberals aren't complaining about it, then you're dead wrong.  They are and have been.

I have a friend, a conservative, who, like me, has been watching 'The Walking Dead' on AMC.  He got angry this season because he said the show is just liberal anti- gun propaganda.  Why?  Because a child was shot in a hunting accident and one of the survivors was a victim of friendly fire when someone mistook him for a zombie because he was limping after having been injured.

Of course, his premise is laughable because the entire ability of the survivors to keep from being eaten by the zombies depends on them having guns and being able to shoot them in the head.  It is a culture entirely dependent upon guns.

JFK doesn't count, neither does Eisenhower's daliances, because in that era, when the world was young and misogynist, those things just weren't discussed in the media because it was 'off limits' and just something men did.

Gary Hart is the very best belweather because ut predates the bligosphere, the rise of Fox News, and should be representative of the so-called liberal media in it's heyday.... yet.... if it was truly a liberal media, it certainly didn't seem to mind eating its' Hart out, did it?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 12-15-2011 11:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

What does "giving them a pass" mean? I gave enough examples. John Edwards is a perfect one. If you don't want to accept them, that's up to you.

"The information is available"? Sure, it is. The mainstream media, along with the others, is supposed to present it. It doesn't, or tones it down in a way to make it look less important.

Just take a look at the difference between the way the Tea Party and the Occupy groups are displayed. With the Occupiers, you have a movement in which crimes were committed, private property destroyed, rapes and theft occuring, and mobs prevented regular employees from getting to work. With the tea party you have someone who may or may not have spit at a congressman and someone who may or may not have used a racial slur. With the Occupiers you had people who freely confessed they didn't even know what their goals were....and yet if you look at mainstream media's coverage, the Occupiers are the ones to get favorable press and passes while the Tea Parties are presented as the unAmerican rabble rousers. Whether you care to admit it or not, Reb, I think you know that, if the Tea Party had been a Democrat movement and the Occupiers a Republican one, the coverage would have been completely different.

That's just the way it is....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 12-16-2011 12:10 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     Mike, LR seemed to  have restated your thesis neatly a few posts back, using your own words to do so:

quote:

The discussion is how negative Democrat issues are given a pass by the media and how negative Republican issues are jumped on by the same media, who take their marching orders from Democrats.



     While the form of the case is stated in the present tense — this is what is happening NOW — and you are correct in talking about the fact that you are trying to prove or disprove the truth of something that is happening NOW, sadly  the only evidence available for consideration is in the past.  It is in the near past or the distant past.   Even if it is happening as you write the news of your example down, it’s history by the time anybody reads it.

     Any example that’s real seems appropriate, doesn’t it?

     Any scandal that you know about is a scandal that hit the press.  I wasn’t particularly interested in Kennedy’s affairs because I was caught up in the illusion of Camelot at the time, and the press was interested in selling that; just as many of them knew about Kate Sommersby during World War Two with Ike and thought that it was more important to sell the notion of Ike and Mamie Eisenhower waiting for each other, same as all the other soldiers were, for their girls back home.  That was the story; the media sold it.  Same as FDR and the degree of his disability from polio — more of a story than his affairs, to my mind, though possibly not to the minds of others.

quote:

Examples? Well, we can go ahead and leave out Clinton, which would take a book. John Edwards? Mainstream media completely downplayed him until The National Inquirer and other news agencies brought it to the attention of the people and, even then, they touched it only lightly. COmpare his coverage to that of Cain's,



     Pardon me?  We can leave out Clinton?  Please tell me I am not included in that we, since you are definitely not speaking for me, or for a substantial number of other Americans when you come up with a corker of a statement like that one. There is a reason that this apparent non-event would fill the book you mention.  Many of us believe it disproves notions such as yours entirely.  The fact that the Major Media picked up a story from The National Inquirer and ran with it suggests that the facts won out over the reputation for sleaziness the source has had to bear for years.  Were your assertion true, the story would have appeared in that paper and died there with all the Hitler lives in Argentina:  His Brain Has Been Transplanted into A Transvestite Named Phyllis stories.  Instead, it was picked up and investigated and reported on.  I wish it hadn’t happened; it was as distasteful as some of the Gingrich stories, which were also followed up on.

