dagblog - Comments for "JON, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?"

There's been a tendency for

Watt Childress — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:49:59 +0000

There's been a tendency for some to seek a dominant political position by comparing progressive activists on the left with right-wing reactionaries. It's a noteworthy behavior, in my opinion, whether it's exhibited by pop-media satirists, anonymous bloggers, or White House spokespeople. The common impulse is one that seeks to be the center of the party by labeling outsiders.

Haven't been much of a party-goer lately; but I'm practicing my balloon tricks. Maybe, if I ever get back into the swing of things, I'll have an entertaining skill that'll make up for my points of view.

We're not talking about

brewmn — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:05:04 +0000

In reply to "...to assert that the crazy

We're not talking about bloggers. But thanks for picking at that scab on a night when progressives, vocal and non alike, are in a degree of solidarity. You must be great fun at parties.

"Hordes of teabaggers are

brewmn — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:00:35 +0000

In reply to They aren't aren't screaming

"Hordes of teabaggers are coming for your social security and to teach your children that the world is 6000 years old! Be SCARED!"

This is, of course, more true than not. And i don't know that they are saying "be scared," but simply "know thy enemy." As I have said repeatedly on this thread, the mainstream media abdicated it's role as an arbiter of the truth behind the political rhetoric decades ago, and allowed a concerted propaganda campaign to dominate the discussion.

Well, you got me. I honestly

quinn esq — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:58:13 +0000

In reply to Quinn you clearly didn't read

Well, you got me. I honestly don't know what to say to an example in which you compare American Politics and Media maneuvering to a situation where NO LIFE IS LOST, AND THERE ARE NO ILL EFFECTS?

Seriously?

See, in my books, there've been these wars... and these enormously harmful things like unemployment and loss of one's house and health conditions which are uninsured and torture and etc.

If you wish to argue that the media have not had any influence on US opinion or policy on these issues, you can - but I won't bother even engaging.

If you wish to argue that the two parties have had absolutely no significant difference between them on these files, again, likewise, I really don't know what to say. Other than maybe, Al Gore versus Dick Cheney, tonight debating Climate Change.

As to the neutrality issue, ummmmmm, you're babbling. Go back and note your first comment to me, which was directly in response to... a "neutrality" comment of MINE. But now you want to argue that I'm only bringing it in as a red herring? Hey dude, sorry, but this is where you came IN.

And to imagine that somehow in the past there was a magic "neutral" or "facts-based' news channel or station or show or reporter... is to be a child. Seriously. Didn't happen, wasn't ever the case.

by quinn esq 11/2/2010 - 12:57 pm

You really assert that there has never been a responsible "facts-based" news show or reporter? Come on Quinn, that's total bullshit. I've given one: Bill Moyers. He treated every subject I ever saw him address with sober and respectful coverage, probing those who were agreeable and those who were not with the same unassailable professionality - time and time again.

Quinn you clearly didn't read

kgb999 — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:04:37 +0000

In reply to Let's take this from the

Quinn you clearly didn't read my comment. I don't see how you can claim to be on the same topic as I after my specific clarification that neutrality is not at all what I expect from journalists leads you to go on a tirade about how neutrality is an unrealistic expectation. As best I can tell, you are saying that my expectations in this regard are quite reasonable.

Every thing you say is indeed true. But a total red herring. And while I'm glad you cut a specious line of argument short, it would have been nice if you at least used an example of Moyers actual journalism to trash him as unprofessional. I never once argued that Moyers was neutral, nor have I once on this thread asked for neutrality in journalism. The act of proving my chosen example is not neutral would be purely masturbatory on your part. I never once asserted he is. Again. Not what I'm talking about.

Nothing you say has addressed the criticism leveled so perfectly by Jon Stewart at his rally in regards to the current media environment. You just keep changing the subject to something you'd prefer to argue.

If MSNBC was sitting by and doing nothing while FOX metaphorically set cats ablaze; not only would your analogy become applicable, but interestingly they also wouldn't be the subject of the specific criticism they have found directed their way in this case (of course, then we'd have to ask about their journalistic integrity for different reasons). What we have in the situation being discussed is more like: some psycho burns a cat to get a bunch of attention and suffers no apparent ill effects - then some other psycho sets a car on fire but made sure no life was lost and asserts it was to call attention to the fact that the cat-burner went Scott-free ... then both of them start yelling at the top of their lungs "IF EVERYONE DOESN'T RUN INTO THE STREETS AND START SETTING [car/cats] ON FIRE ... THE OTHER SIDE WILL WIN AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!" I don't give a fuck who's worse. Just stop burning shit.

I know you are a bright guy. I must assume you are willfully missing the point. As for big words ... that's nothing compared to the floccinaucinihilipilification of the derivatives market!

"...to assert that the crazy

Watt Childress — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:50:35 +0000

In reply to As much as I love both

"...to assert that the crazy fear-mongering and pandering to the worst instincts in society is coming from both sides is nonsense..."

Yet isn't this basically what some bloggers have been doing since about this time last year, by lifting the label "teabagger" and referring to vocal progressives as "firebaggers?"

I agree with your comment

Oxy Mora — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:27:03 +0000

In reply to Sorry, but on my list of

I agree with your comment about CNN. Sometimes I can't avoid it, say, in a doctor's office, and my opinion is reconfirmed every time.

That's the best description

we are stardust — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:05:53 +0000

In reply to As much as I love both

That's the best description I've heard on this rally and its devolution; thanks Mr. Smith. It's clearer now: their intentions were good, and they cowered in the face of pre-criticism.

Let's take this from the

quinn esq — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:40:46 +0000

In reply to Soft in the brainpan,

Let's take this from the bottom up. I have no problem with kids. Never have. I'm great with them. And have none of my own.

But errrrrm, no. No, it isn't like I'm allowing a kid who has behaved poorly to get off scot free, because the other guy did worse. I'm saying, the kid who set the cat on fire is fucking psycho. And the kid who stood by and never stopped it is bad as well. But they're not, actually, the same. And I'm saying both did poorly, but... one is fucking psycho. The other is just gutless. But in no way have I said the other kid gets off. I give him a beating too. (Builds character.)

As for journalism, yes I'm on topic, and no, you're wrong. Listen. You don't get to separate out WHY THEY CHOOSE THE NEWS STORIES THEMSELVES as though this had nothing to do with their facts or interpretations or values.... but then somehow the magic of journalism kicks in, and they start applying their "tools" and it's all about "professionalism." That's just silly, and I cut my Moyers story short because I could critique every single story he ever did, or any other journalist, and that would amount to me just being a giant bore.

And I think it's silly to imagine somehow there was this way of being neutral in the past, or independent or something, and more often people hit the mark, but that people don't do so today. THERE IS NO NEUTRAL. It's just that the ones from the Right today come from a very narrow perspective, their style is powerfully black and white, specific small groups stand to gain from it, etc. I don't MIND some of those stories. And nope, I have no grand high ground to stand on for wanting more stories, more perspectives, more colours, wider sets of beneficiaries.

I doubt that there's much, in the way of substantive outcomes or policy differences, between us. I just can't talk anymore about neutral and facts and all that, it's a way of speaking that doesn't make sense to me.

And as for "demonstratively," well... that's one hell of a big word.

This is one idiotic argument,

we are stardust — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:39:24 +0000

In reply to Way to go. Plus I learned

This is one idiotic argument, IMO, and serves as an indicator that it's hard to talk to each other without talking past each other. I see so much predetermined conviction, loaded with emotion, and we're eyeing each other across some abyss that's largely been constructed by a freaking comedian, who may have some valid points about not demonizing each other, and works too hard to scold the dramatic antics of a couple Librul teevee icons.

Part of it seems to me to be acting out in defense of the original poster; other parts may be substituting for the past burning discussions about Tea Partiers, all Republicans, whatever, being 'evil' and 'racist assholes'. Taking the positions that these are sometimes otherwise not bad people, or even faily good people, save for their ignorant biases, is dangerous on the boards. I do understand that, though I don't agree. Even with people with whom I agree politically, I often find there are certain areas of personal failings I have to look beyond to have even casual friends. There is always some bar that beyond which, we can't share any exchanges of intimacy; discovering that ceiling is hard, but a fact of life.

If this is some 'Sister Souljah moment' for Stewart, I'd remind us all, again, that he'e not running for election, except maybe for a spot on Oprah's new Harpo or whatever station. (Screw Oprah, too, by the way.) ;o)

This diary is so loaded for bear that it looks as though virtual friendships are tanking over it. How messed up is that?

I get that DD watches cable crap all day long, thinking he's providing witness to Marching Evil every day; and now the Abyss he's been staring into is looking back, and he's really upset. I get that, too. I blog about war and torture and the horrid things we do to other humans, and it costs sometimes, and I have to clean out some way. I haven't even been able to bear watching the network Talking Heads on Sunday for the past year, they're so goddam irrelevant and useless and full of false framing of non-issues.

But this argument? Oy! So many of these remarks have to be standing in for other beliefs and convictions, or it wouldn't be so highly charged. I'm supposed to making GOTV calls, and here I am wasting my time and others', clacking away over this virtual inanity. I keep hearing this through all of it. But, oh: what was the trick you learned?