Romney addresses a slut...

[Vandy Vol]

You kids with your misguided Utopian ideals...   

A lot of people still think that Socialism and Communism look good on paper too.  Of course, we know that in practice, they're not good for anyone.

You seem stuck on this government regulation idea, even after I explicitly stated that I don't support government regulation of media standards.  Ironically, this is very reminiscent of the media's frequent focus on straw men, hyperbole, irrelevant issues, etc.

BTW, the media does regulate itself.  Olbermann eventually had to move to some no-name cable channel, and many of the others are relegated to other fee-based cable outlets and off-hours line-ups.  It may not be working well-enough from your perspective, but it does work.

A car that frequently backfires may get you from point A to point B for the time being, but that doesn't mean that it works well.  Eventually, it will break down completely if not repaired.  The question is, do you fix it now, or wait until it's already inoperable before doing anything?  You seemed against apathy when it came to politics, but apparently are apathetic to reforming political "information" in the media.

Olbermann, Beck, and others were forced out because they had said something (or several things) that the network finally deemed "over the line."  In reality, they've been stepping over that line for years, but no one wants to do anything about it until it affects their ratings.

And, in fact, they simply go back to what Olbermann was doing in order to keep their ratings high.  Olbermann goes out, and this guy comes in:



And that's self regulation?  That's improving their political reporting?

[Snaggletiger]

I watched about 2 minutes of that and now have this insatiable desire to hit him in the face with a cinder block. 

[GarMan]

You seem stuck on this government regulation idea, even after I explicitly stated that I don't support government regulation of media standards.  Ironically, this is very reminiscent of the media's frequent focus on straw men, hyperbole, irrelevant issues, etc.

Right over your head, that one went...  I was mocking your "I think - I think" with a "we know". 

A car that frequently backfires may get you from point A to point B for the time being, but that doesn't mean that it works well.  Eventually, it will break down completely if not repaired.  The question is, do you fix it now, or wait until it's already inoperable before doing anything?  You seemed against apathy when it came to politics, but apparently are apathetic to reforming political "information" in the media.

Again, you're completely missing the point.  As frustrating as it may seem sometimes, we're nothing like your backfiring car analogy.  We're simply not doing as well as we could.  And I'm not apathetic towards reforming political "information" in the media; I just don't believe that it's necessary.  You're still misplacing blame for something that you deem incorrect or inappropriate.  Unpopular or inaccurate speech is not the problem here. 

As far as running for office...  the best will never run for political office because it will never be as rewarding as the private sector.  And technically, we shouldn't really ever need a perfect president in the executive branch...  The federal government was never meant to be as powerful as it has become, and we have enough checks and balances to nullify (or later correct) any moonbat lucky enough to get elected.  Oh, regarding your Herman Cain example...  Whether any of the accusations echoed by the lamestream media or the secondary shock jock market were true or false, the fact that he didn't have the balls to stick it out, fight and win this thing would be why I would support the current environment.  The way I see it, the system worked. 

Olbermann, Beck, and others were forced out because they had said something (or several things) that the network finally deemed "over the line."  In reality, they've been stepping over that line for years, but no one wants to do anything about it until it affects their ratings.

And, in fact, they simply go back to what Olbermann was doing in order to keep their ratings high.  Olbermann goes out, and this guy comes in:

Annoying video omitted...

And that's self regulation?  That's improving their political reporting?

Just for shits and giggles, how would something like this work if the government did not get involved? 

[Vandy Vol]

Right over your head, that one went...  I was mocking your "I think - I think" with a "we know".

Mocking...also reminiscent of the media.  When can I expect you to repeatedly call me a slut?
 

Again, you're completely missing the point.  As frustrating as it may seem sometimes, we're nothing like your backfiring car analogy.  We're simply not doing as well as we could.

So you recognize the faults and admit that there's room for improvement, but basically you have no desire for it to improve at this point in time.  I guess that's just where we differ.

Oh, regarding your Herman Cain example...  Whether any of the accusations echoed by the lamestream media or the secondary shock jock market were true or false, the fact that he didn't have the balls to stick it out, fight and win this thing would be why I would support the current environment.  The way I see it, the system worked.

Yeah, I guess Herman Cain could have toughed it out...but realistically, would it have been worth it?  Would it have worked?  Due to the media's ineptitude at highlighting real issues, their focus would have been on nothing but his previous adultery.  How do you express your political stance to the public when your main outlet in the form of mainstream media wants to do nothing but air your dirty laundry?  When liberal pundits who have devoted audiences do nothing but shout derogatory comments about your personal life?

There comes a point in time when you realize that the media has control over how it presents information, and that they are choosing to present it in such a way so as to negatively affect the political process and how the public receives its information regarding candidates.  Hell, not only negatively affecting the political process, but even directing it so some degree.  Do you wait until the system is so mangled that it's 1,000 times more difficult to get it back on the right track, or do you try to steer it in the right direction today?  If at all possible, I'd prefer the latter.

Just for shits and giggles, how would something like this work if the government did not get involved?

I think you're missing my point.  The people involved with media in this country are adults; they should know better than to belittle political issues.  They should know that our country, and our politicians, need to address actual issues, and not be prattling on about whether Hank Williams, Jr. being fired was right.  Lawrence O'Donnell should not be interviewing Herman Cain during his campaign only to ask questions about why he didn't have direct involvement in civil rights protests in the 1960's.  These aren't questions that the public needs to hear answered if they're going to make intelligent decisions.  These are questions that pundits with an agenda of swaying the public opinion would ask.  And it's everywhere.  Not just with Limbaugh, Beck, Maher, or any other self-proclaimed "entertainer;"  it's on our news channels.

Whether they actually realize that they should take responsibility for their actions and perform the reform themselves is up to them, and no, I don't foresee them actually doing that.  But it is my opinion that, as adults with a fucking head on their shoulders, they should.  Because as of right now, even the news media is mainly focused on the circus aspect of things and doesn't appear interested in providing objective, relevant information.

The voting public are also adults, and yes, I do place blame with them as well.  But you have to realize that the media is a very important (and almost exclusive) source of information for the general public.  They should realize the position they're in and should strive not to abuse it for pecuniary means and political games.  Yet they do.

How do we force the media to change without government regulation?  I don't rightly know, but does the fact that I don't have a solution mean that I've inaccurately identified a problem?  That would be illogical to suppose; just because I don't know how to replace a head gasket doesn't mean it's not blown.

The only potential solution that comes to mind is pressure from the public, but that's easier said than done.  As mentioned, the public relies on the media for its information and views, so many don't see a problem; they're content to blindly cheer on O'Reilly, O'Donnell, etc., and have no reason to want reform.  Learning about Cain's personal life is A-Okay with them, and they see no problem with basing their votes on such irrelevant and useless information.  It's what the news is reporting, so it must be important, right?  Surely he didn't have any sound economical recovery plans for our country, because he was obviously too busy fucking women.

Again, I don't claim to have some sort of perfect solution, but it doesn't mean I'm incapable of identifying the problem.

[GarMan]

Mocking...also reminiscent of the media.  When can I expect you to repeatedly call me a slut?

http://www.youtube.com/v/k80nW6AOhTs

So you recognize the faults and admit that there's room for improvement, but basically you have no desire for it to improve at this point in time.  I guess that's just where we differ.

More because I see virtually as many pros to the current situation as I do cons. 

Yeah, I guess Herman Cain could have toughed it out...but realistically, would it have been worth it?  Would it have worked?  Due to the media's ineptitude at highlighting real issues, their focus would have been on nothing but his previous adultery.  How do you express your political stance to the public when your main outlet in the form of mainstream media wants to do nothing but air your dirty laundry?  When liberal pundits who have devoted audiences do nothing but shout derogatory comments about your personal life?

There comes a point in time when you realize that the media has control over how it presents information, and that they are choosing to present it in such a way so as to negatively affect the political process and how the public receives its information regarding candidates.  Hell, not only negatively affecting the political process, but even directing it so some degree.  Do you wait until the system is so mangled that it's 1,000 times more difficult to get it back on the right track, or do you try to steer it in the right direction today?  If at all possible, I'd prefer the latter.

I agree with you to an extent, but there is nothing new except for the types of media that we have available today.  There is no simple, straightforward solution to this, and I would not want to completely eliminate it...

I think you're missing my point.  The people involved with media in this country are adults; they should know better than to belittle political issues.  They should know that our country, and our politicians, need to address actual issues, and not be prattling on about whether Hank Williams, Jr. being fired was right.  Lawrence O'Donnell should not be interviewing Herman Cain during his campaign only to ask questions about why he didn't have direct involvement in civil rights protests in the 1960's.  These aren't questions that the public needs to hear answered if they're going to make intelligent decisions.  These are questions that pundits with an agenda of swaying the public opinion would ask.  And it's everywhere.  Not just with Limbaugh, Beck, Maher, or any other self-proclaimed "entertainer;"  it's on our news channels.

Whether they actually realize that they should take responsibility for their actions and perform the reform themselves is up to them, and no, I don't foresee them actually doing that.  But it is my opinion that, as adults with a fucking head on their shoulders, they should.  Because as of right now, even the news media is mainly focused on the circus aspect of things and doesn't appear interested in providing objective, relevant information.

The voting public are also adults, and yes, I do place blame with them as well.  But you have to realize that the media is a very important (and almost exclusive) source of information for the general public.  They should realize the position they're in and should strive not to abuse it for pecuniary means and political games.  Yet they do.

How do we force the media to change without government regulation?  I don't rightly know, but does the fact that I don't have a solution mean that I've inaccurately identified a problem?  That would be illogical to suppose; just because I don't know how to replace a head gasket doesn't mean it's not blown.

The only potential solution that comes to mind is pressure from the public, but that's easier said than done.  As mentioned, the public relies on the media for its information and views, so many don't see a problem; they're content to blindly cheer on O'Reilly, O'Donnell, etc., and have no reason to want reform.  Learning about Cain's personal life is A-Okay with them, and they see no problem with basing their votes on such irrelevant and useless information.  It's what the news is reporting, so it must be important, right?  Surely he didn't have any sound economical recovery plans for our country, because he was obviously too busy fucking women.

