-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2nd Pres. Debate 2008 Thread (DOW dropping, Biden is off to Home Depot)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
2004 really seemed to be the peak of it. Since then the partisanship seems to have gone down, though I'm not sure how much of that is due to actual healing and how much of it is due simply to Bush's approval plummet.PS2 KID said:
grandjedi6 said:
I'm stating what we've well known for many years, they are an exception. A flipside in comparison to the MSM. Why do they have the highest ratings? I believe it's people's innate need to want to hear a message that resonates with and reinforces their own beliefs. So one side flocks to FOX which is a right leaning cable news network, which explains it's inflated viewership. The otherside gets it from the 'trusted' MSM. Of late I've begun examining the how nonpartisan I believed the MSM to be. After all it was right wingers watch FOX, everyone else who doesn't believe that drivel watches the MSM. So, I've started to look at everything with a skeptic's eye as in what spin are they trying to pull on me today of all US media. I have to wonder what they teach journalism majors these days. It's almost all partisan no matter who you watch nowadays..
PS2 KID said:
Indeed. Though you seem to think all the other channels are just biased in the other direction. They are biased, sure, but probably not in the way you think. They're biased in many ways and in many directions depending on specific employees, from conservatism, liberalism, and both confrontation and sensationalism.
You cannot say CNN is in the tank for Obama when you have Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, easily their most opinionated showheads. MSNBC you could say, but you'd still be wrong. They have Scarborough and Buchanan (and you used to have Tucker Carlson) to balance out Olbermann and Maddow. They're biased in both ways.
Fox is the only channel which is just completely and utterly to one side. All of their showheads are conservatives (minus Colmes, who is probably the most timid liberal in existence), and many on the extreme side.
I'm not going to even bother explaining how radio is dominated by conservatives.
Slurpy said:
I'm voting Obama/Biden but for just one social issue: Abortion. I have no doubt you have issues which matter to you which you believe the Dems are addressing or you feel they will be addressing in the future.
However, that doesn't mean I can't criticize where I see fit or where I see wrongs or mistakes. Let's think about it, even though I'm voting Dem, I don't know much about Obama's past and IMHO his experience is lacking. Does that mean I'm partisan? That just means I'm a voter who has questions that hasn't been addressed.
And what's with people pigeonholing people as you're either a Dem or a Rep. There are more independents out there than ever before. Sure they aren't going to win an election for a third party but you don't have to toe a party line on every issue. To do so is just sheep mentality.
PS2 KID said:
a) Single issue voters suck.
b) What the fuck does the bolded part even mean? How the hell do you not know about Obama's past? The only way you could not know about Obama's past is if you are willfully ignorant of it. Are you willfully ignorant?
PS2 KID said:
A brief sampling:sp0rsk said:
Electoral-vote.com = 63.8 Obama 34.2 McCain
RealClearPolitics = 51.5 Obama 29.4 McCain
Politico.com = 65.6 Obama 34.4 McCain
Newsmax/Dick Morris = 71.7 Obama 21.9 McCain
Clevinger said:
Beck and Dobbs seem, by their low ratings, a throw in to catch some of the conservative crowd. Scarborough and Buchanan flip flop like O'Reilly does nowadays and push more to the center. Colmes is always going to be overshadowed by Hannity on Fox. Once in awhile he gives it to Hannity but very rarely. As for MSNBC, yeah Maddow, Matthews and Obermann are far left to be certain. The letter channels, seem to have lost their mojo to their cable counterparts since they can't broadcast 24/7 news.
I do see where you are coming from Clevinger. I also see a 'Counter Fox' movement within the MSM, where if you go right, we'll go left. It's in their anchors, their guests, and commentators, plus the stories and spin they apply. Basically they are preaching to the choir but also the uninformed voter (aren't we all? lol) In the past there was some level of trust that the MSM would give us news without the partisanship. It does raise the question on who can we trust for nonpartisan non-spinning journalism in these times.
I don't listen to radio so I can't respond there. Sorry.
reilo said:
a) Well Gay Marriage was the other issue. Neither party support it. It's a shame.
