|
joether -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/14/2015 10:18:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Finally, we agree on something. But, remember that is the job of a journalist - to dig for the real information, not the sanitized version from some lawyer who has to approve every word.
I like liberal journalist over conservative ones. It goes with the mentality they bring to the table. Conservative journalists want to ask questions, but will never 'rock the boat' unless their masters demand it (which they have been doing for a LONG time now). If left to their own devices, conservative journalists are really quite timid in their pursuit of knowledge and compromised on the 'explaining of facts regardless of political viewpoint'. Liberal journalists are quite the blood thirsty lot when it comes to demanding information from our government. And they are 'equal opportunity' folks to both Republicans and Democrats. They have take Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama to task over a fair amount of evidences and quoted speeches over the years. Not that conservatives are aware on this.
FOX 'news' was the first news organization in the nation to sanitize information by political agenda. Before that time, companies had an ever harder time getting people to watch the news. Advertising agencies felt it was a losing period of time during the day as fewer viewers turned into watching the news of the day/hour. If you watch/listen to NPR, the format they used is very much this 'old method'. Its dry, dull, and boring. Yet gives a fantastic amount of information without the bullshit. FOX 'news' started the process by which political opinion was mixed into the news. As time marched forward, we observed less 'facts' and 'apolitical news coverage' by FOX 'news', and more opinionated and direct attacks towards people that organization disliked. MSNBC subsequently did the same thing, but from the 'liberal' side. All the other news agencies followed suit in varying levels and ways.
So 'yes', we can blame conservatives for fucking up 'Freedom of the Press' like they fucked up the 2nd amendment....
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Additionally, it appears that the current situation is that a lawyer has to approve every word spoken by any department within the administration and this single or possibly committee has the final say on what can be released, regardless of the sensitivity of the information being looked at or it's importance. The people have a right to know what is going on in their government. That is he basis of Obama's pledge to be transparent. A lawyers job is to sanitize it and turn it into something that isn't complete, often accuracy suffers because of it and then stall until the people have to go to court and add costs to both those that desire the information and to the people in general.
Which political party is attacking Hillary Clinton for her thankless task as Secretary of State? The people that have been helped by FOX 'news' for two decades: the Republican/Tea Party! Curious that Collin Powell did the same thing, using the same system as Mrs. Clinton; yet where is all the furor and anger from conservatives towards him? Its because if the election were held today, Mrs. Clinton would win against any other Republican/Tea Partier in a landslide. Therefore, FOX 'news' and other 'news' organizations that are politically conservative run the 24/7 disinformation machine. The Drudge Report is constantly full of this crap as well!
So as a result, what President Obama would like done, is not feasible in the current political climate. When anything, anyone, from the White House staff states openly (even the lowly janitor), will be used to attack the White House in some way. Trust is a two ways street. Right now, the portion of 'America' that is conservative, do not trust the current President over.....anything.....not just specific issues. As a result the trust back towards them is very limited. What is funny is that conservatives are bitching about this level of trust between they and the President; yet, conservatives can not admit their the ones that created the problems in the first place.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I think judges are beginning to realize this is happening and looks like a few radical ones are getting to the point that they will imprison people in the government for the contempt of the judicial system and process.
Its funny isn't it? Liberals will often overlook liberal judges when they give opinions on a case. And conservatives overlook conservative judges when they do the same. But liberals and conservatives are vocal (if not exceedingly vocal) when a judge with the precised opposite political viewpoint makes a decision they dislike.
I didn't see any US Supreme Court Justices imprisoning anyone from the Bush Administration for allowing over a hundred violations of the 8th amendment during the Bush years, did I?
That is because most people (liberal and conservative) do not know what I'm talking about. That I have to explain the reasoning in depth, so they can form their own understanding and opinion at that point. In a side example, I have had to explain various concepts directly from the ACA, so others could understand the law and the decision being made upon it.
The US Supreme Court has ruled on two different court cases. One made liberals happen and another made conservatives happy. They were called 'activist judges'. Yet, isn't their role to help keep the other two branches of the federal system in-line? To make sure current and future laws are not placed that create problems with existing laws? 'Activist Judges' is used by people that often do not understand the finer aspects of a court's decision.
That they need things simplified. Just like on news coverage of today. How many conservative news agencies explained the ACA fully and truthfully to their conservatives audiences? None of them! The agencies knew their target audience would not understand the facts or evidence, but would tune into coverage on anything attacking the President and Democrats regarding the subject. As a result we now have an embodiment of people that are clueless and ignorant on an existing law, five years afterward. This is a failure of news agencies that feel 'Freedom of the Press' also means 'Do not need to be responsible with information distributed to Americans'. 'Freedom of Speech' is quite open, yet, telling lies often does carry hefty penalties; so why do we allow news agencies whom can effect a greater number of people to do this?
