No live, there is no spin. The entirety of the liberal media admits the obvious that Obama lost badly in this debate. Much of what Romney said was bullshit, but he said it with absolute conviction and Obama challenged none of it. If there is anyone out there still really undecided who was honestly looking to the debate to be the way they found a measurable difference between these two, then life is good for Romney because these people likely aren't smart enough to figure out how full of shit he was.
Government support for PBS is less than 1/100 of 1% of the national budget. The remark itself and the attention being paid to it are both inane at best.
The theory behind PBS is to serve the community which it does. When taking tax dollars from all tax payers shouldn't their broadcasts be non-partisan in nature?
Max is right. There is no spin. The MSNBC crew are mostly Obama supporters and they were all upset and honest about how much Obama sucked at the debate. They were brutal in their assessment - probably even more so than the righties.
There is a difference between being biased and being factual. You can also be both at the same time. I'll give the MSNBCers credit for that.
The media is biased. They report the news they choose to report and what they perceive as important. Fox leans right while CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC lean left. That's easily seen with the response to the debate outcome by each source. It's easy to see the bias. Bias is not just the slant but the absence of news.
Unbiased? BBC, Aljazeera for world news, national read both sides of the story.
My only point, Lou, was that being biased doesn't necessarily preclude being factual.
Our media is biased toward ratings, money, and whatever agenda their corporate overlords are trying to pimp. Any lefty or righty slant is just the sales pitch used to get us to eat the poop sandwich.
And you're absolutely right. To your point, FOX may cover a "news" topic like gay marriage from a righty slant and MSNBC from the left, the real news (deaths in Iraq, international economic warfare, etc.) still goes mostly unreported. In the meantime, ExxonMobil still advertises on both networks and both networks rake in a boatload of cash.
While we love to bitch about the "biased", worthless media, we rarely take any of the responsibility for it on ourselves.
We allowed it to happen. We demand coverage of Wiener's wiener, or Casey Anthony, or Snooki, or whatever the almost-news topic du jour is.
Or, in the arena of politics, we actively seek "news" that reinforces our own biases. We clamor for it, they feed it to us, and we devour it with a big ol' smile on our fat faces. What does it say about us that we only seek "news" that we agree with? Does that even count as "news"?
"Unbiased? BBC, Aljazeera for world news, national read both sides of the story."
Agreed.
I would, however, warn against seeking balance for balance's sake - a trap I think a lot of news orgs fall into to appear fair and unbiased. Some stories actually only have one side. Some may have 12. It's just as dishonest feign fairness for appearance.
It's also damaging to lend credibility to a ridiculous point of view because a few loud nutjobs may hold it. It shouldn't be falsely presented as something that's debatable. Example - just because there are a few idiots who believe in the "Stork Theory" of human reproduction doesn't mean that their views deserve equal weight in a discussion about Sex Ed in our public schools.
There's nothing wrong with calling something silly that is silly, or calling a liar a liar if you have real facts to support it. And in these instances being biased, as long as you're factual, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Nice points there Pfunky. I especially agree with the consolidation of our news outlets into a few corporate hands. The variety in news basically comes down to style and presentation, but not the stories themselves.
Bill Hicks wrote the following:
"All of this is the very essence of the Hologram. It wasn't created overnight, and it actually took the media moguls several decades to perfect it to the point where it now effectively stifles all opposition or even serious protest. These days, you can pretty much assume that anything you see on television is at a minimum being placed there as distraction. The truth is still allowed to be disseminated on the Internet and occasionally in print because those of us who actually read and are capable of critical thinking are such a tiny, atomized minority of the population. The truth of the matter is that the Hologram has grown so powerful that it can now, as Simon Doonan himself admits at the beginning of his article, overwhelm the critical faculties of anyone who has not completely removed him or herself from its influence. Yes, Simon, the truth is out here, but you've got to shut off the goddamned television once in awhile if you really want to see it."
Read more here: http://billhicksisdead.blogspot.com/2012/05/slate-magazine-discovers-idiocracy-but.html
The state of our modern culture continues to reinforce my contention that the movie "Idiocracy" should be considered prophecy. Here is a quote from a reporter covering a trial in the movie:
"Well, it started off boring and slow, with Not Sure trying to bullshit everyone with a bunch of smart talk: '"Blah blah blah. You gotta believe me!"' That part of the trial sucked! But then the Chief J. just went off. He said, '"Man, whatever! The guy's guilty as shit! We all know that."' And he sentenced his ass to one night of rehabilitation." - Formica Davis
The definition of bias is not only misreporting the news but also the slant of reporting and the lack of reporting of the news. The MSM is notorious for non reporting and slanting the news to the left, Fox news excluded. Fox is unique as they do slant the news to the right however they tend to report all of the news.