If I could think of one other issue neither party is addressing it would be the federal deficit. I hear lip service but I doubt the sincerity of either candidate when it comes to that issue.
b)It means what it means. You can interpret it the way you so wish.
reilo said:
a) You are entitled to your opinion. As I've stated before, I'm sure there are issues you will vote for that may not mirror mine. That's okay, difference of opinion makes for good discourse.
b) Yes, I'm sure you know everything about Obama's past. *that was sarcasm*
c) There are no saints in Politics. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will refuse to take the red AND the blue pill.
I think Fox has done a tremendous job of re-framing the entire discussion.
Before Fox rose to prominence, there were far fewer discussion about media bias. In effect, I think most people thought of the media as centrist -- which, with the occasional exception, I think it has been. Once Fox entered the picture, everything changed: they successfully portrayed all other news stations as left leaning. Now, even if we agree that Fox is a Republican-leaning channel in its entirety, the fact that we even discuss the issue of media bias means that Fox has won. Look at the last page, even! We refer to it as "MSM." Not only do we have a phrase to describe all of the media now, that phrase has been turned in to an acronym -- an explicit indication of how deeply this "media bias" discussion has penetrated the public consciousness.
As a similar example to explain the above, consider virally spread rumors about a political candidate. Perhaps, say, these rumors-started-from-who-knows-where suggest he is a rapist. If the candidate responds, "I am not a rapist," he has still lost, because he has acknowledged the complaint. By discussing it at all, it suggests there is something worth discussing, as if there are two sides to the argument. By only explicitly denying the rape, does this mean he had consensual sex with a woman other than his wife?
That is how people re-frame debates, and it is exactly what Fox News has done.
Before Fox rose to prominence, there were far fewer discussion about media bias. In effect, I think most people thought of the media as centrist -- which, with the occasional exception, I think it has been. Once Fox entered the picture, everything changed: they successfully portrayed all other news stations as left leaning. Now, even if we agree that Fox is a Republican-leaning channel in its entirety, the fact that we even discuss the issue of media bias means that Fox has won. Look at the last page, even! We refer to it as "MSM." Not only do we have a phrase to describe all of the media now, that phrase has been turned in to an acronym -- an explicit indication of how deeply this "media bias" discussion has penetrated the public consciousness.
As a similar example to explain the above, consider virally spread rumors about a political candidate. Perhaps, say, these rumors-started-from-who-knows-where suggest he is a rapist. If the candidate responds, "I am not a rapist," he has still lost, because he has acknowledged the complaint. By discussing it at all, it suggests there is something worth discussing, as if there are two sides to the argument. By only explicitly denying the rape, does this mean he had consensual sex with a woman other than his wife?
That is how people re-frame debates, and it is exactly what Fox News has done.
So you interpreted that the media is protecting Obama, and then you blast them for not talking about Rezko, Ayers, or Odinga enough. So, if they reported those stories more and went "below the surface", you'd be appreciative of the media "doing their job" in that instance?PS2 KID said:Numble, of course not. That means you dig deeper than what surrogates, the media, partisan blogs, 527's and spokespersons are telling you. Go below the surface, see what really lies below. Then interpret your findings as you so choose.
Hey, I could be wrong too!
Do you know how twisted and downright stupid your logic is?
In other words, you only will believe the bullshit you want to believe.
reilo said:
DA (Devil's Advocate): Well have they done any 'in depth' stories which seek not to protect him on those issues? I'm just asking if you know what the truth behind those stories are?
Media should be nonpartisan and vet all candidates to the fullest extent. Not just to the extent of page hits *wink wink*. Well that's my belief anyway. You can disagree with it.
reilo said:
It's also another great example of the tactics I just described above. Consider Odinga, as an obvious example of something that is absolutely and unequivocally false. If they discuss it, and show that it is wrong, it still gives the impression that the issue was worth investigating, as if there is some kernel of truth there and the full details needed to be sorted out. If they do not discuss it, they are labeled as biased.
Either way, Republicans win.
PS2 KID said:
Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this -- I absolutely agree, but I'd much prefer they fully vetted them on issues that matter. Using your method, I might need to ask:
Q: "Mr. McCain, are you a child pornographer?"
A: "Of course not, that is absurd."
And now, for no reason, you have considered whether John McCain is a child pornographer. Why would I ask such a question? What do I know? Simply asking the question hurts the candidate, as no matter how he answers, people will wonder.
Most, if not all, of the topics you've just brought up fall under that category: so completely and totally false that any acknowledgment of them does nothing but lend those rumors credibility. I would argue that reporting on Odinga, even to state that there is no connection between Obama and Odinga, is itself partisan. It is biased towards the right, in particular.
I was just watching the full clip with Michelle Laxalt and Kathleen Parker on Larry King Live. Sarah Palin is such a disgrace to these intelligent, thoughtful Republican women..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUpGO_ihCmQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUpGO_ihCmQ
The Chosen One
Member
Cloudy said:
Well the Obama campaign probably had its roughest period during the two weeks right after the Palin VP announcement. There was tons of excitement around Palin, McCain was leading by a few points in the polls, the red swing states seemed secure, and it seemed there would be less gains for the Dems in the down ticket races.
The Obama did flail a little bit. They didn't know how to respond to Sarah Palin initially. Dem party folks (and all of PoliGAF) were freaking out and for the Obama campaign to fight back hard.
In the end, the Obama campaign gave some half-hearted negative ads that were mostly internet only or just for the cable shows. Obama's stump speeches got a little more feisty but still didn't attack McCain/Palin's character. They mostly went after lobbyist connections. But they still stayed mostly on message. During the whole lipstick on a pig dust-up that's when Obama was unveiling his education plan.
I remember reading that during that time even a lot of people close to Obama were worried and urging Obama to go more negative. But unlike McCain, Obama chose to steer the ship mostly where he wanted it to go. But who knows, it may be because he thinks he could always run again in the future if he loses since he's relatively young. For McCain, this is it.
numble said:
This the DA's position: DA (Devil's Advocate): Well have they done any 'in depth' stories which seek not to protect him on those issues? I'm just asking if you know what the truth behind those stories are?
I have a feeling you're going to try to go round and round until I get dizzy or something. :lol
I'll use another extreme example, just to clarify my point. Consider if Brian Jennings said this in the middle of his newscast:
"John McCain is not addicted to child pornography. I repeat, he is not. We have seen no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise."
If Jennings were to bring this up during a broadcast, can you see how absolutely terrible this would be for McCain? Even though it is, technically, a repudiation of (completely fabricated) rumors?
"John McCain is not addicted to child pornography. I repeat, he is not. We have seen no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise."
If Jennings were to bring this up during a broadcast, can you see how absolutely terrible this would be for McCain? Even though it is, technically, a repudiation of (completely fabricated) rumors?
PS2 KID said:
Sure, that might be a more reasonable question. I just want to make sure it's clear that not asking questions is often fair, and asking questions is often biased. It's a very neat trick: it allows manipulators to make it seem like those not asking questions are biased (When they are in fact centrist, because only a biased person would ask such misleading questions) while those who are asking questions are fair (when they are in fact leaning against the candidate being questioned, because their questions are completely vapid and do nothing but harm the candidate).
Opiate said:
I see your position. I raise you with the actual case of the AP painting Palin skirting 'racism' linking Obama to Ayers. Of course we all know the truth that it's not racist but people read the AP and trust them. The McCain camp had to respond of course just bringing the issue to a broader audience who might read the article if they hadn't and think well that's just racist of them.
Edit: Losing consciousness. Need sleep. Thanks to everyone. Good Night guys!
PS2 KID said:
I'm not sure this specific example actually fits the argument I just made, but I absolutely agree that spin is something we see on both sides. I'm not suggesting these are universally in favor of Republicans, as nothing is ever so black and white.
However, I would argue that the lion's share of these do favor Republicans, as Fox News is more adept at using this tactic than anyone else.
It's very much like discussions of corruption; with the slew of major corruption scandals rocking the Republican party in recent years, I have frequently seen people argue that both sides are corrupt, so what are you going to do? While I absolutely agree that there is corruption on both sides, the implication of the above question is that they are equally corrupt, or that degree of corruption is irrelevant. Instead, I would argue that they are not equally corrupt, and it does in fact matter if 25% of one party is corrupt, while the other party is, say, 50%.
