Boehner U.S. Constitution FAIL

[bytebear]

What I'm getting from you, Bytor, is that Pres. Obama is not perfect, yet you condemn him for not being perfect and condemn all news media outlets for not crucifying him when he misspeaks. I don't recall Fox News criticizing Pres. Bush II when he had various linguistic adventures

I think you are mistaking me BYTEBEAR with Bytor. We are not the same person.

What I am condemning is bias in media. Treating one side or one person better than the other. Right now it's primarily about Obama more than liberalism in general. After all, they pretty much hacked up Hillary Clinton in the primaries in favor of Obama.

You claim Fox didn't criticize Bush, but that's not the question. The issue is how media outlets are treating standing administrations. Fox certainly did cover Bush and his policies far more evenly than MSNBC, the NYTimes, and essentially every other media outlet is treating Obama now.

Again, read the books I recommended.

As for criticisms. News outlets are not there to criticize. They ere to inform. There should never have been a story about any flubs other than to say, "They flubbed." Unless it is a commentary show, like Beck, Olberman, or O'Reilley, there should be no opinion expressed by a reporter, ever. And I will say, when O'Reilley covered the election, he was very fair, while another reporter "felt a thrill go up my leg". So unprofessional.

[Moksha]

I don't recall Fox News criticizing Pres. Bush II when he had various linguistic adventures

That is different. The whole philosophy of Fox was to support the former Republican Party and that support would not include criticism of Republicans in any form. Now that their support has shifted to the new Conservative Party (leaving moderates stranded) while still using the former Republican name, they will be more selective in whom they support. BTW, Fox is now the generator of stories. They stage events - sort of like the National Inquirer and their Donkey Boy and Alien Autopsy stories.

Sometimes Fox does inadvertently hit upon the truth. Consider the fervent effort Fox put into attacking ACORN as a ruse in their campaign against President Obama. What started out as a simple smear tactic, which they in their off the air rational states would scoff at or blast away at if it was an attack on McCain, turned into a real story. Apparently the ACORN organization has hired a trainload of numbskulls with no sense of doing the right thing. Go figure.

:)

[Moksha]

I think you are mistaking me BYTEBEAR with Bytor. We are not the same person.

The byte is the same but the bark is different.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Moksha

[talisyn]

Sorry Bytebear! Force of habit

Sorry again, but I see the question of how Fox news treated Pres. Bush II vs. how CNN treats Pres. Obama as very relevant. If both sides are playing favorites then we don't have the right to criticize one over the other.

[Elphaba]

I love how some liberal Mormons got righteously indignant when Cheney came to BYU because he had dared to use the f-bomb on the Senate floor; but apparently think nothing of using terms like "teabagging" and "boner" when describing their ideological adversaries.

Like who?

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Would have to go back through the bloggernacle records from the time Cheney's BYU speech actually happened. I recall the point as evoking a general chorus of "oh, yes; definitely not a role model". The term "teabagging" has also cropped up frequently--see generally By Common Consent, Feminist Mormon Housewives, and Mormon Matters--and Moksha has used it here at least twice.

To the bloggernacle's credit, though, this is the first time I've seen the oh-so-witty play on Boehner's name.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Kawazu]

Awesome. I liked it, especially the part about the buildup to the Iraq war and why journalists didn't do much digging into WMDs (I always wondered about that. Someone somewhere always talks). I also like the flat out statement that news has always been biased.

Mahone, it's not a weird accent, it's pure Southern molasses

Talisyn,

I am glad you enjoyed the video. Recognizing that, historically, news outlets have always held biases was appealing to me, too. One of my college profs used to say, "There is no such thing as value-free information."

People continually bring their own perspectives to the table. I've heard that it can be interesting reading histories of a single event authored by one historian, and then taking a look at another historian's synopsis of the same occurrence. Different people emphasize different evidence. The way one views cause-and-effect relationships also changes from person to person.

In any case, thanks for taking a look at the video.

Note to Mahone: Where available, I will include text transcripts with audio. I wouldn't want to give you any more nasty surprises. :)

Cheers,

Kawazu

Edited November 9, 2009 by Kawazu

[Kawazu]

I've always found partisanship interesting. In one breath, you can take someone to task for saying something dumb. In the next breath, you defend someone who has said something dumb.

How do you know who to attack and who to defend? Why, whether they're on 'your side' or not! You extend charity and the benefit of the doubt to 'your guy', and you harshly judge and insult 'the other guy'.

Forgive me if I strive not to be this way. I mean, it's a human failing, and I'm certainly human - but I try really hard not to fall into this trap.

LM

it is awfully hard trying to avoid partisan mischaracterizations. I think the thing to remember is that people share common goals--to have a safe home, a source of income, the ability to act peaceably on one's own initiative, etc. Too often it is natural to demonize the opposition.

*Sigh.