Sesame Street is profitable and will survive without the Government.
So you don't want to cut PBS? Where do you want to cut? We've already cut 500 Billion in defense. Another $500 Billion is coming.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are off the table according to Dems.
Taxes are going up big time, you can't just increase taxes. So what services are you going to cut. Mitt was just giving an example of the types of things that are not necessary for the running of our Government.
500 billion and another 500 billion coming? That seems like an awful lot of money to take out of the economy during one of the biggest downturns in our economy since the great depression. It makes me wondered how these cuts are figured. The total budget for defense is less than $700 billion.
It seems like we always get a lot of tough talk about government spending around election time, but the realities of this Great Oz we've built get dumped on these folks soon after they assume office. Expect no great difference in direction, no matter who is elected prez.
"Sesame Street is profitable and will survive without the Government." What an extraordinary statement. Here in Australia we thought Sesame Street was the Government.
500 billion now 500 billion later. 1 trillion dollars in cuts. That's over 10 years. translated into 100 billion a year.
Everyone thinks that SS,Medicare and Medicaid are untouchable. Today they are, consuming 40 % of all Federal Tax revenue. Add in The cost of the PPACA and soon there will be no choice but to restructure and cut services. Those that deny that fact are being and dishonest or live in another world as those that say the debt doesn't matter.
I think that over a long period, we can transition out of Social Security as is (government-accessible), rather than continuing to fix it, which has been the case since its inception.
Jean, Yes we could however the politicians put the fear into Seniors at every election, candidate x wants to take your SS and kill your medicare. So here we are, broken, bankrupted systems that cost more each year. It doesn't help when the President cuts Social Security in half to try and stimulate the economy pushing SS further in the red. That little tax cut cost the general fund 250billion in the last 2 years.
That SS cut IS bothersome, but then, I guess the clowns in DC couldn't think of any way to cut taxes without being criticized for not cutting them for those who pay little to none in the first place.
Never really cared for da' big skinny legged yellow capon myself ... figured him for a woosie from the git go. :)
ReplyDeleteNo live, there is no spin. The entirety of the liberal media admits the obvious that Obama lost badly in this debate. Much of what Romney said was bullshit, but he said it with absolute conviction and Obama challenged none of it. If there is anyone out there still really undecided who was honestly looking to the debate to be the way they found a measurable difference between these two, then life is good for Romney because these people likely aren't smart enough to figure out how full of shit he was.
ReplyDeleteMax,
DeleteI guess you don't like Romney?
Jean
Serve him with mashed potatoes and cream gravy...
ReplyDeleteGovernment support for PBS is less than 1/100 of 1% of the national budget. The remark itself and the attention being paid to it are both inane at best.
ReplyDeleteBingo.
DeleteThe theory behind PBS is to serve the community which it does. When taking tax dollars from all tax payers shouldn't their broadcasts be non-partisan in nature?
DeleteIouman,
DeleteSome ideologies are more equal than others.
Jean
You can be biased and factual.
ReplyDeleteMax is right. There is no spin. The MSNBC crew are mostly Obama supporters and they were all upset and honest about how much Obama sucked at the debate. They were brutal in their assessment - probably even more so than the righties.
There is a difference between being biased and being factual. You can also be both at the same time. I'll give the MSNBCers credit for that.
The media is biased. They report the news they choose to report and what they perceive as important. Fox leans right while CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC lean left. That's easily seen with the response to the debate outcome by each source. It's easy to see the bias. Bias is not just the slant but the absence of news.
DeleteUnbiased? BBC, Aljazeera for world news, national read both sides of the story.
My only point, Lou, was that being biased doesn't necessarily preclude being factual.
DeleteOur media is biased toward ratings, money, and whatever agenda their corporate overlords are trying to pimp. Any lefty or righty slant is just the sales pitch used to get us to eat the poop sandwich.
And you're absolutely right. To your point, FOX may cover a "news" topic like gay marriage from a righty slant and MSNBC from the left, the real news (deaths in Iraq, international economic warfare, etc.) still goes mostly unreported. In the meantime, ExxonMobil still advertises on both networks and both networks rake in a boatload of cash.
While we love to bitch about the "biased", worthless media, we rarely take any of the responsibility for it on ourselves.
We allowed it to happen. We demand coverage of Wiener's wiener, or Casey Anthony, or Snooki, or whatever the almost-news topic du jour is.
Or, in the arena of politics, we actively seek "news" that reinforces our own biases. We clamor for it, they feed it to us, and we devour it with a big ol' smile on our fat faces. What does it say about us that we only seek "news" that we agree with? Does that even count as "news"?
"Unbiased? BBC, Aljazeera for world news, national read both sides of the story."
Agreed.
