Attitude of Democrats Their Own Worst Enemy?

[AZRogue]

This is a very interesting article put forth by the Financial Times, www.ft.com (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com), that I'd like to post here. The original can be found: HERE. (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com)

While I don't agree with all of the article's rhetoric, I DO agree with the basic principle. It's a thought I've tried to articulate before regarding how much more difficult it is to get a real liberal elected to be president. I think the article states it much better than I could, though it goes much further and adds some rhetoric that I feel weaken the piece. Still, it's an interesting read. Whether this attitude is held by most liberals or not, they are PERCEIVED to hold it, and that factors into things. Just ask Doc. ;)

Since the Financial Times require registration, I will post the full article here:


DEMOCRATS MUST LEARN SOME RESPECT

This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.

Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com) in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com) was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.

The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.

The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.

The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=mailto%3Aclive.crook%40gmail.co m)

[there_is_no_bob]

Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.Cite!

The biggest thing I note from reading that article is the one actual person they talk about is acknowledged to not be elitist. Nowhere do they offer anything to indicate that the perception is factual; they simply say it exists and imply that it must therefore be true. Given that the US is a country in which liberal was successfully turned into a "dirty word" in politics, I'm a bit leery of actually believing that. I'd have to see some actual evidence before I believe the left is any more elitist than the right.

Vague generalities with no supporting evidence. Excellent piece of underhanded reinforcement of stereotypes. In fact, I'd say editorials like this are a decent part of what causes that perception. The first paragraph states that part I quoted without reservation. And then goes on to attribute that attitude to large segments of "The Left" without support or reasoning.

It reminds me of a "Gish Gallop" (in which inaccurate or outright false claims are spewed out at an alarming rate) where refutation would take days (if not years) of research and analysis while making the statements takes a few minutes.

[AZRogue]

It's just an opinion piece, and it full of unnecessary rhetoric, IMO. Still, I believe the opinion to be correct, based solely upon my own experiences, and not to the degree suggested in the article.

For instance, I would say that this section is fairly self-evident: "Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it."

You have only to look around the message board, or over at CM's, to see some instances where this attitude is reinforced. People are perceptive--they're also judgmental and filled with a lifetime of prejudice they can't always see--and they notice when a particular view they hold is looked down upon.

These people believe in their religion, though they're not fanatics, they believe they are as capable as anyone, though they never got a degree, and they believe in and are fiercely proud of their country, though much of the world tells them that they shouldn't be right now. They have a natural distrust of politicians, on both sides, dislike the idea of welfare on principle--accepting that it can be helpful but fearful of its being abused. They're independent enough, on average, to not want government to have too heavy a hand upon their life and are leery of more federal programs that will take their tax dollars but that they won't ever qualify for.

In many cases they're wrong but this isn't always self-evident. Being told that they're wrong and acting like it IS self-evident is the quickest way to get someone to stop listening to you.

You want to know one reason Palin is so popular at the moment, and the attacks against her so poorly received? Besides the mystery factor, which will go away once she starts talking to the public, she is perceived as a small town girl who entered politics to make a difference and has now risen high enough to run for the second highest office in the land, all without having to come from one of the powerful political families, or having to have a law degree. To them this is seen as a GOOD thing, something to be desired, because it means that maybe they're not so out of the loop as they thought; they could play the game too, if they chose.

These people don't represent a majority, IMO, and I'm not trying to say they are. But they do represent a significant subset of Americans. It's a group of Americans that Democrats want to reach but don't usually manage to, and they can sway elections. I think Bill Clinton reached them very effectively with his talk on the economy combined with his supreme oratory skills; the man knows how to sound so sincere you'd loan him money.

The current angry climate, however, is not serving to convince them of anything, but it may serve to make them defensive enough to close their minds and vote before they fully consider their options.

Any way, I'm not sure I articulated this any better than I've have before. It's something I've felt for years, but it's difficult to explain. It's something I've come to believe after talking to people, listening to people, and hearing their opinions voiced in relation to what THEY hear. Often, when some news item comes out that's intended to display how fucked up the Republicans are, it backfires and the frowns come out and you can hear the click of people closing their minds like a mousetrap snapping shut. I don't know, maybe I'm completely off base, but I really don't think so.

[Varaj]

It reminds me of a "Gish Gallop" (in which inaccurate or outright false claims are spewed out at an alarming rate) where refutation would take days (if not years) of research and analysis while making the statements takes a few minutes.

I like the term PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) list.

[PWD]

There's truth there in AZR's post. Look at how I react to Doc (whether or not I take the step of lashing out, see what it does to me... outlined in the other thread). I'm as sure that it shuts him off if I start in on him as I'm sure that his posts can rile me up.

To paraphrase myself from an entirely separate argument, I acknowlege quite easily that I need to learn how to better phrase some of my arguments so as not to offend where not intended. The corollary is that certain folks I argue with (not doc in this case) need to learn how to listen, and how to stay in an argument and defend their position if it's worth defending. Shutting down doesn't win you anything.

We all see and read and hear things that piss us off or fly so dramatically in the face of our experiences that they're off-putting. But some folks just live to turn their brains off and flounce out of discussions or threads (or entire subforums) because they cannot handle having their stances challenged. Could the challenges be more delicately put? Of course, but that's an inherent problem on the internet as we all know.

Still, you look at how say Goblin Girl takes an issue like Misoginy in poliitics and sees it everywhere, and blasts away at everyone on CM before flouncing out of threads... after stating positions like midwestern conservatives were perfectly reasonable in blanket distrust and dislike of NY/CA coasties because "their daughters learned to suck dick on the schoolbus somewhere and it sure wasn't from them". That just begs a response. It screams out to be stomped on. When it gets stomped on, it's because she's a woman and not allowed to have opinions. My brain hurts at the concept. I like GG, I just really don't understand the aspect of her that comes out on the internet some times.

Folks I know from gaming contexts who piss me right up the wall have similar issues of issue entitlement. God forbid you challenge their view at all, because instantly you are strawmanned into whatever boogeyman oppressed them in some other context of life, and you'll never get out of the role.

[Varaj]

In regards to the article it is my opinion that the view point expressed in the article is a recent one that has been, for the most part, manufactured artificially as propaganda to help win elections.

[AZRogue]

In regards to the article it is my opinion that the view point expressed in the article is a recent one that has been, for the most part, manufactured artificially as propaganda to help win elections.

It is recent, as it's the first time I've seen anything exactly like it, but it's similar to something I've believed ever since Bush won his second term. I don't really see it as an aid to winning an election; any person who saw it would, IMO, feel patronized that this guy thinks he knows what they feel, just as they probably dug in their heels when they see Palin criticized for going to church. It's not really a winning article, IMO.

The average person doesn't research his candidates as fully as we, here, probably do. They listen to the occasional speech, watch some news clips at night, and vote based upon either party identification or because one side or the other appears to represent them. Someone going to church--any church--or who goes on and on about how much they value our armed forces is going to resonate with a lot more Americans, IMO, than someone who wants to tell them, over and over, that they're perceived badly in the rest of the world and that we're pursuing a war of aggression in a country we had no business attacking.

Here's my take on how the election has gone recently, for a lot of average Americans:

1. Obama declares that he's going to bring change. As in CHANGE! (This is perceived very well. People know things are fucked up and change is always appealing as it give a person the hope that things can get better)

2. Obama gives a very good speech during the DNC. (More positive vibes generated)

3. McCain announces Palin as his VP candidate. (She's new, she's from a small town, looks like any woman right off the street, talks halfway well, and seems to share some of the same values. Interest is piqued. We are told how popular she is, how well she did, and so WE think she is popular and did well too.)

4. The media questions the Palin pick, raising questions as to her experience and beliefs. (Some of the attacks cause people to question her pick--if they didn't hate her right off the bat--and for others it engenders indignation. She shares some of the same values, it seems, as we do, why should this be a negative thing? Why is it a bad thing that she comes from outside of Washington's circle of elites? These people dig in their heels and make up their minds. They already know what they're voting come November).

IMO, the Democrats should stop overtly attacking Palin and let her hang herself once she starts giving interviews. Let the mystery wear off enough so that people don't fill in the blanks themselves and identify with her without knowing who she really is. Concentrate on Obama's strength, which is the economy, and how he started with the platform of Change first. Tell America how he plans to do this and get people to think of him in that context, with hope, instead of defensively.

[PWD]

Is she being attacked for going to church, or is that a convenient strawman some folks would like to believe?

I know she's getting raked over the coals for abstinence-only, etc, which may be viewed as a religious stance by one side and just another issue stance by the other. Dunno if there's anything real there or just more inability to communicate directly.

[FeatsofClay]

It is recent, as it's the first time I've seen anything exactly like it, but it's similar to something I've believed ever since Bush won his second term. I don't really see it as an aid to winning an election; any person who saw it would, IMO, feel patronized that this guy thinks he knows what they feel, just as they probably dug in their heels when they see Palin criticized for going to church. It's not really a winning article, IMO.

You mean you noticed it when the Dems ran a man who was a decorated soldier whose second wife was super-rich? Like, now?



The average person doesn't research his candidates as fully as we, here, probably do. They listen to the occasional speech, watch some news clips at night, and vote based upon either party identification or because one side or the other appears to represent them. Someone going to church--any church--or who goes on and on about how much they value our armed forces is going to resonate with a lot more Americans, IMO, than someone who wants to tell them, over and over, that they're perceived badly in the rest of the world and that we're pursuing a war of aggression in a country we had no business attacking.

This sounds a LOT like "Americans fall for cheap stuff advertised well than real goods.


Here's my take on how the election has gone recently, for a lot of average Americans:

1. Obama declares that he's going to bring change. As in CHANGE! (This is perceived very well. People know things are fucked up and change is always appealing as it give a person the hope that things can get better)

2. Obama gives a very good speech during the DNC. (More positive vibes generated)

3. McCain announces Palin as his VP candidate. (She's new, she's from a small town, looks like any woman right off the street, talks halfway well, and seems to share some of the same values. Interest is piqued. We are told how popular she is, how well she did, and so WE think she is popular and did well too.)

4. The media questions the Palin pick, raising questions as to her experience and beliefs. (Some of the attacks cause people to question her pick--if they didn't hate her right off the bat--and for others it engenders indignation. She shares some of the same values, it seems, as we do, why should this be a negative thing? Why is it a bad thing that she comes from outside of Washington's circle of elites? These people dig in their heels and make up their minds. They already know what they're voting come November).

IMO, the Democrats should stop overtly attacking Palin and let her hang herself once she starts giving interviews. Let the mystery wear off enough so that people don't fill in the blanks themselves and identify with her without knowing who she really is. Concentrate on Obama's strength, which is the economy, and how he started with the platform of Change first. Tell America how he plans to do this and get people to think of him in that context, with hope, instead of defensively.

You have just stated that Americans do no research and now you expect them to listen to a complex and nuanced argument from the left rather than a pretty face who says she prays.

It is just like the backward accusation that the press is liberal. The press is motivated by what makes money. What makes money for them is espousing liberal ideals. Ideals people hold until the superior (and very frequently dishonest) Republican machine distracts them with BS. I would cite Bush 2004 as an excellent example of this.

[Varaj]

It is recent, as it's the first time I've seen anything exactly like it, but it's similar to something I've believed ever since Bush won his second term. I don't really see it as an aid to winning an election; any person who saw it would, IMO, feel patronized that this guy thinks he knows what they feel, just as they probably dug in their heels when they see Palin criticized for going to church. It's not really a winning article, IMO.

By recent I mean the last 20 years or so. :)

[there_is_no_bob]

The current angry climate, however, is not serving to convince them of anything, but it may serve to make them defensive enough to close their minds and vote before they fully consider their options.
Where does this climate come from, though?

And what are the news articles that try and point out where Republicans have fucked up? Please be specific. Not trying to be snarky - this is an honest question and if you can find the articles I'd like to read them; if not, it might be worth it to question where these impressions and attitudes come from.

That article is something of a case in point. You say it is full of unnecessary rhetoric, but I'd say it is full of unsupported assertions. It says the Democrats must learn some respect, but doesn't actually mention anywhere that they lack respect, just some vague assertions that it's true based on... Well, because they said so and some other people have said so.

Here's another little gem:
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult.Did this ever actually happen? I don't think it did. I think a lot of people were shocked and somewhat disgusted that someone who a short while ago didn't know what the VP does had a chance to be VP, that someone who would say it was appropriate to teach creationism and evolution in science class could be VP, or that someone who was responsible for taking massive federal handouts could be portrayed as "against pork".

If someone who held these views were to be up for election anywhere I could do something about it, you can damn well bet I'd be against her. I don't know that anyone thought it was an insult; many thought it was grossly inappropriate.


Or this:
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.There are a number of things I see as wrong with this.

I'm not making this post any longer than it already is though.:tongue:

[Varaj]

It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.


This is a classic example the of the propaganda that I was mentioning. The republicans have spent a good amount of effort painting the democrats as being anti-religion, anti-flag-waving, want to be pitied and bossed around. That they laugh at "real Americans".

The problem with attack adds is they work. Most of (if not all) the researchers that follow political adds rate republicans as being the most negative and the most attack oriented, in and out of the campaign season. The republicans have worked very hard to perfect tearing down the opposition instead of building themselves up.

I'm not sure the dems being polite is going to work for the dems.

[there_is_no_bob]

Is she being attacked for going to church, or is that a convenient strawman some folks would like to believe?

People have commented on the specific church she goes to.

From what I've read, I wouldn't want to be particularly near them.

[PWD]

Did this ever actually happen? I don't think it did.

I know some women saw her nomination as a transparent play to the disappointed Hillary supporters and reacted negatively.

That then in turn was taken and spun wildly out of proportion by those for whome portraying Palin as under rabid and unfair attack was convenient.

[Harry]

"They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is."

??

I'm all of those things except religious. And I'm, according to recent internet personality tests, about the most left wing Democrat here.

[Varaj]

"They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is."

??

I'm all of those things except religious. And I'm, according to recent internet personality tests, about the most left wing Democrat here.

Why do you hate America?

[Harry]

Why do you hate America?

Guns, NBC's "America's Got Talent", and 'Calvin praying at the cross' truck window stickers.

[AZRogue]

I know some women saw her nomination as a transparent play to the disappointed Hillary supporters and reacted negatively.

That then in turn was taken and spun wildly out of proportion by those for whome portraying Palin as under rabid and unfair attack was convenient.

That's true, and a point that I think worked against McCain. I think it was too obvious a grab for women voters and looked very contrived. That's buried, now, a bit with all the rest going on about her, was she treated unfairly, was she treated fairly, stuff. It might come back up and if it does will bite him in the ass.

As to the rest of the posts, let me reread them a second time before replying in depth. I think I have obviously failed to say what I wanted to say which is my fault. What I was trying to say, in part, is that there's a perception out there that the Democrats ARE talking down to Mr. Average American and only the Republicans who are down to earth and your neighbor really understand you. I don't think it's true, and I guess it probably was created by the Republicans back when, though I wasn't thinking that far back and only thinking of how it's exploited now. But I believe it's real. I think the effects can be seen.

Let me reread and address properly, though.

[AZRogue]

You mean you noticed it when the Dems ran a man who was a decorated soldier whose second wife was super-rich? Like, now?


No, if I were to name the thing that played out (that pertains to the effect I'm talking about) the most it would be the attitude, put forth by the Republicans, that they should support Bush who had been there when 9/11 went down and that he should be "supported".



This sounds a LOT like "Americans fall for cheap stuff advertised well than real goods.

No, as I said, it's not "Americans" as in all of them. A large group, though, does, unfortunately, watch and vote either by party, or by which candidate hits his "keywords" (pushes his buttons?) better.




You have just stated that Americans do no research and now you expect them to listen to a complex and nuanced argument from the left rather than a pretty face who says she prays.

I don't think it's very complex at all. I think Obama should stick with his Change message and when he attacks McCain and Palin, do it on their plans and intentions, or their lies. Don't go the route of "looking into her church" to see how she "may have blurred the edge between religion and politics", which is the actual teaser line being given, at this moment, on CNN, for an upcoming segment. That kind of thing doesn't hurt Palin.


It is just like the backward accusation that the press is liberal. The press is motivated by what makes money. What makes money for them is espousing liberal ideals. Ideals people hold until the superior (and very frequently dishonest) Republican machine distracts them with BS. I would cite Bush 2004 as an excellent example of this.

The press is liberal, though not to the degree they are blamed. What makes them money is controversy, though they haven't learned how to do that and still maintain their integrity enough for their own tastes, which is a good thing. Trying to copy the FOX formula. Witness their recent removal of Keith Olbermann from the MSNBC anchor position over their election coverage, due to his going too far with his own opinions. Article with the NYTimes HERE. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

See, it may be BS that's distracting people, but that's what I'm talking about. Attacking things is fine, and necessary, but attacking things that a lot of Americans believe themselves just leaves room for THAT to be focused on ... and people will dig their heels in.

[Varaj]

See, it may be BS that's distracting people, but that's what I'm talking about. Attacking things is fine, and necessary, but attacking things that a lot of Americans believe themselves just leaves room for THAT to be focused on ... and people will dig their heels in.

So you are suggesting the dems take the high road?

[AZRogue]

So you are suggesting the dems take the high road?

Not at all. I just think they need to be careful what they attack. According to CNN, McCain is now 2 points ahead of Obama, and that's with Obama showing (several times during the last hour on CNN) instances where Palin or McCain said something that either was pure spin or not true. Even the anchorman (is his name Cooper? I can't remember) keeps asking if the facts even matter.


For whatever reason, most likely contrived over a long period of time, I think that the Democrats have to struggle more than the Republicans to win over the middle. They have to make fewer mistakes, so to speak. The deck is stacked against them. People have perceptions--Hell, reading this thread, I realize that I have more than I thought I did--that are ingrained and we don't all exactly rethink our preconceptions on a day to day basis.

[AZRogue]

Where does this climate come from, though?

...snip

See, I don't see the article as stating facts. It's just some opinion piece. An editorial. It's just stating an opinion regarding a perception. Whether it's accurate doesn't matter. What matters, in this instance, is that the perception is accepted by many. Since it is accepted, it has to be accounted for. If you just ignore it because it's illogical, or was fostered deliberately as a Republican strategy, it will, IMO, turn around and bite you.

[there_is_no_bob]

For whatever reason, most likely contrived over a long period of time, I think that the Democrats have to struggle more than the Republicans to win over the middle.This is probably completely true, and I thinks says what you were trying to get at far better than the article - which states the perceptions as being true. ...thus reinforcing the perceptions, and giving people one more anecdote to toss on the pile about how [authority of some sort] said...

[AZRogue]

This is probably completely true, and I thinks says what you were trying to get at far better than the article - which states the perceptions as being true. ...thus reinforcing the perceptions, and giving people one more anecdote to toss on the pile about how [authority of some sort] said...

You're probably right. It's something I've never been good at articulating without sounding like I was just repeating talking points myself, which isn't what I was trying to do.

The article was something I saw today and it made me think it all over again and I thought it would help illustrate the perception I was talking about.

[there_is_no_bob]

What matters, in this instance, is that the perception is accepted by many. Since it is accepted, it has to be accounted for. If you just ignore it because it's illogical, or was fostered deliberately as a Republican strategy, it will, IMO, turn around and bite you.
Sure. You need to account for it.

But the action you need to take depends on where the attitude is coming from. If Democrats are actually talking down to people, then they need to show some respect. If that's not the case, then the Democrats can't show enough respect because they always have been. They then need to address the source of that climate; treat the disease, not the symptoms.



See, I don't see the article as stating facts. It's just some opinion piece. An editorial. It's just stating an opinion regarding a perception. Whether it's accurate doesn't matter.
The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.I really can't comprehend how not read this as stating facts. The author's perception of fact, maybe, but nowhere in the article does the Democrat's disdain get mentioned as a perception.

