Carlin's Last Show
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman
Ok. I did find one 1988 clip of George Carlin ranting about Ronald Reagan. But given the fact that Reagan was a two term president and we were dumb enough to elect him twice (much like Nixon and Bush), I will give Carlin some slack because I'm sure he did the same to Clinton or even the Left Wing
. But he never ceased to paint a broader picture of the scope of things that are fucked up with America. And he stuck it to both of them.This clip in particular
is so prescient with the times today. Carlin was a genius. I miss him.
Maybe off topic, but I wanted to correct myself, and dammit Carlin's is just damn good.
had plenty of politics and was pretty darn dark but again, I don't begrudge the guy. I'm just saying it gets very hard, and might even be a bit harmful to step past, here is the truth I am exploding, and there is no truth and we are all fucked. Carlin was definitely tending toward the latter in his later years. I still miss him too regardless.
Originally Posted by addabox
Just out of curiosity, if "liberalism" is as notoriously bad for business and the economy as is postulated by the right, and huge corporations got that way by being hard nosed pragmatists, unswayed by "liberalisms" appeals to income redistribution and punitive tax schemes and pointless government boondoggles and excessive regulation and general fucking around with otherwise free markets, why do those same corporations choose to operate propaganda arms that champion those things?
I guess what I'm asking is, in what sense are AT&T, General Electric, Disney, AOL, Viacom, et al "liberal", and, to the extent that they are demonstrably anything but, why would the elect to spread an ideology hostile to their own self interest?
Well first many of them are quasi-monopolies in that they own our airwaves and have a certain interesting in continuing that. So in that regard they aren't true competitors but more like an oligarchy that wants to make sure they keep their slice of the pie.
Secondly, how is it against their interests to elect people who claim good intentions, but ultimately get bought off and raise taxes on everyone including possible up and coming competitors? If I were a old media company, I think the thing I would want for example is someone who decides to tax the internet when I own the airwaves. I would of course claim nothing but good societal intentions while being able to beat my competitors with a tax stick.
Originally Posted by midwinter
And all I want to do is establish some objective measure of "liberal bias" so that we don't have to spend 20 pages debating how to parse some statement.
Why would the definition of liberal bias be any different than the standard definition of bias with liberal as the category measured?
Originally Posted by screener
I find it sad that some don't see the difference between mocking the news and the reaction to the news by some from both sides which is what the Daily Show and Colbert Report does.
Perhaps sampling doesn't tell the whole story.
Maybe you should tease Coulter to stop hurting America by toning down her "tone".
The words she uses shows the "enemy" how divided her perception of her country is, could give the "enemy" another tool in recruitment to destroy the infidels.
Her book titles are especially telling.
But of course I'm wasting my time because as you replied to me earlier, she's right and her tone is what people don't like, not the actual words she uses.
By the way, she's appearing on the Huckabee show tonight at 9 to answer her attacks on him.
Should be fun.
How is it you guys always seem to know who is on where? Damn, I just don't have the time for it. I'm simply saying that there are limits to the effectiveness of satire. An adult who acts like an ungrateful child is funny as a skit. An adult who acts like that all the time isn't funny, it is sad. It is called a shtick for a reason.
Life as shtick isn't funny. I'm not saying ban it or whatever, but it is sad rather than funny.
Originally Posted by addabox
I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly muddying the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.
Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."
I'm always curious about this notion that just because something is big or has money, it can't be liberal. George Soros, most Ivy's with their endowments, many families that have inherited wealth, we see plenty of liberalism there. You only need to be big enough and have enough guaranteed income to no longer have to sweat market forces and you can be whatever political ideology you desire. It's an easy pattern to spot.
Originally Posted by midwinter
Sure. I don't know that I necessarily have an issue with corporate ownership in the same way you do. There are two state newspapers here. One is the "liberal" Tribune and the other is the "conservative" Deseret Morning News. Both are owned by the LDS church. Unless the owners begin to demand that news be covered in a certain way, it doesn't bother me.
With that said, remember Ashleigh Banfield
Banfield was fired not for her reporting, but for something she WAS RIGHT ABOUT in a speech she delivered.
I think, in the end, that most of the people participating in this thread agree on some first principles: something is wrong with journalism; cable news is generally bad; screaming isn't journalism. I think I disagree with Nick in that I want
a confrontational press. I want a press that sort of behaves like an ecumenical Bill O'Reilly without the insanity. Remember Bush's interview with RTE
? I remember how everyone was astonished by that interview, and I was, too, until I started listening to BBC Radio interviews. That's just how they do it
. They challenge. They interrupt. They confront. They question and poke and prod. I want an entire press like that
But my point, earlier, is that it is a strange leap to go from "Gosh, the press seems to suck" directly to "They're in the tank for Obama! See? Here's this one article I don't like!"
But again, without a clear, objective measure of what "liberal bias" looks like, any discussion of it is just a contest to see who is the cleverest. Not that that's any different than normal around here.
I don't think of it as a leap but a continuation of a clear trend.
The reality is that the press is increasingly shallow and lazy. In short bias is easier to hide when you are spending all your time on news, but much harder to hide when you are spending it on analysis. The press reports less and less news and does more and more analysis. The rationales are easy to understand. It is much easier to sit in a room and pontificate than it is to work phones, beats, sources, etc. to generate news. They suck because they keep reporting less and less and because what they are filling that less with, is analysis and that analysis is clearly in the tank.
If we take this outside of the realm of politics, it might be much easier to spot. I know you like music and so do I. Once upon a time we probably remember this thing called MTV and they used to actually play music. Strange but true to imagine I know and as we all know nowadays, they simply don't play music. They suck. They kept slowly removing music and kept adding filler and over time the filler became of one type, reality TV shows.
Today to anyone who likes music, the network is completely unwatchable. Their ratings are in the tank and their solution is.... I think they ordered up something like 14 different reality series this year. I'm sure next year when their ratings and profits are even lower, the solution will be 20 reality series. Why playing some music isn't a choice, I can't figure out, but the trend is clear.
Take music and replace with news. Take reality TV and replace with in the tank analysis and the trend is clear.
From the link....
Stengel says his goal is to "make Time lead the conversation, not follow it. To speak stronger with a point of view. To mix more analysis with reporting. Not to ask questions, but to answer them on the cover" -- as with this week's story, "Why Israel Can't Win."
Newsweek ran 26 cover stories on politics last year -- including two on Michelle Obama -- and a spate of serious essays such as "How to Fix the World." The few feature covers dealt with such subjects as addiction, bipolar disease, divorce and surrogate mothers.
"It is a conscious strategy to serve the base," Meacham says. "We have done more politics, more foreign policy, more economics." Editors sometimes debate whether they are getting too wonky, but Meacham says he is "enormously proud," for instance, of putting William F. Buckley Jr.'s death on the cover.
This is the wrong path. Newsweek and others are going to bleed readers because you read to think and not to be lectured to about what you should already think. You want to have information to form conclusions, not have someone too lazy to get the information inform you of what your conclusion should already be. BTW, if links to folks saying, "Yeah we aren't going for objective and broad, but playing to our "base", playing narrow with informed opinion isn't enough to convince you of the actions taking place, then there isn't a way I'll ever convince you. The mea culpas are right there. They don't think they are at fault yet, but much like MTV ordering more of what is killing their own ratings, news is slitting their own throats because "in the tank" analysis is not information or news.
The solution to the decline this causes is even more of the same. When the ratings and lack of profits come in, the response will be even more talking heads, even less news, more analysis and make it even more opinionated than before. The cause is the cure apparently.