I would, however, warn against seeking balance for balance's sake - a trap I think a lot of news orgs fall into to appear fair and unbiased. Some stories actually only have one side. Some may have 12. It's just as dishonest feign fairness for appearance.
It's also damaging to lend credibility to a ridiculous point of view because a few loud nutjobs may hold it. It shouldn't be falsely presented as something that's debatable. Example - just because there are a few idiots who believe in the "Stork Theory" of human reproduction doesn't mean that their views deserve equal weight in a discussion about Sex Ed in our public schools.
There's nothing wrong with calling something silly that is silly, or calling a liar a liar if you have real facts to support it. And in these instances being biased, as long as you're factual, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Nice points there Pfunky. I especially agree with the consolidation of our news outlets into a few corporate hands. The variety in news basically comes down to style and presentation, but not the stories themselves.
DeleteBill Hicks wrote the following:
"All of this is the very essence of the Hologram. It wasn't created overnight, and it actually took the media moguls several decades to perfect it to the point where it now effectively stifles all opposition or even serious protest. These days, you can pretty much assume that anything you see on television is at a minimum being placed there as distraction. The truth is still allowed to be disseminated on the Internet and occasionally in print because those of us who actually read and are capable of critical thinking are such a tiny, atomized minority of the population. The truth of the matter is that the Hologram has grown so powerful that it can now, as Simon Doonan himself admits at the beginning of his article, overwhelm the critical faculties of anyone who has not completely removed him or herself from its influence. Yes, Simon, the truth is out here, but you've got to shut off the goddamned television once in awhile if you really want to see it."
Read more here: http://billhicksisdead.blogspot.com/2012/05/slate-magazine-discovers-idiocracy-but.html
The state of our modern culture continues to reinforce my contention that the movie "Idiocracy" should be considered prophecy. Here is a quote from a reporter covering a trial in the movie:
"Well, it started off boring and slow, with Not Sure trying to bullshit everyone with a bunch of smart talk: '"Blah blah blah. You gotta believe me!"' That part of the trial sucked! But then the Chief J. just went off. He said, '"Man, whatever! The guy's guilty as shit! We all know that."' And he sentenced his ass to one night of rehabilitation." - Formica Davis
The definition of bias is not only misreporting the news but also the slant of reporting and the lack of reporting of the news.
DeleteThe MSM is notorious for non reporting and slanting the news to the left, Fox news excluded. Fox is unique as they do slant the news to the right however they tend to report all of the news.
Sesame Street is profitable and will survive without the Government.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't want to cut PBS? Where do you want to cut? We've already cut 500 Billion in defense. Another $500 Billion is coming.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are off the table according to Dems.
Taxes are going up big time, you can't just increase taxes. So what services are you going to cut. Mitt was just giving an example of the types of things that are not necessary for the running of our Government.
500 billion and another 500 billion coming? That seems like an awful lot of money to take out of the economy during one of the biggest downturns in our economy since the great depression. It makes me wondered how these cuts are figured. The total budget for defense is less than $700 billion.
DeleteIt seems like we always get a lot of tough talk about government spending around election time, but the realities of this Great Oz we've built get dumped on these folks soon after they assume office. Expect no great difference in direction, no matter who is elected prez.
"Sesame Street is profitable and will survive without the Government."
DeleteWhat an extraordinary statement. Here in Australia we thought Sesame Street was the Government.
Cheers from Aussie
500 billion now 500 billion later. 1 trillion dollars in cuts. That's over 10 years. translated into 100 billion a year.
DeleteEveryone thinks that SS,Medicare and Medicaid are untouchable. Today they are, consuming 40 % of all Federal Tax revenue. Add in The cost of the PPACA and soon there will be no choice but to restructure and cut services. Those that deny that fact are being and dishonest or live in another world as those that say the debt doesn't matter.
Just saying.
Iouman,
DeleteI think that over a long period, we can transition out of Social Security as is (government-accessible), rather than continuing to fix it, which has been the case since its inception.
Jean,
DeleteYes we could however the politicians put the fear into Seniors at every election, candidate x wants to take your SS and kill your medicare. So here we are, broken, bankrupted systems that cost more each year. It doesn't help when the President cuts Social Security in half to try and stimulate the economy pushing SS further in the red. That little tax cut cost the general fund 250billion in the last 2 years.
That SS cut IS bothersome, but then, I guess the clowns in DC couldn't think of any way to cut taxes without being criticized for not cutting them for those who pay little to none in the first place.
DeleteBig Bird made it to Saturday Night Live.
ReplyDeleteBig Bird is the 1% making 972,000 a year. Noooo don't cut my freebies.
DeleteAt least he isn't bitching for another tax cut LOL
DeleteHe is whining about the lack of news paper in the cage though.
DeleteIs that what they mean by newspaper "coverage"?
DeleteGood coverage would be using the front page vs the want ads.
Delete