Ah. A sloppy/poor choice of words on my part. Curse you, inconstant and imprecise language! If I were to read "This text is black", I would consider that to be stating a fact though if the text were in fact red (as it is)* I would also consider it to be wrong (or lying)*.

*offer valid only under encoding schemes which render the section that says "This text is black" as red
Also, entertaining conversation; can't rep AZ at the moment.

[AZRogue]

Ah. A sloppy/poor choice of words on my part. Curse you, inconstant and imprecise language! If I were to read "This text is black", I would consider that to be stating a fact though if the text were in fact red (as it is)* I would also consider it to be wrong (or lying)*.

*offer valid only under encoding schemes which render the section that says "This text is black" as red
Also, entertaining conversation; can't rep AZ at the moment.

I was thinking of it more along the lines of: "See? People think that text is black. If you want to get far enough along to talk about green, don't mention the black or red text, as they will just get defensive and tune you out."

See? I can fuck up my own thoughts with the best of them. :p Maybe I shouldn't have posted the article and my thoughts on the matter instead of being lazy. It all made sense to me at the time and the fact that not everyone thinks exactly like me is hardly my fault.

EDIT: Here's an example. On CNN they just mentioned that Palin is appealing to Wal-Mart Moms. See what I mean there? The guy might have thought it was clever, but I don't think it would play that way with all women who happen to shop at Wal-Mart a lot. He just sounds condescending.

[FeatsofClay]

Speakin of being your own worst enemy-

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2_dlPZcoJrthUc4OD6xT_7DKPiwD932QOJG0

Student GOP leader resigns over Obama remark

By MICHAEL RUBINKAM – 4 hours ago

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"

LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."

The College Republicans asked LaDuca to resign after his remarks were publicized by the Pennsylvania Progressive, a blog written by a Democratic committeeman from Berks County. The group announced LaDuca's resignation on its Web site Friday.

"The comments were completely uncalled for and very offensive," said Anthony Pugliese, 22, a senior at West Chester University and chairman of the College Republicans, an umbrella group with more than 50 chapters statewide. "The P-A College Republicans do not accept or tolerate racism in any way."

LaDuca said Monday that he regrets posting the comments and understands how they can be construed as racist. "In hindsight, when you read it a second time, it's like, 'oops,'" he said. "It was just a dumb move on my part to make a statement like that public."

He said he is not a racist and that he admires prominent blacks such as economist and author Thomas Sowell and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He compared the comment about Obama to jokes about Republican presidential nominee John McCain's thinning hair or President Bush's large ears.

LaDuca is a senior at Kutztown University. Two years ago, Kutztown's College Republicans chapter was heavily criticized for holding a "bake sale" to protest affirmative action in which whites were charged more for cookies than blacks. LaDuca, then the group's spokesman, made a public apology on the group's behalf.


The two parts that are most stunning? That there were two incidents in recent memory AND the bolded part above. It isn't that the humor was bad, or racial insensitivity or any other. He wishes he didn't make it public. Acting that way in private, perfectly acceptable. :)

[AZRogue]

Wow. Now that's some fucked up shit. The problem with assholes is that they're so used to smelling their own shit they think it's fucking flowers.

[FeatsofClay]

Not some 'dumb redneck' that folks like to think is the only type of person making these remarks but the head of the PA. College Republicans. It is far more an institutionalized part of our system than people give it credit for.

[AZRogue]

Not some 'dumb redneck' that folks like to think is the only type of person making these remarks but the head of the PA. College Republicans. It is far more an institutionalized part of our system than people give it credit for.

Racism is still one of the issues that can still surprise me when it pops up, as naive as that sounds. We all have blinders and this must be one of mine. I'm multi racial so grew up with relatives of all different colors and that was just the normal way of things. Intellectually, I know racism is still horrible, but I find myself still shocked each time it pops up from someone who's not wearing a sheet.

Kind of depressing, when you think about it.

[FeatsofClay]

Racism is still one of the issues that can still surprise me when it pops up, as naive as that sounds. We all have blinders and this must be one of mine. I'm multi racial so grew up with relatives of all different colors and that was just the normal way of things. Intellectually, I know racism is still horrible, but I find myself still shocked each time it pops up from someone who's not wearing a sheet.

Kind of depressing, when you think about it.

Be a white guy and walk amongst the folks I have in the last few states and it is stunning. When I first got to this area I went to check on a bank account with a friend, who happened to be a lesbian. We walked in the bank, the gentleman recognized me and asked how pottery was going I answered and he pulled me close, waved in the lesbian friend and said "So a lesbian a jew and a nigger walk intoa bank..." This didn't go far. I asked, trying to keep a friendly and face saving tone "I assumed you knew I was a Jew." (I bear none of the traits usually associated with Semetics) and he laughed. Laughed loud and smacked my back and said "No, seriously, so they walk in.." And I asked "Is this going to be too dirty to tell her girlfriend?" pointing to the accompanying lesbian.

He said I as 'difficult' and promised to 'Keep EVERYTHING business in the future." The tone and demeanor was of a man I had offended with my rudeness, rather than vice versa.

[Ink Bleeder]

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest).

This is so far from the truth that I find no point in reading the rest of the article.

[Utrecht]

This is so far from the truth that I find no point in reading the rest of the article.

While not 100% - there is definately a grain of truth there - do you not agree?

As for the article - the author IMO is on to something (and we saw similar articles when Kerry ran)

When you look at the candidates nominated by the democrats - only one since 1980 could realistically be called a populist (Clinton) whereas there were two New England Liberals (Kerry, Dukakis) a souless technocrat (Gore) and a pseudo-populist/intellectual Minnesotan who was about 20 years ahead of his time in social experiments (Mondale).

Granted the Republicans put up two New Englanders themselves (Bushes) - but one was successfull in re-inventing himself as a populist through his work in Texas.

I will fully acknowledge that a significant portion of this perception is due to Republican spinning - but by the democrats actions, they gave the Republicans the openings they needed.

[Ink Bleeder]

While not 100% - there is definately a grain of truth there - do you not agree?

No, I don't. Check out Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's research on the number of war supporters interviewed on television versus the number interviewed against the war in 2004 election cycle. IIRC, it was something like hundreds:3. Virtually every time there's a controversy in the administration, network news ONLY broadcasts interviews with administration officials. I can't count the number of times I've watched morning network news, only to find that they've brought in (no shit) Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coultour to respond to the latest outrage. Exactly where is the liberal media I'm constantly told saturating the news world?

Look at who owns the newspapers and networks. They've been held by conservative interests and individuals for years and years. Look at how many right-wing nut jobs there are in syndicated radio vs. Air America, a relative newcomer that isn't available everywhere. The only self-acknowledged liberal I've seen on the news is Keith Olbermann (and now Rachel Maddow), and he's paying for it. "Liberal Media" is one of the biggest lies the right tells. And where do they tell it? On all the media outlets they own and operate. :mad:

[Utrecht]

No, I don't. Check out Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's research on the number of war supporters interviewed on television versus the number interviewed against the war in 2004 election cycle. IIRC, it was something like hundreds:3. Virtually every time there's a controversy in the administration, network news ONLY broadcasts interviews with administration officials. I can't count the number of times I've watched morning network news, only to find that they've brought in (no shit) Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coultour to respond to the latest outrage. Exactly where is the liberal media I'm constantly told saturating the news world?

Look at who owns the newspapers and networks. They've been held by conservative interests and individuals for years and years. Look at how many right-wing nut jobs there are in syndicated radio vs. Air America, a relative newcomer that isn't available everywhere. The only self-acknowledged liberal I've seen on the news is Keith Olbermann (and now Rachel Maddow), and he's paying for it. "Liberal Media" is one of the biggest lies the right tells. And where do they tell it? On all the media outlets they own and operate. :mad:

OK, so you are going gut feel - and given your personal politics, I can understand what you are saying (dont agree with it) - but to confirm
- you are saying that folks like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Katie Couric are not left leaning?

I will state that it has gotten better in the last couple of years - but the press with the notable exception of the war (as you mention above) but the "main stream press" (aka, NBC, CBS and ABC along with the major newspapers (Washington Post being asn exception) was left leaning.

[Ink Bleeder]

OK, so you are going gut feel

No, I actually cited some research - see above.

- and given your personal politics, I can understand what you are saying (dont agree with it) - but to confirm
- you are saying that folks like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Katie Couric are not left leaning?

Katie Couric is the only one I can speak to, since I watched the Today Show every morning for 15 years before giving up on it a few months ago. And yes, she is NOT left leaning in the slightest. That's one of the programs that kept inviting Rush on as a pundit, as if he and Tim Russert (another conservative) were peers. Matt Lauer was notorious for golfing with Rush, btw.

I will state that it has gotten better in the last couple of years - but the press with the notable exception of the war (as you mention above) but the "main stream press" (aka, NBC, CBS and ABC along with the major newspapers (Washington Post being asn exception) was left leaning.

That's your opinion, but it baffles me. I've never seen an example of left-leaning anything on the networks you mention, and given who owns those networks, I think it's amazing you'd claim they have a liberal bias.

[Utrecht]

No, I actually cited some research - see above.

Yep, and I agreed with you on that element

Here is another one

Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias - I would encourage you to read the forms of media bias - there are quite a few that end up coloring the reporting.




Katie Couric is the only one I can speak to, since I watched the Today Show every morning for 15 years before giving up on it a few months ago. And yes, she is NOT left leaning in the slightest. That's one of the programs that kept inviting Rush on as a pundit, as if he and Tim Russert (another conservative) were peers. Matt Lauer was notorious for golfing with Rush, btw.


Well Katie sure as heck is not right leaning. Now how about Brokaw or Rather (and by the way Russert was not a conservative - he was decidely left leaning in his personal politics, but was fair and balanced in his reporting - overall one of the good guys).

Further, look at the Editorial boards of the major newspapers in America (NYT, Wash Times, Wash Post, Chicago Trib, LA Times) of those - only the Post is considered conservative.


That's your opinion, but it baffles me. I've never seen an example of left-leaning anything on the networks you mention, and given who owns those networks, I think it's amazing you'd claim they have a liberal bias.

To be blunt, then your understanding of media is colored by your personal lenses. The most obvious example would be Rather's attack on Bush during the 2004 election. I would encourage you to read further on this subject.

Please note that I am not claiming that it is the LIBERAL MEDIA bugaboo that many on the right protray - only that there is a bias and that it is real.

[PWD]

Please note that I am not claiming that it is the LIBERAL MEDIA bugaboo that many on the right protray - only that there is a bias and that it is real.

If you want any credence given to the idea of bias, you must also acknowledge that conservatives have tended in the last while to view not only disagreement, but lack of complete agreement as bias against them. This in turn has led to greater isolationism of a sort.

Witness the tireless enthusiasm for opinions that match their own and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and others have made their fortunes on this. You've admitted yourself listening to the Hannities of the world so you can have them throw comforting "red meat" at you.

Surely if you're honest you must acknowledge this.

[Name Lips]

I have personally decided that there is no media bias. The media tends to report things fairly and accurately. Since conservative viewpoints tend to be unfair and inaccurate, reporting things fairly and accurately looks like anti-conservative bias. That is to say, it's a falasy to assume that liberal and conservative views are both equally accurate and both merit equal coverage. News isn't about making sure everybody hears their own opinion half the time.

[Utrecht]

If you want any credence given to the idea of bias, you must also acknowledge that conservatives have tended in the last while to view not only disagreement, but lack of complete agreement as bias against them. This in turn has led to greater isolationism of a sort.


I will not acknowledge such a thing - I will acknowledge that many on the right will scream about "teh evil lib media" when they feel they are given the shaft - but asking me to agree that "a lack of complete agreement as bias" is just crazy talk


Witness the tireless enthusiasm for opinions that match their own and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and others have made their fortunes on this. You've admitted yourself listening to the Hannities of the world so you can have them throw comforting "red meat" at you.

Man you are cherry picking the cream of the crop there - look, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc all are ENTERTAINERS so of course they are going to pander to their base - and I will not challenge the bias there, it is real, it is pervasive. What I am talking about is the mainstream press - non-cable news and newspapers.


Surely if you're honest you must acknowledge this.

Nope, I wont, since I have never listend to Hannites of the world as anything other than entertainment (and even then I listen to them maybe once ever 3 months) Hell I listen to Air America more than I do those pinheads.

[PWD]

I will not acknowledge such a thing - I will acknowledge that many on the right will scream about "teh evil lib media" when they feel they are given the shaft - but asking me to agree that "a lack of complete agreement as bias" is just crazy talk

/shrug

I've listened to many conservative opinions that devolved to "he doesn't fully support our ideals so he's against us and we must defeat him". Not complete opposition to their ideals mind you, but imperfect support. Witness the years of attacks on McCain for evidence.

You may not feel that you are, but the general conservative at least as portrayed through conservative talking heads, is an insular sort wary of others.

I'm more than willing to accept it's not as pervasive as it seems. Seems only fair to do so. However, you're willing to cherrypick individual broadcasters as seeming (to you) left-leaning, and extrapolate from that to larger "media bias" overall. I don't see the difference.

Man you are cherry picking the cream of the crop there - look, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc all are ENTERTAINERS so of course they are going to pander to their base - and I will not challenge the bias there, it is real, it is pervasive. What I am talking about is the mainstream press - non-cable news and newspapers.

They're not the cream, they seem to be the crop. There are very reasonable conservative opinionists out there whose pieces I have enjoyed, but their lack of offensiveness has ensured that I don't remember their names. They get shockingly little play even among conservatives. When's the last time you saw a reasonable opinion piece trotted out when some hateful hatchet job could be used in its place to provoke reactions?

Nope, I wont, since I have never listend to Hannites of the world as anything other than entertainment (and even then I listen to them maybe once ever 3 months) Hell I listen to Air America more than I do those pinheads.

We're disconnecting here, since I fail to see how listening to "your guy" bash "the other guy" politically is "entertainment" and not "politics". People who watch Maher are accused of being politically biased due to it, why is it any different for the Hannity etc gang?

I have listened to Hannity at times while driving in the states and unable to find a CD, and it has been consistently vicious cancerous hateful shit bereft of much in the way of facts where glib attacks would suffice. I can't see anything but a diseased mind finding that entertaining. "Oh that's just entertainment" doesn't cut it. Not even a little.

I note here that I've never listened to Air America either, it may be just as bad I cannot say.

[AZRogue]

I have personally decided that there is no media bias. The media tends to report things fairly and accurately. Since conservative viewpoints tend to be unfair and inaccurate, reporting things fairly and accurately looks like anti-conservative bias. That is to say, it's a falasy to assume that liberal and conservative views are both equally accurate and both merit equal coverage. News isn't about making sure everybody hears their own opinion half the time.

I don't blame you, but that's one of the attitudes I was talking about. You're convinced that liberal viewpoints, and I can only assume you meant liberal ideals of some kind, are not "accurate" but opinion. For instance, I believe that redistributing wealth, no matter the good intentions, is an attack on an individual's liberty and degrading to the human spirit as it sponsors a feeling of entitlement where there should be none.

What I want from the news media is for them to report the news. Tell me what happened and who said what and let their guests argue, each being given equal time. The only time I see bias is when the news anchor asks a leading question, a (overdone) bemused look on his face, or interjects some comment of his own. Leave the editorial comments for the opinion pieces. But they can't all help it, I suppose (many do, and those journalists are the ones that should be praised), as they have their own opinions and they are of the mistaken belief that they should share them while at the same time reporting the news.

One other point: The news media is not all liberal and certainly not extremely so, lately, other than MSNBC, I suppose, and that was just because of their news anchor, but they do lean a bit to the left by the fact that many journalists are Democrats. This isn't always perceived as being liberal, though, because even our liberals are not that liberal when compared to most of the world. I think that's where the disconnect sometimes comes from.

[PWD]

This isn't always perceived as being liberal, though, because even our liberals are not that liberal when compared to most of the world. I think that's where the disconnect sometimes comes from.

It certainly hampers my ability to have the discussion, because shit... drive a few hours north if you want to see what liberals really are.

[AZRogue]

It certainly hampers my ability to have the discussion, because shit... drive a few hours north if you want to see what liberals really are.

I'm sure you're absolutely right. Still, that little bit of "liberal" is pretty liberal for us. The United States tends to draw the line for the "middle" a bit further over.

[PWD]

I'm sure you're absolutely right. Still, that little bit of "liberal" is pretty liberal for us. The United States tends to draw the line for the "middle" a bit further over.

I point to Doc calling Obama a communist for a ludicrous case-in-point of how that makes it near-impossible to take certain conservatives seriously.

Unfortunately it's all too easy to project that upon the rest.

[Singularity]

I'm not sure the dems being polite is going to work for the dems.

Haven't I been saying this four at least four years now? Isn't that exactly the point I've made over and over and over?

[PWD]

Haven't I been saying this four at least four years now? Isn't that exactly the point I've made over and over and over?

It's been hard to distinguish meaning at times among the various fits of frothing at the mouth and gnashing of teeth and chewing on carpet. ;)

[AZRogue]

Here's another article from the New York Post: LINK. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/how_obama_blew_it_128132.htm)


Posted: 4:13 am
September 9, 2008
YESTERDAY'S Gal lup poll had John McCain (http://www.nypost.com/news/p/mccain_john/mccain_john.htm) ahead of Barack Obama (http://www.nypost.com/news/p/obama_barack/obama_barack.htm) by an astonishing 10 points among likely voters. A Washington Post poll had that lead at only two points, but clearly showed a McCain surge - especially among women. This wasn't what Democrats were expecting when they left Denver - yet they have nobody to blame but themselves.


Obama's toughest challenge has always been to connect with working-class swing voters. So attacking the poster child for small-town values, Sarah Palin, was a bad strategy.


No, Obama didn't engage in the mass sneering at Palin - but he did fall into the trap of disrespecting her. When McCain chose her, the Obama campaign's first response was to ridicule the size of her town. Then the candidate himself began referring to her as a "former mayor" when she is in fact a sitting governor.


When she retaliated (justifiably) by mocking his stint as a organizer, the Obama camp was clearly rattled. Obama himself actually began arguing about the importance of community organizing. His supporters amplified this cry - claiming Palin's attack was a racist slur and passing around e-mails titled "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor."
Meanwhile, the rest of the country was probably wondering what being a community organizer has to do with being president.


Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.


Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.


Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden's Delaware has a similarly small population - but no mocking was forthcoming there.


Evangelicals will never vote for a woman who works! they declared. This from people who've likely never met an evangelical in their lives. They could barely contain themselves when they found out Gov. Palin's daughter was pregnant, so sure were they that evangelicals would hang her from the highest tree. When evangelical leaders expressed support, there was a palpable disappointment that Palin or her daughter wasn't branded with a scarlet letter.


They claimed that the Palin announcement was some desperate pick that came out of nowhere. Had they been doing their jobs, or even perusing The Weekly Standard or right-wing blogs, they'd have known that she was on the list.


Since they didn't know anything about her, they started making things up. Anything that fit the caricature of a right-wing hypocrite was thrown up with, seemingly, no fact-checking.


They said she opposes contraception, when she said in a campaign debate that she is pro-contraception. They said she cut funding for pregnant teens, when she provided a massive funding hike.


They accused her of cutting funding for mentally disabled children, when she raised it 175 percent over the former administration. She was said to have been a member of the wacky Alaska Independence Party; The New York Times had to run a retraction.


Like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Palin has been deemed one of the GOP's rising stars. Since it's national reporters job to cover American politics, their ignorance of about her is distressing.


Most Americans think that the media are cheerleading for Obama, so they'll punish him for the reporters' and editors' sins.


So now he is weighted down with more baggage as he works to convince an important voting bloc that he and his party don't hold them in contempt.
The clock is ticking.

[Utrecht]

/shrug

I've listened to many conservative opinions that devolved to "he doesn't fully support our ideals so he's against us and we must defeat him". Not complete opposition to their ideals mind you, but imperfect support. Witness the years of attacks on McCain for evidence.

You may not feel that you are, but the general conservative at least as portrayed through conservative talking heads, is an insular sort wary of others.


Not any more than the general liberal talking head is insular in their way. I am not disagreeing with you that many of the talking heads are boobs - but why the blinders?


I'm more than willing to accept it's not as pervasive as it seems. Seems only fair to do so. However, you're willing to cherrypick individual broadcasters as seeming (to you) left-leaning, and extrapolate from that to larger "media bias" overall. I don't see the difference.


I would not say that I am cherry picking - I am picking the lead anchor of each of the networks headline new shows - if I was cherry picking, I would pick the beat reporters.

I would encourage you to look at the wikipedia article - overll, it is a good read - and most of the studies cited in point to a slight liberal bias (there are some that found no bias)


They're not the cream, they seem to be the crop. There are very reasonable conservative opinionists out there whose pieces I have enjoyed, but their lack of offensiveness has ensured that I don't remember their names. They get shockingly little play even among conservatives. When's the last time you saw a reasonable opinion piece trotted out when some hateful hatchet job could be used in its place to provoke reactions?

Hugh Hewitt is not bad - but my point on this is that the Linbaughs and Couters of the world pander to their audience - how much advertising revenue do you think Rush would get if he started saying that Clinton has the qualifications to be president? His viewership would dissapear.

That is my point - these guys do not represent conservative opions any more than Randy Rhodes represents liberal ones.

As far as rational conservatives, there are many - but you need to get away from the mass media or to the op-ed pages to find them.



We're disconnecting here, since I fail to see how listening to "your guy" bash "the other guy" politically is "entertainment" and not "politics". People who watch Maher are accused of being politically biased due to it, why is it any different for the Hannity etc gang?


I think it is you that has the disconnect - I agree with you, I find it mind-numbinly boring/a seeting pit of vitriol - but clearly there is a market - and one that these folks are pandering to - it seems that you are struggling to accept that - but it certainly not news and certainly not reporting.

[PWD]

So the mainstream media is decidedly liberal biased, though my exposure to the conservatives within it is questionable as they are not good examples of conservative media?

Here's your disconnect. The limbaughs, coulters, hannitys *are* mainstream media. They're not lesser because they're on radio talkshows, writing books, and guest-starring in opinion shows. They're so public and reach such broad audiences and are so well known even canadians have been exposed to their evil spew that they're no functionally different from say an Olbermann (who I'm not exposed to as I don't get MSNBC, but he's often mentioned as horribly biased). Even outside their small niches they're invited onto the CNN, FOX, NBC etc markets to spew their shit and attract attention. I've lost track of the number of times I've wanted to kick my television over when Ann Coulter sleazed her way into some normally reasonable discussion program and proceeded to shit it up.

The reasonable conservative voices, by and large, are not mainstream. Reasonable doesn't sell so well. Next time you're furious about some "mainstream" liberal opinionist, think about his conservative equivalents and how they're perceived, and then about the non-mainstream moderate, reasonable liberal voices.

You yourself listen to these clownboats on occasion for entertainment even though you claim they're mindnumbingly boring and full of nothing but vitriol. What do you think the other millions of regular listeners are listening to them for? They're not even trying to be funny in a sarcastic Maher kind of way (not that I find him particularly funny either). It's pure attackdog frothing at the mouth. So where's the entertainment? "You're right and the other guys are idiots"? What does that say about the people who listen to them? It's one thing to listen to that shit about Bush when you have to live under him, or Clinton back when he was in charge, but when your party is in power and has been pulling the strings for eight years you don't get to play the victim. It makes no sense.

Mainstream media is not solely news presentation any more. I'm right with you that they're also selling entertainment and that it's very dangerous to allow that to creep into the news. I'd be right with you wanting the news departments clean, but given that each market has its own opinion people as that's what sells, and that the conservative voices are easily as bad if not far far far worse for america, you cannot simply take a slice of television or newspaper, and label that indicative of overall bias. It doesn't fly.

Similarly you can't take conservative hue and cry about bias and how they're treated and divorce that from how they wrap themselves in warm fuzzy blankets of conservo-hate and call it a day. Not all conservatives do, obviously, but it's just as obviously a very large number, and those folks are generally the loudest voices against the mainstream media. It directly calls into question their perception of the mainstream media. It has to.

At some point, it needs to be accepted that Bush gets trashed because his policies and decision making deserve to be trashed. People who supported Bush and feel personally insulted by the trashing need to be able to divorce their support for ideas from piss-poor implementations.

As an outsider I don't see much in the way of villification of conservatives, just people aghast at how terrible Bush has been. The more Bush is attacked, the more certain conservative voices cry "unfair". Now I don't see it all, as I don't live embedded in US media 24/7, but we do get exposed to a metric ton of it, so I don't at all accept that I'm clinically unable to see it if it's there just because I don't get (say) MSNBC.

Something sure as shit is broken in America, and it's not solely on one side or the other. If conservatives want to raise media bias up the flagpole they damn sure better be prepared to analyze their own biases and filters at the same time.

[there_is_no_bob]

Tell me what happened and who said what and let their guests argue, each being given equal time.Should all guests on either side of an issue (any issue) be given equal time?

[AZRogue]

Should all guests on either side of an issue (any issue) be given equal time?

Hmm. My principles would say yes, though I can think of many instances where the other side of an issue, racism for instance, is so repugnant that I wouldn't want to hear him. But is it the news' job to determine that? I think I'd actually they allow both sides their voice and let the viewers decide who was the idiot.

During the news.

I hold opinion shows and editorials by different standards. Voice your views during your editorials, but keep the opinions of the broadcasters out of presenting the basic news. I don't want to hear them. They can have their more confrontational, and probably more highly rated, hyperbole-fests then, where people know they're tuning in to hear what a particular host thinks himself.

[cnath.rm]

"It was just a dumb move on my part to make a statement like that public."and that was a horribly telling quote to say the least, and makes the guy out to be even more of an ass and a moron then the comment he got booted for. I don't really have a problem with the affirmative action bake sale concept myself as it amuses me on several levels.

[Name Lips]

It's the sort of comment that shows a certain mentality. He seems like the sort of person who just assumes ALL people talk like this in private, and it's a reasonable slip-up to talk using his "private voice" in public every now and then.

Douchbag.

