...traditional media is made up of a growing number of increasingly sloppy children. And their sloppiness is now jeopardizing our democracy. It's gotten us into a war that's a disaster, and it's helped re-elect a president who isn't capable of managing our country. All because the traditional media let themselves be emasculated and lobotomized rather than simply doing their job.
To wit, this lead sentence from tomorrow's front-page Washington Post story on Senator Feingold's censure resolution:
For months the Democrats have resisted calls from their liberal base to more aggressively challenge President Bush.
Calls from their "liberal base?" Really? Where did you get that from? Seriously. I want facts. How did the Washington Post determine that it was the "liberal base" of the Democratic party that has been the driving force calling for Dems to challenge President Bush?
Actual real-life surveys show that most Democrats, and most Independents, have had it with Bush. Not just liberal Democrats, but all Democrats, and even most Independents.
So, seriously, where did the Washington Post get the facts to justify the very first line of its front page story about Senator Feingold? Nowhere, that's where.
They just made it up.
Because that's what journalism has become. A place where you hide the truth, lest you scoop your own book (Woodward) or invite the ire of the Bush administration (New York Times). It's a place for sloppy people to make a good amount of money telling the rest of us what to think, even though they themselves stopped thinking long ago.
I really don't mean to knock all traditional journalists. I've worked as one myself. But I find myself at an increasing loss for words every time I read one of these bizarre right-wing slanted stories coming from the Washington Post and the New York Times. Stories that simply aren't based in fact, but appeal to your sense of what you'd think was true. As Stephen Colbert says, they're stories with "truthiness" - meaning, they're not true, but they sound true, and that's what really matters.
The Washington Post and the New York Times, and the rest of the traditional media that emulates them, need to stop thinking like GOP clones and start thinking like the independent journalists they once were and still can be.
If you're going to label bloggers, and our readers, and the growing numbers of Americans increasingly angry at the direction our country is heading "the liberal base" of the Democratic party, then that would mean our liberal base comprises around 66% of the country right about now.
It simply no longer passes the laugh test to label all opposition to George Bush as liberal, or fringe, or base, or being in the minority. The man is at 34% in the polls. Even his own base has had it with him. So spare us your sloppy bs about the Democratic base being the moving force behind public ire at the president.
This is part of a larger problem. Not just a larger problem of conservative bias in the mainstream media, a media that is simply terrified of doing its job in the shadow of George Bush. No, the larger problem we face is the attempt by the traditional media to marginalize its liberal critics.
We are not just angry with the direction our country is heading, and with the failed president who is leading us over the cliff, we're also angry with traditional journalists whose writings once helped further American democracy and who have now sold out to sloth and influence. And that's why those traditional journalists feel the need to marginalize us in return.
...We are not fed up with a particular policy, we're fed up with politics.
It's funny, really. The right wing gripes about the press being biased towards the left. The left wing gripes about the press being biased towards the right. So which is it? It certainly can't be both ways.
Incidentally, Johnny, you're hardly in a position to be accusing anyone of being reckless with facts, given your posting history on this forum.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
It's funny, really. The right wing gripes about the press being biased towards the left. The left wing gripes about the press being biased towards the right. So which is it? It certainly can't be both ways.
Incidentally, Johnny, you're hardly in a position to be accusing anyone of being reckless with facts, given your posting history on this forum.
Show me one article that I posted that wasn't mentioned by the media and was untrue and reckless. Sounds like your trying the switcharoo here benny. Bush low 34 percent so that means 66% of this country is demo or indy.Them are the facts his own people don't even want Bush anymore and the media is blameing the demos.The media are doing nothing but makeing up as they go...I can see you are doing the same thing with your posts.No facts about it... just want people to believe how you think.How pathetic you are...The media in our country is a bunch of mind controllers...Believe this and that and what we say. Screw you journalists here in america.One sided opinions and thoughts on all the stations..Pathetic comment and childish what you wrote ben.If you like attacking people do it face to face.not be hind writting you wuss.
And their sloppiness is now jeopardizing our democracy. It's gotten us into a war that's a disaster, and it's helped re-elect a president who isn't capable of managing our country.
Maybe these conclusions are a result of sloppiness too. How can we even believe their self analysis?
Quote:
Bush low 34 percent so that means 66% of this country is demo or indy.
More sloppy reporting? So the makeup of party members swings that much from the '04 election? Most polls have to be analysed by more than a summation statement. How were the questions phrased? What was the context? How was the poll conducted. What were the raw numbers? These all influence the outcome and most polls can have more than one interpretation. So your poll is suspect and your conclusions are flawed.
I'm not for censureship but I do support an informed consumer. The media is a product and those who produce it do have their biases and opinions and they do enter the process by how they cover events, and by what they do or don't cover. If you look at alternate sources than the big three and newspapers (which are mostly all just AP rags) then you will see there's a lot of facts surrounding any story that are not being relayed to the public. Just predigested, regurgitatedpablum. And yes I do think most journalists are lazy and/or sloppy and just pull their "facts" off the AP wire. How else is it that you can jump between the three newscasts and here the EXACT SAME PHRASES being used by all three networks about the same story? Parrots.
Wow. So much name-calling. You really are a bitter person, aren't you?
Quote:
Show me one article that I posted that wasn't mentioned by the media and was untrue and reckless. Sounds like your trying the switcharoo here benny. Bush low 34 percent so that means 66% of this country is demo or indy.
See? There's what I'm talking about. The CBS poll that supposedly found Bush's approval rating at 34% was soundly debunked by pundits and even by other professional news organizations. Yet you continue to post it as if it were fact, simply because it supports your vendetta against the Bush administration. Need further proof?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
So true about news journalists today