However, shades of gray are much more difficult to argue than black and white, and require much greater depth of knowledge. Such discussions often end in list wars. While I've broken down corruption in to overly simplistic percentages, the real world is much more difficult to calculate discretely. How does one measure corruption? It's unfortunately difficult, but it's also the only real way to be precise and honest simultaneously.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
PS2 KID said:
This post is incorrect on so many points, it's hilarious. Firstly, Obama is leading by double digits in the polls. And secondly, Obama didn't go negative when the effects of Palin's introduction as VP hit after the Republican convention, the lowest point of his election run in the last several months, even when many within his party and ranks were urging him to.
The question really is, do you know what you're talking about? Or are you making conclusions straight from your gut, without checking those pesky, out-of-the-way facts?
Tim the Wiz said:
Not that I necessarily agree with most of PS2 kid's points, but can we please not resort to insults? By normal standards, these attacks are very, very tame. I wouldn't call you on them.
But it's already very hard to express dissenting opinions in a 200 page thread where practically every poster is in agreement against you: it would be a kindness if we didn't make it any harder than it already is.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
PS2 KID said:
The link with Ayers is there for state legislators from both sides of the fence, Republican or Democrat, in Chicago. He's a man inexonerably linked with education in the city, and right or wrong, is loved for the work he's done in the latter part of his life in Chicago. The fact is, if you want to claim "guilt by association", there are plenty of Republican State representatives that have been "palling around with terrorists" as well. I think it's a bit silly and an indictment of just how shallow the political discourse is in the USA.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Opiate said:
I apologize if I came over a bit (ha!) overzealous, but the man did claim to be a seeker of truth, one who wishes to "vett" or fully fact-check each side of the partisan coin. Whilst initiating that intention, the hypocrisy of being unable to fact-check your own challenges or claims is a bit galling. I applaud his supposed motivation, sure, but his, so far, error-laden statements are oft-putting and irritating.
PS2 KID said:
One thing you need to consider, though, is that the idea of a shadowy partisan agenda within the media is largely the creation of the GOP in the 1960s as a way to drive base support for Richard Nixon. When Daniel Ellsburg released the Pentagon Papers and the NY Times printed them along with other things damaging to the Nixon Administration, the Republicans started claiming the "media" was biased against Republicans. It turned out to be such an effective strategy that they have been using it ever since.
Look, the reality in this day and age is that there are enough outlets for people to find what they are looking for. The basic network news channels are not biased, they are paranoid about anyone calling them biased; as a result, they report the news in such a painfully non-partisan way that they never offend anyone, and something has to be beyond overwhelming obvious before they will call it.
Obviously Fox News has its audience, just like someone like Keith Olbermann has his audience. The issue isn't whether some shadowy bias exists, the problem arises when people get delusional in their fear about media bias, to the point where people wont' read an article in the NY Times or Washington Post, and won't believe anything it says because of the so-called "bias."
For the most part, when politicians talk about bias, it is a pandering tactic designed to deflect negative news and attention away from them. Losing in the polls? Probably the media's fault.... Involved in a scandal the media reports? Probably the media's fault.... Remember, nobody has a problem with the NY Times when all they are doing is reporting on your 5 point lead. Attacking the media is a campaign strategy tactic, and little more.
Also remember that when conservatives try to use statistics to prove 'bias,' you have to consider them in a broader spectrum. When you hear something like 80% of 'newspaper stories' were 'pro-abortion,' you have to consider that in the broader picture, meaning, abortion has been legal for 30+ years, and the majority of people in America agree it should be legal, so of course the media does not have some responsibility to continually challenge its legitimacy. In other words, you can't judge the media's reporting or behavior by the standards of one group within society, you have to judge them by the values and beliefs of society at-large.
As a tactic, I agree that it is smart for the GOP to use the argument, but nobody should be losing any sleep over the topic.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Clearly.iapetus said:
Azure Dream
Member
Ahem.
Gobama.
Gobama.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked