Comments on: Media Bias http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/ Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media. Fri, 16 May 2008 04:34:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Briar http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140778 Briar Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:29:37 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140778 I'm not surprised the bloggers are engaged in vicious bullying: I have been on the internet for about 20 years, and viciousness is what I expect of a dark and airless cave where invisible, anonymous people can say what they like. What dismays me is that it has such influence on the real world. And what I notice is that Clinton's appeal to real world people who may not be so obsessed with listening to their own voices in that dark and airless cave seems pretty robust. Maybe she has the antique state of the US internet to thank for that. If only about 50 per cent of New York State, say, is connected, and voters are having to do the old fashioned thing and think for themselves about who to support, perhaps that explains how she has confounded the bloggers and media commentators (all doing their "research" online, I suspect) alike and won contests where they had noisily proclaimed her the loser ahead of polling day. As for the state of the movers and shakers in our oh-so-modern, shiny new media world - I was reminded of this article about the current crop of well connected British churnalists: A job for the wealthy and connected How can journalism truly reflect society when entry to the profession relies on wealth, geography, and parents prepared to pay the wages that employers will not? Peter Wilby http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/07/pressandpublishing4 And for those most blinded by their devotion to Obama, I have just two words: Tony Blair. I’m not surprised the bloggers are engaged in vicious bullying: I have been on the internet for about 20 years, and viciousness is what I expect of a dark and airless cave where invisible, anonymous people can say what they like. What dismays me is that it has such influence on the real world. And what I notice is that Clinton’s appeal to real world people who may not be so obsessed with listening to their own voices in that dark and airless cave seems pretty robust. Maybe she has the antique state of the US internet to thank for that. If only about 50 per cent of New York State, say, is connected, and voters are having to do the old fashioned thing and think for themselves about who to support, perhaps that explains how she has confounded the bloggers and media commentators (all doing their “research” online, I suspect) alike and won contests where they had noisily proclaimed her the loser ahead of polling day.

As for the state of the movers and shakers in our oh-so-modern, shiny new media world - I was reminded of this article about the current crop of well connected British churnalists:
A job for the wealthy and connected
How can journalism truly reflect society when entry to the profession relies on wealth, geography, and parents prepared to pay the wages that employers will not?
Peter Wilby
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/07/pressandpublishing4

And for those most blinded by their devotion to Obama, I have just two words: Tony Blair.

]]> By: jones http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140772 jones Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:15:52 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140772 Welcome to the Republicans world. You're only concerned because its your bull being gored. You have come to the realization that an attack on a Democrat you don't like is still damaging to the brand. Well, you reap what you sow. This atmosphere where the elitist press can so belittle and damage someone was honed for years against the Republican candidates. Now you're in for a taste because your campaign has become a contest between the despised "archie bunkers" and the brie and champagne San Francisco liberals and you don't like it much when its YOU who are being looked down upon and condescended to and patted on the head. Drop out Hillary, so your betters can start the campaign to destroy the Republican. Schadenfreude motherfuckers. Welcome to the Republicans world. You’re only concerned because its your bull being gored. You have come to the realization that an attack on a Democrat you don’t like is still damaging to the brand. Well, you reap what you sow. This atmosphere where the elitist press can so belittle and damage someone was honed for years against the Republican candidates. Now you’re in for a taste because your campaign has become a contest between the despised “archie bunkers” and the brie and champagne San Francisco liberals and you don’t like it much when its YOU who are being looked down upon and condescended to and patted on the head. Drop out Hillary, so your betters can start the campaign to destroy the Republican.

Schadenfreude motherfuckers.

]]> By: Nell http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140764 Nell Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:45:00 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140764 The part of blogosphere missed a great opportunity to enlighten, but instead, descended into us vs them, where them used to be us. I think Rove had a hand in it. The part of blogosphere missed a great opportunity to enlighten, but instead, descended into us vs them, where them used to be us. I think Rove had a hand in it.

]]> By: Mrs. Polly http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140267 Mrs. Polly Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:26:32 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140267 Hello? Hello? Remember the war? Soldiers being sent to Iraq again and again, as in "What, you still alive? Back to Iraq!" Remember the national parks being sold to Republican cronies? Remember the Bill of Rights and government oversight, which nearly drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub? Obamaniacs and Hilarians, Grover is giggling into his scotch/rocks right now, (that's a question: what would Grover Norquist drink?) and Karl Rove just has a warm fuzzy feeling all over, eeeewwww, because YOU are doing their work for them. I don't care who started it, I want it to stop and I want you to suck it up and vote for whatever is on the Democratic ticket in November no matter how appalling. That's what I'm going to do, and I don't like EITHER of them. Right now. And I bloody well hope you do feel intimidated! Hello? Hello? Remember the war? Soldiers being sent to Iraq again and again, as in “What, you still alive? Back to Iraq!” Remember the national parks being sold to Republican cronies? Remember the Bill of Rights and government oversight, which nearly drowned in Grover Norquist’s bathtub?
Obamaniacs and Hilarians, Grover is giggling into his scotch/rocks right now, (that’s a question: what would Grover Norquist drink?) and Karl Rove just has a warm fuzzy feeling all over, eeeewwww, because YOU are doing their work for them. I don’t care who started it, I want it to stop and I want you to suck it up and vote for whatever is on the Democratic ticket in November no matter how appalling. That’s what I’m going to do, and I don’t like EITHER of them. Right now. And I bloody well hope you do feel intimidated!

]]> By: Lyle http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140108 Lyle Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:35:59 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-140108 This primary race has just become so depressing for me. I've been unsubscribing to once-great political blogs like crazy in recent months. I'm seeing plenty of right wing smears being pushed, excuses being made for racism or sexism and, most disappointingly, I've seen claims of bias that comes straight out of the old Bush-defending manual. It's a real struggle coming out of these discussions feeling informed. Honestly, I feel like it's about equal between Clinton and Obama supporters frustrating me, but my memory could be clouded that I'm just disappointed to see that kind of talk on "progressive" blogs, so my mind isn't really tallying which side leaves me angry as much as I'm counting the number of times progressives leave me feeling like I should get ready for eight years of McCain. This primary race has just become so depressing for me. I’ve been unsubscribing to once-great political blogs like crazy in recent months. I’m seeing plenty of right wing smears being pushed, excuses being made for racism or sexism and, most disappointingly, I’ve seen claims of bias that comes straight out of the old Bush-defending manual. It’s a real struggle coming out of these discussions feeling informed.

Honestly, I feel like it’s about equal between Clinton and Obama supporters frustrating me, but my memory could be clouded that I’m just disappointed to see that kind of talk on “progressive” blogs, so my mind isn’t really tallying which side leaves me angry as much as I’m counting the number of times progressives leave me feeling like I should get ready for eight years of McCain.

]]> By: Randy http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139907 Randy Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:26:03 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139907 <i>Well, Randy, the common use of the name “Hitlery” to describe Clinton might have something to do with that.</i> I suppose it might, Susie. People who resort to juvenile name-calling like that should be ashamed of themselves. By the way, it was wrong of me to insinuate that McCain might be the reincarnation of Hitler and I apologize. Still, I would NEVER vote for him instead of Hillary or vote for him instead of Barack as I've seen some commenters write. #36 Decider, thank you for clearing up the Hillary Watergate article. I should've suspected it was a Scaifian/Rovian smear or a bad joke. Well, Randy, the common use of the name “Hitlery” to describe Clinton might have something to do with that.

I suppose it might, Susie. People who resort to juvenile name-calling like that should be ashamed of themselves. By the way, it was wrong of me to insinuate that McCain might be the reincarnation of Hitler and I apologize. Still, I would NEVER vote for him instead of Hillary or vote for him instead of Barack as I’ve seen some commenters write.

#36 Decider, thank you for clearing up the Hillary Watergate article. I should’ve suspected it was a Scaifian/Rovian smear or a bad joke.

]]> By: Susie http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139871 Susie Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:19:07 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139871 <i>From the rhetoric I’ve seen a lot of Hillary supporters spew, they believe I’d vote for the reincarnation of Hitler over Hillary.</i> Well, Randy, the common use of the name "Hitlery" to describe Clinton might have something to do with that. From the rhetoric I’ve seen a lot of Hillary supporters spew, they believe I’d vote for the reincarnation of Hitler over Hillary.

Well, Randy, the common use of the name “Hitlery” to describe Clinton might have something to do with that.

]]> By: Desider http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139870 Desider Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:02:44 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139870 Oh, for Randy, the Zeifman thing was either an April Fool's Joke or a pure BS Scaifian/Rovian smear. Thanks for tossing out more Martian Chronicles. Oh, for Randy, the Zeifman thing was either an April Fool’s Joke or a pure BS Scaifian/Rovian smear. Thanks for tossing out more Martian Chronicles.

]]> By: Desider http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139869 Desider Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:59:38 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139869 I spend quite a bit of time over at TPM trying to deflect a lot of blanket and one-sided Obama-fan charges as well as sheer vitriolic comment. I find it humorous that by contesting the huge amount of sexist comment and assumptions that I'm assumed to be a woman - somehow I assumed my writing would out me pretty easily, but no, men don't do feminist issues it seems (and now I find out that women of color don't do them either, only "womanist" issues a la Alice Walker - how old school of me). About the only feminist advance I find this election is that people now feel more comfortable using the tags "bitch" and "cunt" in public. Oh wait, that's not an advance, is it? I spend quite a bit of time over at TPM trying to deflect a lot of blanket and one-sided Obama-fan charges as well as sheer vitriolic comment. I find it humorous that by contesting the huge amount of sexist comment and assumptions that I’m assumed to be a woman - somehow I assumed my writing would out me pretty easily, but no, men don’t do feminist issues it seems (and now I find out that women of color don’t do them either, only “womanist” issues a la Alice Walker - how old school of me). About the only feminist advance I find this election is that people now feel more comfortable using the tags “bitch” and “cunt” in public. Oh wait, that’s not an advance, is it?

]]> By: Randy http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139868 Randy Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:29:57 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/30/08/57/media-bias/#comment-139868 <i>As long as we have corporate money in politics, we will have candidates making compromises that break our hearts. I doubt Obama will be any different.</i> Speaking of corporate money, which of the two Democratic candidates has taken the most in their campaign? Almost every day, something "new" floats to the surface from Hillary's past for her to have to deal with. Is the following an April Fool's joke or a legitimate story: March 31, 2008 Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” ... http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm For people who continue to want to rehash the Obama/Rezko story, Patrick Fitzgerald (a Republican), whom we all admired for his handling of the Valerie Plame affair (rolling eyes), has stated that there is no "there" there as far as indicting Obama for improprieties and possible illegal activity. Should we trust Patrick Fitzgerald now, as most of us trusted and respected him during the Plame investigation, or should we assume Patrick Fitzgerald is doing Obama a favor by not indicting him? Had Hillary Clinton not had to face Barack Obama in this Democratic primary, I would've supported her steadfastly and been pleased to vote for her this April and then in November, despite knowing there were things in her past that would make some people clutch their pearls and gasp. There's nothing in Hillary's past to compare to the dirty tricks and mudslinging the Republican Party and their candidates have done and are capable of. Unfortunately for Hillary, there seems to be a shoe dropping every day or so from a woman who apparently has more shoes than Amelda Marcos. Having said all that, I am an Obama supporter who doesn't want Hillary to drop out before the last primary/caucus. Running for President is her right, just as it is Ralph Nader's. I'm not one of the Obama supporters who says they won't vote for Hillary if she wins the primary and would vote for the decrepit, senile old fool McCain. Of course, hardly anyone who supports Hillary will believe me. From the rhetoric I've seen a lot of Hillary supporters spew, they believe I'd vote for the reincarnation of Hitler over Hillary. I'll be so glad when this election year is over with and the "us against us" madness (re: "us against them") can finally become a footnote in history. As long as we have corporate money in politics, we will have candidates making compromises that break our hearts. I doubt Obama will be any different.

Speaking of corporate money, which of the two Democratic candidates has taken the most in their campaign?

Almost every day, something “new” floats to the surface from Hillary’s past for her to have to deal with. Is the following an April Fool’s joke or a legitimate story:

March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
…
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

For people who continue to want to rehash the Obama/Rezko story, Patrick Fitzgerald (a Republican), whom we all admired for his handling of the Valerie Plame affair (rolling eyes), has stated that there is no “there” there as far as indicting Obama for improprieties and possible illegal activity. Should we trust Patrick Fitzgerald now, as most of us trusted and respected him during the Plame investigation, or should we assume Patrick Fitzgerald is doing Obama a favor by not indicting him?

Had Hillary Clinton not had to face Barack Obama in this Democratic primary, I would’ve supported her steadfastly and been pleased to vote for her this April and then in November, despite knowing there were things in her past that would make some people clutch their pearls and gasp. There’s nothing in Hillary’s past to compare to the dirty tricks and mudslinging the Republican Party and their candidates have done and are capable of. Unfortunately for Hillary, there seems to be a shoe dropping every day or so from a woman who apparently has more shoes than Amelda Marcos.

Having said all that, I am an Obama supporter who doesn’t want Hillary to drop out before the last primary/caucus. Running for President is her right, just as it is Ralph Nader’s. I’m not one of the Obama supporters who says they won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the primary and would vote for the decrepit, senile old fool McCain. Of course, hardly anyone who supports Hillary will believe me. From the rhetoric I’ve seen a lot of Hillary supporters spew, they believe I’d vote for the reincarnation of Hitler over Hillary.

I’ll be so glad when this election year is over with and the “us against us” madness (re: “us against them”) can finally become a footnote in history.

]]>