     Coverage on either situation was substantially broader than that of Cain; and the coverage of Cain had more of a comic quality than anything else.  

     I don’t know who has more negative issues.  If you believe that the press covers more Republican negative issues there are several possible reasons for that.  One would be that the press is biased.  Another might be that there are more negative issues attached to the Republican Party, and that the Republicans are trying to blame the messengers for the news that they’re reporting.  Now that I see the quality of the news that Republican biased news organizations report, it seems to me that the later is true,

     If I were a Republican based news organization, I’d want to print the truth and the true stories behind the news and give the actual facts that are apparently being suppressed by the media that still appears to stand as the media of record.  My comments on the various stories printed by Fox news and the various flaws in their research have appeared here now for several years.  My complaints about the various statements of our last Vice President and the lack of truthfulness in them — and many of these statements about Iraq and El Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction were reported by Fox as the truth — were later disavowed by President Bush himself.

     I could go on, but I need to do some stuff about the house.

     In the interests of reality, such things happen to Democrats as well.

     I would also like to know what proof there is that  any major publication takes its marching orders from the democrats, and I’d be interested in knowing the sources of such allegations.  I find them a touch far fetched.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


38 posted 12-16-2011 02:10 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I think John Edwards is a great example.  
Let's take that one and compare it to your subject Newt.

Edwards cheated on his wife while battling cancer.  Gingrich cheated on his wife while battling cancer and served her divorce papers while she was in the hospital.  What's Edwards doing now?  What's Newt doing now?  

It's not a matter of the press giving a 'pass' that's bothering you... it's about voters.  Your Republican voters are the ones that are, according to polling, giving
Newt a pass.  It's the Republican establisment that's barbecueing Newt, like the National Review and George Will, for example.  

When you talk about GW drinking in college (he must have been in college a reallllllly long time btw) and Obama's self disclosed drug use, what's the real difference?  Or Limbaugh's drug addled brain?  It's not about the information, or the sources, its about what the people do with that information, and one would think the so- called 'family values' voters would be more interested in intemperance and infidelity, but where's Newt?  Where's Edwards? Where's Rush?

I have to laugh now........

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (12-16-2011 02:55 AM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


39 posted 12-16-2011 06:52 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Madame Newt is probably postponing his affinity for cross-dressing at bender parties until after 2012. Edwards is still having trouble keeping his pants on. And Rush is probably in flip flops, a pair of Speedos, and (my mind begs) a cabana robe--ready for a swim at his posh sanctuary in West Palm Beach.

In the history of government, I've not seen operations focus on balanced or fair. It appears to be more of a "Who's on First," type of strategy. The media reflects that and I'm not sure why anyone would argue fairness within the spectrum of media. It's always has been malleable and I don't know how one would go about leveling the field without losing important elements to the nature of information.

"Million Dollar Babies," is a good example movie about government manipulation paired with the free media of the (Great Depression) times. Newspapers, radio, and circus side shows. Things haven't changed, much. Have they
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 12-16-2011 08:15 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

When you talk about GW drinking in college (he must have been in college a reallllllly long time btw) and Obama's self disclosed drug use, what's the real difference?

None, really. Oh, one could get picky and say the drug use was a little different because it was illegal, but why go there? The difference was in the reporting of it in the mainstream media. They had a pretty good time of it with Bush, I recall, and I hadn't seen more that a sentence at most of a quote by Obama that he engaged in that illegal act....but why be picky, right?

My turn to do the laughing
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 12-16-2011 08:19 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  Pardon me?  We can leave out Clinton?  


Bob, you misunderstood the meaning of my sentence. I meant we can leave out Clinton because I'm not taking 6 or seven hours to go through the accusations of all the gals, the rape attempt, the lying to congress and the American people, etc, etc. No need to do it since it is well-known what happened there, even among Democrats.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


42 posted 12-16-2011 08:25 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

No Mike, you still don't get it.  The difference is in the constituency, not the reporting.

Letterman, Jim Baker.  What's the difference?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 12-16-2011 11:14 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, den, you don't get it. The difference is I'm the reporting. You underestimate what slanted reporting, or lack of reporting, can do and how it can influence.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


44 posted 12-16-2011 11:26 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh, I'm completely informed about the results of slanted reporting :

quote:

A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed.  In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 12-16-2011 03:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I hope I don't have nightmares about Rush in a speedo.....thanks Reg...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


46 posted 12-16-2011 04:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Gee, a poll conducted by a university professor condemning Fox news....shocking....not.

That's why Fox is the most watched news program. People have this wild urge to be uninformed.

Spare me, please
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


47 posted 12-16-2011 05:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thank you, RWood.  Well said and straightforward.

     Mike, I know that it was the booze that was publicized for Bush minimus, but I believe the coke abuse was mostly kept fairly quiet.  I think, by the way, if you weren't doing drugs and you were going to school during that time period, you weren't paying attention.  I think there is some difference between taking the drugs and having an addiction to them, however, which is what the papers were reporting.

     If you think that occasional drug use in college is a problem that should keep a person out of office, once you have that information, you should vote accordingly.  That would apply to President Obama as well as President Bush.  An actual addiction provides a greater risk for a decision maker in office, however, and I've never seen information that President Obama was addicted to anything but cigarettes.  Alcohol addiction and barbiturate addiction, by way of contrast, have a level of lethality associated with their withdrawal syndromes one doesn't tend to find in cigarettes.  Nor, as I understand it, to pot.

     In other words, the downside of alcoholism is substantially higher, and the public has a more urgent right to know.  In President Bush's case, this proved not to be a block to his election any more than President Obama's college drug use proved to be a block to his election.  Should the public have felt a marvelous curiosity about President Obama's drug use, I'm reasonably certain the news would have been forthcoming.  I can understand that everybody might not agree with me on that, but we have the Clinton experience to go by.

     Despite the massive coverage of President Clinton's issues and the reasonably minor coverage of any exculpatory material, the man's popularity kept growing through the entire fiasco.  While Mr. Gore lost  (according to the supremes) to President Bush, I don't know that the election would have had the same outcome had President Clinton been able to run for a third term.  I don't know of any way of checking that out, either; but it seems entirely possible to me that Clinton might have won.

     The issue here as far as press coverage goes seems to me to be that the Republicans have put themselves in the position of running on values they can't live up to in terms of family values, sexual behavior and morality; and when they fail, they look like worse people than they are.  Rush Limbaugh would only have looked like a man with an unfortunate drug problem, for example, had he not made such draconian suggestions about how addicts ought to be treated.  As a result of his overblown stance, he is not only a man with a drug issue — which deserves sympathy and treatment and only after other measures have been exhausted some sort of legal intervention — he now also looks like a hypocrite  and has reaped the whirlwind, so to speak.

     There are a significant number of other Republican scandals that follow this model.  These folks have made themselves news by following the classic man bites dog formula.  To have a reprobate do something sleazy is not news; to have a man who holds himself up as a moral exemplar do something sleazy is news.  To blame the media for reporting the news only makes the sleaze factor appear more ripe and pustulant.

     The Democrats are fully capable of being as bad in terms of personal behavior, but for Democrats, to be gay is not the end of the world, to have been divorced is not wonderful but need not be fatal, and to be other than completely religious is forgivable.  On the other hand, to be photographed having lunch with an oil executive may well be occasion for some fancy dancing.

     There are some fates too horrible to be discussed in polite company.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


48 posted 12-16-2011 05:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

That's why Fox is the most watched news program. People have this wild urge to be uninformed.



     I think you probably mean to suggest there is some connection between the first sentence and the second sentence.  For many years the National Inquirer was the best selling newspaper.  Since they have become more concerned with accuracy in at least some of their reporting, they may not be faring so well.  People do so love a good story, they're often willing to overlook things like reality to follow along.

     And Fox so often presents its entertainment in the form of things that appear to be news programs that it can be difficult at times to tell the difference.

     Most watched does not equate with most accurate.  Timex may make one of the most popular brands of timepiece, but that doesn't make it the most accurate or the best.  It's one of the watches many people in this country can afford and it's commonly accepted as good enough.

     In the case of Fox, the question to my mind is "Good enough for what?"
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


49 posted 12-16-2011 06:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Fox news has a first amendment right to lie or deliberately distort news reports.

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Gingrich - the next target   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors