Say Anything Blog

I’m tempted to agree, but then I remember why the press has so much power to influence people. It doesn’t generate its power unilaterally, it gets its power from credulous anti-intellectuals (on the left AND on the right) who will believe anything that they read.

The press gets its power to influence because our society is composed of people like self-avowed liberals who would starve the poor people they claim to love by supporting farm subsidies, as well as self-avowed conservatives (like certain people on this board) who don’t even know what the Federalist Papers are.

In other words, quit bitching about the media and look to yourselves.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

In other words, quit bitching about the media and look to yourselves.

While partial true, that’s not the whole story.  The real wrong of the media is the deceitful way they present themselves. i.e. If they are going to be shills for Obama, they should identify themselves as political foils instead of pretending that they are impartial journalists.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

The real wrong of the media is the deceitful way they present themselves…

So we are operating under the assumption that the majority of Americans are too stupid to see past the deciet? Very well, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Good for John McCain.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

I’m tempted to agree, but then I remember why the press has so much power to influence people. It doesn’t generate its power unilaterally, it gets its power from credulous anti-intellectuals (on the left AND on the right) who will believe anything that they read.

True, but I think even that goes back to the media to some extent.  Think of what our media became throughout the last century.  Walter Cronkite telling us “that’s the way it was.”

Most Americans got their news from only a couple of sources - newspaper and then maybe radio or television - and so what those sources said was the truth.  Your average Joe Sixpack (except for those of us who do it as a hobby) doesn’t have time to comb through proposed legislation or check voting records, so they trust what they’re told by sources they trust.

And this country is just coming out of an error where they trusted the media.

Thankfully, while things aren’t good yet, I think things are getting better.  I was on a new media panel at a Republican meet-up here in North Dakota and one of the questions asked of me by someone who was interested in blogs was “How do you know which blogs have good information and which don’t.” I told the guy that there was no way to tell and that he’d have to trust his own judgment.

I actually think that’s a good thing.  Make people work for their information.  Make them think critically about what they’re being told and decide for themselves what’s true and what isn’t.

We’ll never all agree, of course, but if we’re all thinking it’ll at least be an improvement.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Make people work for their information.  Make them think critically about what they’re being told and decide for themselves what’s true and what isn’t.

I agree with that completely. But you know, there is a good argument that blogs are contributing to the lack of critical thinking as well. Reporting news in little blurbs makes it even easier for lazy people to just accept what they read and go back to doing whatever it is that stupid, lazy people do. (Of course blogs redeem themselves by providing us a counterspin to the MSM-spun news). But the people who only read blogs while refusing to pick up the NYT, are just as bad as people who only read the NYT and refuse to look at any other sources—it makes them equally credulous.

When I say lazy, I don’t mean it in the “they don’t want to work” sense. There are plenty of hard working Americans who are too intellectually lazy to think for themselves (the majority actually). For example…

Your average Joe Sixpack (except for those of us who do it as a hobby) doesn’t have time to comb through proposed legislation or check voting records

No he doesn’t. But I guarantee you that he has time to pick up a few different sources of news and compare and contrast. Especially now that the internet makes it so easy to access info.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

We’ll never all agree, of course, but if we’re all thinking it’ll at least be an improvement.

You couldn’t be more right, Rob.  I went to the constitutional symposium put on by SBAND last year and it featured a debate between Jefferson and Justice Marshall regarding separation of powers etc.  In it, Jenkinson (Jefferson) hounded on his core principles for his view of the republic...an aggregrian society, rurality and an enlightened voting mass. Without a knowledgable base, the system sort of fails. 

It is rather ironic that your clip is from Fox though, I have to admit.

So we are operating under the assumption that the majority of Americans are too stupid to see past the deciet?

That is certainly part of it but the press is still guilty of a deliberate attempt to influence its listeners and readers by presenting only one side of the questions.  Really it would be more honest if the news would be presented as ‘paid political announcements’.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

It is rather ironic that your clip is from Fox though, I have to admit.

It’s actually even more ironic that you’d complain about an ill-informed public and then get in a dig at the only cable news network providing any ideological diversity in the media at all.

I know it’s fashionable to hate Fox because they’re to the right of CNN and the rest that are out in left field, but what’s so bad about more perspective?

The overall media is better with Fox than without it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The overall media is better with Fox than without it.

Is there any serious argument that CNN, MSNBC, or the “old” broadcast networks are more fair or more balanced in their reporting and their analysis than Fox?

My experience is that those who disparage Fox News don’t have a clue what they’re talking about because they don’t actually watch Fox News.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Any organization not in lock-step with the traditional media would automatically be labeled “to the right.” It could be the most ideologically neutral, unbiased outlet ever created, and it wouldn’t matter, because if you’re not to the left, you must be to the right.

I’m not sure I agree about denying Newsweek access. I called Obama, Edwards, and Clinton pussies for not showing up on Fox (until it became necessary/convenient for them) because it doesn’t carry their water like the rest. Don’t deny them access, just don’t go out of your way to accomodate them - they’re gonna report in whatever fashion they want, don’t have to accomodate them in doing so.

In market competition, it doesn’t make sense to be biased unless you’re a periodical like Mother Jones or National Review, because there you are preaching to the respective choirs. But for Newsweek, Time, et al, I don’t get it. I’ve had subscriptions in the past to those and other magazines, and the bias just got to be too much and I cancelled, and I won’t be going back. But, bring out a magazine where anybody could go “okay, that’s fair....or that’s a good question (both sides)” and I would think people would be extremely interested. You can leave news to news, and opinion to opinion, just let the people know up front. Sorry for rambling, but is that too much to ask.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

It’s actually even more ironic that you’d complain about an ill-informed public and then get in a dig at the only cable news network providing any ideological diversity in the media at all.

This has to be one of the best lines I’ve read all month.  I think they should change their slogan from the delightfully Orwellian “Fair and Balanced” to the poetically ambiguous “Ideologically Diverse.” Awesome.

I think they should change their slogan from the delightfully Orwellian…

I don’t think “Orwellian” means what you think it means. You can’t just go applying “Orwellian” to anything that doesn’t suit your pallet. You’re going to dilute the word’s meaning. Orwell was actually quite keen about using words for their specific meanings.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera