RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media.

RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 8:56:28 AM)
In one thread you are berating cons... in another, kissing up. Confusing.

TheHeretic -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 10:10:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Maybe we have a different definition of news then. My definition is someone that just reports the facts and tells the truth. Not someone who attempts to slant everything to the advantage of their political masters and lies when that is impossible. But which facts are the important ones, Hill, and what truth is the final one? Case in point. The official numbers for unemployment are going to start dropping a bit soon. That will be a fact, and it will be true. Do we stop the story there, or do we delve deeper into the material and see that a reason those numbers are dropping is because the unemployed have used up their 99 weeks of benefits, and don't get counted anymore? Media bias is subjective, according to how much you agree with the worldview the writer approaches the story from. When a reporter frames the wasted dollars in a government dept. in terms of how many social workers could be hired with that money, do you laugh aloud, or glide right past in casual agreement with the comparison? Let's simplify. We get polls on a regular basis that tell us how the opinions of the country divide on all sorts of matters, and we get a good split on issues broadly categorized as liberal/conservative. Take those same kinds of polls in newsrooms, and you get a very different result. That comes through, on the screens, and on the page. Then you have the idealistic activism streak in many of the people who choose that career path. They go into journalism wanting to make the world a better place, and carry their opinions on how that happens right along with them. Remember the "Journo-list," that passed talking points, and partisan strategy discussions among hundreds of reporters? It creates a market of people who don't like the way news is presented to them, which Fox has successfully filled (granted, they did that by going to the lowest common denominator). It's why, as Steve noted earlier, Palin was able to catch some populist resonance with her broadbased criticism and mockery of the "lamestream" media. Now until it reaches the point of rolling up your car window when the crazy dude on the street corner starts screaming insults and obscenity in your face, I believe the answer to free speech used badly, is more free speech. All the legitimacy Fox News needs is guaranteed (not granted, as some see the world) in the US Constitution. If you have a problem with them doing what they do, then your problem is with the First Amendment. We aren't going to find any common ground in that.

TheHeretic -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 10:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I would find you more credible if I heard you complaining when Bush did that to the NY Times. Funny that I did not hear any protest from you about free speech then. Bush declared the NYT an illegitmate outlet, and encouraged other news outlets to treat them that way as well? I suspect you want to compare grapes to pineapples, here.

slvemike4u -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 10:33:58 AM)
Who compares grapes to pineapples ? I can understand apples to oranges,but grapes to pineapples,that's just ridiculous [:)]

TheHeretic -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 10:41:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Who compares grapes to pineapples ? I can understand apples to oranges,but grapes to pineapples,that's just ridiculous [:)] As I suspect RML's comparison will be, should he choose to provide the source of his assertion, Mike.

slvemike4u -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 10:45:49 AM)
Meanwhile Cain still tries to decide what is and what is not the topic ? good luck with that Herman,methinks that will be a futile effort...at least until all the meat has been picked from these bones.

TheHeretic -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:11:37 PM)
Gee. It looks like I killed yet another thread where the libs might have to agree that a free press includes Fox News. Of course, asking RML to document, is a good way to do it too.

slvemike4u -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:25:23 PM)
The thread isn't dead,Cain is still lecturing the media ....lol.

tazzygirl -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:32:09 PM)
It will only cause the media to pick his bones clean.

slvemike4u -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:39:19 PM)
That process has already started,hence the shrill sound Heard coming from him and his supporters [:)]

Lucylastic -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:40:17 PM)
did no one learn from weiners stupidness?

slvemike4u -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:42:41 PM)
Well Cain certainly didn't.....and it's not as if his organization can help him avoid the pratfalls....he has neglected to put one together( why bother,he's made the NY Times bestsellers list without one ).

Owner59 -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:43:11 PM)
Cain unilaterally declaring the discussion is over is pretty retarded for a few reasons. #1. It aint over.That`s not how it works.People will keep asking,speculating and digging.If he doesn`t respond,at all,it`ll look like he`s hiding something.The "I`m outraged"act is wearing thin too. 2.The women at one point, will come foreward.They`re getting tired of being called liars.It`s really not fair that he can talk but not them.He`s playing cutesy about the NRA not releasing the woman from the confidentiality agreement.Faining it`s out of his hands,he could easily give the NRA one word and they`d release the women. 3.They`ve already flubbed the response to the point where folks know he`s not being candid.It`s a gut feeling.The waiting for the other shoe to drop has started. Now, Cain has every right to refuse to answer questions or even swear at a reporter(heard one got punched by his security)so I disagree with DarkSteven on that point. But we have every right to ask and to demand answers. He`s asking us to make him president of the United States,afterall. If he thinks belligerence and secrecy and race-baiting is the right way to go,that`s his right too. We have the right tho,to not make him the president. I`m not sure that con-belly-aching that Cain is a victim of racism is going to carry over well, beyond the con audience.It`s to disgusting for a G rated audience. Or the cry-baby-blubber act about Bill Clinton "getting away with something".No one outside of con-ville gives two shits about that.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 7:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Maybe we have a different definition of news then. My definition is someone that just reports the facts and tells the truth. Not someone who attempts to slant everything to the advantage of their political masters and lies when that is impossible. But which facts are the important ones, Hill, and what truth is the final one? Case in point. The official numbers for unemployment are going to start dropping a bit soon. That will be a fact, and it will be true. Do we stop the story there, or do we delve deeper into the material and see that a reason those numbers are dropping is because the unemployed have used up their 99 weeks of benefits, and don't get counted anymore? Media bias is subjective, according to how much you agree with the worldview the writer approaches the story from. When a reporter frames the wasted dollars in a government dept. in terms of how many social workers could be hired with that money, do you laugh aloud, or glide right past in casual agreement with the comparison? Let's simplify. We get polls on a regular basis that tell us how the opinions of the country divide on all sorts of matters, and we get a good split on issues broadly categorized as liberal/conservative. Take those same kinds of polls in newsrooms, and you get a very different result. That comes through, on the screens, and on the page. Then you have the idealistic activism streak in many of the people who choose that career path. They go into journalism wanting to make the world a better place, and carry their opinions on how that happens right along with them. Remember the "Journo-list," that passed talking points, and partisan strategy discussions among hundreds of reporters? It creates a market of people who don't like the way news is presented to them, which Fox has successfully filled (granted, they did that by going to the lowest common denominator). It's why, as Steve noted earlier, Palin was able to catch some populist resonance with her broadbased criticism and mockery of the "lamestream" media. Now until it reaches the point of rolling up your car window when the crazy dude on the street corner starts screaming insults and obscenity in your face, I believe the answer to free speech used badly, is more free speech. All the legitimacy Fox News needs is guaranteed (not granted, as some see the world) in the US Constitution. If you have a problem with them doing what they do, then your problem is with the First Amendment. We aren't going to find any common ground in that. I dont have a problem with the first amendment. I guess I have more of a problem with the sheep that pick one news media source and take it's rantings as gospel whether it be Fox or MSLSD (thanks for that last one sanity) or any other biased source. The problem started in the early 80's with "If it bleeds, it leads" tabloid TV marketing itself as news. Cable exaggerated the problem with the 24-hour news cycle. Networks stopped just reporting the news and started making the news. Editorials are great but label them as such and when a media source starts reporting outright lies, we begin to have a problem especially with the deficit of critical thinking among the American public.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 8:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It will only cause the media to pick his bones clean. They will certainly try, and may indeed succeed. But I'm not completely convinced of that quite yet. "This is a different election". Of course, we hear that from someone almost every election ... [8D][:)] But I suspect that the Cain "movement", if it doesn't sputter, will not play out quite the way that the media or his distracts hope and wish for. Time will tell, yanno. [;)] Firm

TheHeretic -> RE: Uh oh. Cain tries to throttle the media. (11/6/2011 8:38:29 PM)
Hill, I hate this notion that the news business had some glorious golden age, and it's now been lost. Has cable/satellite changed the industry? Of course. And the internet is changing it again, now. As did radio, and television, when those came along. Hearst managed to sound the charge into the Spanish-American War without benefit of either, and the printing press certainly wrought a few changes in how people got their information a few hundred years before that. We can all like what we like, trust who we trust, and despise a few, to keep it interesting. When it gets to people claiming that the ones they don't like are not valid though, that's where the rights of a free press, and the indignation of 'assholes for free speech,' like myself, kick in. It was the fucking Enquirer that broke the John Edwards baby story, which went a good bit deeper than sex on the side.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125