[there_is_no_bob]

Hmm. My principles would say yes, though I can think of many instances where the other side of an issue, racism for instance, is so repugnant that I wouldn't want to hear him. But is it the news' job to determine that? I think I'd actually they allow both sides their voice and let the viewers decide who was the idiot.

During the news.
So even on issues where one side is demonstrably wrong, both sides should be allowed to present their views with equal time?

[AZRogue]

So even on issues where one side is demonstrably wrong, both sides should be allowed to present their views with equal time?

What exactly do you have in mind? It would probably be quicker if you let me know what kind of situations you're referring to instead of me going down a list (Murder? No equal time, but that's something illegal and I don't know who'd be arguing for it. Withdraw us from the UN? Sure, let them talk.)

[there_is_no_bob]

What exactly do you have in mind? It would probably be quicker if you let me know what kind of situations you're referring to instead of me going down a list (Murder? No equal time, but that's something illegal and I don't know who'd be arguing for it. Withdraw us from the UN? Sure, let them talk.)

Creationism/Intelligent Design is science. Scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming exists. Privatisation of medicine saves americans money. NCLB is a greatly improves education.


I suppose the faster question is: What should a journalist do when a guest lies?

[AZRogue]

Creationism/Intelligent Design is science. Scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming exists. Privatisation of medicine saves americans money. NCLB is a greatly improves education.


I suppose the faster question is: What should a journalist do when a guest lies?

Yes to all of those, IMO. Whatever guests they have should have equal time.

As to the second question, if a guest says something untrue, or all spun to hell, he should be asked about it. "You say X but isn't the case actually Y?"

[Harry]

I got into an argument tonight with my father over the "Big Bang" theory. He insisted that it was "invented in the 70s". I pointed out that it derived from Einstein's Theory of Relativity and had been known to some degree since the 1930's. Not only that, but that it's based on sound physics and observable phenomenon, which in fact were what lead to the formulation of the Big Bang hypothesis.

Nope. He insisted it was invented in the 70s, and that since he was "grown up then and I wasn't", that I was wrong. I suggested that he was thinking of plate tectonics, but at that point it was over. I wasn't capable of "respecting his beliefs", while he respected mine. And of course, this all started over a discussion of the particle accelerator, which according to my father is going to kill us all. Why? Because famous scientists he saw in TV said so. I asked him to name them, if they were so famous....

Long night. Then you have the "cold Guinness" drinkers. :boggle:

[AZRogue]

Even earlier than 1930s, I believe. I could have sworn it started due to the redshifts detected from distant galaxies in the 1910s. So, yeah, not a conspiracy from the 70s that I ever heard of. Maybe it gained more prominence at that time and he heard about it then? Not sure.

[Utrecht]

As I mentioned before media bias has gotten better - and in fact over the course of the last couple of weeks has favored the Republicans.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/that_celebrity_thing.html


According to the LexisNexis® Analytics 2008 election dashboard, Sen. McCain was the subject of 59 percent more U.S. media coverage than Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) last week, the first week that Sen. McCain has received more press coverage than Sen. Obama since the election dashboard began tracking U.S. press coverage in early July. Moreover, Gov. Palin herself was the subject of 10 percent more coverage than Sen. Obama and received nearly nine times the amount of U.S. press coverage than her Democratic Party counterpart, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). Coverage Sentiment - Behind the Numbers
-- Palin getting balanced coverage -- The Media Coverage Sentiment Index from LexisNexis documents that more than three quarters of media coverage of Gov. Palin last week was either positive or neutral. Of the 6,027 stories that discussed Gov. Palin last week, 26 percent were rated as positive, 52 percent were neutral and 22 percent were negative. Also of note, this is the first time that more than half of a candidate's coverage in a given week has been rated as neutral.
-- Tone still similar for both campaigns - The tone of the media coverage garnered by both presidential candidates continues to be similar, according to the LexisNexis dashboard's Media Coverage Sentiment Index. An evaluation of the 8,686 stories that discussed Sen. McCain during the period of Aug. 31st - Sept. 7th in U.S. print, broadcast and online media outlets found that 32 percent of the coverage was positive, 41 percent was neutral and 27 percent was negative. Of the 5,463 stories that discussed Sen. Obama during the same time frame and in the same group of U.S. media outlets, 29 percent were positive, 41 percent were neutral and 30 percent were negative.
-- Biden not receiving attention -- The election dashboard shows that Sen. Biden was comparatively ignored by the U.S. news media last week. In stark contrast to the other candidates on the two tickets, Sen. Biden was the subject of just 683 stories last week, 17 percent of which were positive, 69 percent were neutral and 14 percent were negative.


Of particular note is how little coverage Biden is getting.

[PWD]

Biden is boring. It's part of why his own runs never went anywhere.

If he's not doing his attack dog thing, there's no reason for anyone to focus on him.

[Random Encounter]

This article (the original) finally answers the questions I had about american voters since the 2004 election.
I consider myself moderate but I know that compared to most of the United States I'm a liberal. And I've never understood why the working class, of which I belong, has mostly sided with the Republicans in the last couple elections when the Democrats represent their economic best interests.
This idea that Democrats put forth the image that they don't respect the patriotic, religious, workers of america is something I hadn't considered and makes sense.
The articles idea that Obama himself has a chance to win over some of that block also sounds plausable to me. And he was doing so before democrats and the media jumped all over Palin and unintentionally "insulted" middle america.

To those who say the Democrats need to stop being so polite and play the same game as the neo-cons to win, I say that is where things went wrong. The republicans do well in smear campaigns and character attacks because they have had decades to turn the word liberal into an insult and convince people that Democrats are less patriotic than Republicans.
Most of the things that have been brought to light as attacks on Palin's character (her faith, family and small town origins) are things that many Americans can relate too. So the attacks fall flat at best and make people think you are insulting them at worst.

Rather than risk an insult flung at an opponent stinging potential voters instead, the Obama campaign and left-wing reporters would do better by focusing on where Obama meets their criteria; showing him in Church or talking about his faith, embracing the flag waiving America love with some over-the-top Patriotic displays and showing his own roots helping in the community with his own hands. In other words, not be too proud to do some pandering.
Trying to move discussion to economics, and phrase it as upper vs lower class rather than the city vs small town debate that the conservatives want to make it, might work if they can make it interesting.
They should limit attacks to things like policy, corruption investigations, and hypocracy.
Avoiding such topics as experience, creationism (or anything involving the faith or beliefs of thier opponents), personal attacks concerning McCain or Palin's family and especially avoid anything regarding Palin being a woman.

This isn't up to Obama but the media that support him. It doesn't matter if every journalist not working for FOX thinks that Obama is the best thing since oral sex if large areas of the country think that Democrats are putting down small towns, faith and patriotism.