Because you and I, do not have the resources to control Congress like those new agencies hold.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Nixon went down because of his hidden agenda and not being open. Good. He should have been criminally punished, but was Pardoned for it so they couldn't punish him. Clinton almost went down, not for getting some pussy, but for lying in court. I don't think that the majority of the people cared much if he was getting strange. Wasn't their business. Purgery was. He should have been punished by the court system for it. Got away scott free.
Bush lied which led to 3,200 dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ long term wounded US Soldiers, and paying for two wars with borrowed money to the tune of $4 trillion. Not to mention 100,000-600,000 dead civilians. President Bush, to quote you "Got away scott free.". Was what Clinton did just as terrible as Mr. Bush? You would have to say 'yes' and give a REALLY strong argument.
Clinton lied for what? Having an affair? How many people in Washington, D.C. in Congress and elsewhere were having affairs? I could name one: Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. The guy that directly attacked President Clinton for his affair. But unlike Gingrich, Clinton's wife was not very ill, just in the dark. Where was all the anger and fury over what the Speaker of the House by conservatives? I could drop a pin in that room and hear the thundering sound of it hitting the floor from a 100 miles away!
Nixon got nailed due to good journalism. Clinton was attacked by a political 'news' agency masquerading around as 'truthful and honest'. The same 'news' agency was completely silent by what President Bush would do years later. If we had reilable, decent, honest journalists reporting the news of President Clinton and Bush, would their histories look like todays? No. Clinton would have been attacked, but the American people would have been given the truth of the GOP and all their affairs. Showing the American people just how hypocritical the GOP was to attack the President. Just as this sort of journalists would have held President Bush....THE REAL....costs of war: dead US Soldiers.
Did you know that President Bush prevented news journalists from seeing and even recording the planes that would come in from across the ocean carrying the many caskets? He stated it would have reduced morale in the nation. No, he didn't want Americans to see the real cost of war. And the 'Freedom of the Press' types timidly went along with it on the liberal side. The conservatives were all to happy to ignore that bit of truth and honesty.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Eisenhower - Overthrow of Iran
FDR - SCOTUS said he exceeded his authority
Lincoln - exceeded his authority
And we are still paying for their actions. But not because of what bad journalism created or maintained!
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I think that 2 things stick out to me the most
Trueman - Buck stops here. Thus he knew that what happens in his and any administration the sole responsibilitity lies with the POTUS
Kennedy - And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country
Truman and Kennedy were very intelligent individuals. But even they had limits like anyone else. They wanted people's involvement with government to be a better experience that the administration before it. Each administration since has tried to do so, and fallen short (even President Obama). But the simpleton will blame the president; more so if they are in the political party opposed. Yet, can they be blamed? Not fairly for the entire process. That their are millions of Americans whom are poorly informed and educated are the real group to be blamed. The ignorance of how government operates, lacking the 'liberal' sense of how it should perform (in this case, liberal is used to 'express freedom'), and being ignorant of bills being passed into law based upon what they will do long term to the nation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Please take note that they are both Dems. I am a Rep. I will tell you that they were part of the reason I decided to become a soldier. To serve my country and it's people. To allow the people to hold them accountable for their actions. Not hide behind lawyers.
There was a 'shift' of political understandings sometime at the start of the Clinton administration (first term). That Republican and Democratic parties had a major shift in understanding and viewpoints. Meaning, Democrats of today, would have voted for the Republicans years before, and vise versa. Not many conservatives would vote Reagan into the White House in 2016. He would be trailing even those gaining just 1% in the polls. While both parties still retain some small aspect of their former existences; but of their audience and views have changed. The Republican party was one for inclusion of Americans into the workforce. From large corporations to small businesses. They actually wanted to help small businesses acquire health insurance care for their employees. Democrats supported loose firearm controls.
Everyone serves the country. In one way or another. Those in public office serve the nation. Those in our hospitals, serve the nation. The crafts people that build and maintain things, serve the nation. Those that work in financial areas serve the country. And yes, soldiers and sailors serve our nation. Over the years, I've noticed a sad decline in this viewpoint towards 'being selfish assholes' when it comes to servant the nation's needs. That there are ever larger percentage of people that want taxes lower because they disagree with the current administration. Why are they against the budget? Simply not understanding how the budget ultimate effects everything in the nation!
I've always stated that people in all three branches of the US Government should be held accountable. That we do not turn a blind eye, because it suits our political viewpoints. If we held Clinton to lying to the nation, we should have held Bush to worst. Its one thing to lie about an affair. Its quite more to lie about getting this nation into two separate wars. That people say the ACA is a waste of money, while ignoring the 50+ attempts to defund it are often overlooked and/or ignored.
All people are equal under the law. Yet we tend to view those we hate as being not equal and therefore justified in ignoring the law to attack them. There are calls to impeach President Obama because his political views are different from those whom voted for the other guy in the last election. NOT, because President Obama violated any actual laws or created more problems for the nation. To bad our news agencies are not up to this task. To bad the American people have removed themselves from their civil responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