Again, I don't claim to have some sort of perfect solution, but it doesn't mean I'm incapable of identifying the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/v/WL1lfSzgcAw

I think your quest for a Utopian society is clouding your judgement and ability to reason.  I really don't disagree with your examples, but the absurdity of the extremes do have a tendency to balance themselves out.  You're on to something with regard to pressure from the public, but that's not going to occur overnight.  People need to be educated enough to recognize these faults and push for that type of change.  Our public school system doesn't do that right now, so don't expect any miracles.  Intelligent people get their news and information from multiple sources.  There isn't one source that's right all of the time, but if you tap enough sources, you can learn enough to adopt a rational perspective or opinion on almost anything.  Again, this is nothing new...

[Vandy Vol]

I agree with you to an extent, but there is nothing new except for the types of media that we have available today.

The type of media that we have is the big difference.  Random people yelling on the streets about goat fuckers RWS back in ancient Greece is completely different from modern major news networks which have developed a sense of trust with the public and have created an authoritative presence when it comes to the dissemination of reliable information.  Abusing that trust is, in my mind, a problem that should be fixed.

If identifying problems and wanting them to be fixed is Utopian, then I'm one Utopian motherfucker.

Intelligent people get their news and information from multiple sources.  There isn't one source that's right all of the time, but if you tap enough sources, you can learn enough to adopt a rational perspective or opinion on almost anything.  Again, this is nothing new...

Sure, and again, that's where I do place some of the blame on the consumer.  Afterall, they are the ones that are essentially giving media outlets the incentive to continue their shenanigans, as they keep giving them the high viewer ratings.  But, ultimately, the media is taking advantage of those who aren't intelligent people, which happen to be a large portion of our society.  They're relying upon the fact that these people have grown up with the television and radio as being legitimate sources of news, allowing them to use their position of apparent authority to skew things as they wish.

[Townhallsavoy]

we’ll end up with political candidates who never say anything but the safest, blandest, emptiest, most unctuous focus-grouped platitudes and cant.

Bill Maher nailed it. 

I wonder what happened that conjured up Captain Beatty's spirit?

[GarMan]

The type of media that we have is the big difference.  Random people yelling on the streets about goat fuckers RWS back in ancient Greece is completely different from modern major news networks which have developed a sense of trust with the public and have created an authoritative presence when it comes to the dissemination of reliable information.  Abusing that trust is, in my mind, a problem that should be fixed.

If identifying problems and wanting them to be fixed is Utopian, then I'm one Utopian motherfucker.

It is no different.  It's always been the case.  It's all part of human psychology...  the appeal...  the scuttlebutt...  the stench...  Sure, they may be abusing their authoritative presence, but this is nothing new.  Recall Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson?  It was reported by the mainstream at that time.  Again, nothing new... 

Sure, and again, that's where I do place some of the blame on the consumer.  Afterall, they are the ones that are essentially giving media outlets the incentive to continue their shenanigans, as they keep giving them the high viewer ratings.  But, ultimately, the media is taking advantage of those who aren't intelligent people, which happen to be a large portion of our society.  They're relying upon the fact that these people have grown up with the television and radio as being legitimate sources of news, allowing them to use their position of apparent authority to skew things as they wish.

All of the blame should go to that consumer.  Why do you think the blogosphere has become so popular?  We're looking for alternative reliable sources.

[GarMan]

I couldn't help but share this...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx

September 29, 2010
Distrust in U.S. Media Edges Up to Record High
Perceptions of liberal bias still far outnumber perceptions of conservative bias
by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% who now say this is a record high by one percentage point.



The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.



Democrats and liberals remain far more likely than other political and ideological groups to trust the media and to perceive no bias.



Lower-income Americans and those with less education are generally more likely to trust the media than are those with higher incomes and more education. A subgroup analysis of these data suggests that three demographic groups key to advertisers -- adults aged 18 to 29, Americans making at least $75,000 per year, and college graduates -- lost more trust in the media in the past year than other groups, but the sample sizes in this survey are too small to say so definitively.

Bottom Line

Gallup's annual update on trust in the mass media finds Americans' views entrenched -- with a record-high 57% expressing little to no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 63% perceiving bias in one direction or the other. At the same time, the steady nature of these views stands in contrast to Americans' views of the three branches of government, which are all down sharply this year. Thus, in an environment in which few institutions elicit high levels of trust, it appears the media are neither gaining nor losing significant ground -- but are just managing to hold steady.

[wesfau2]

Two minor points:

1) "Birth Control" medications are commonly prescribed for non-reproductive, hormone-related conditions.

2) I'd rather pay for someone's birth control than their birth, post-natal care and childhood doctor's visits.

[Vandy Vol]

It is no different.  It's always been the case.  It's all part of human psychology...  the appeal...  the scuttlebutt...  the stench...  Sure, they may be abusing their authoritative presence, but this is nothing new.  Recall Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson?  It was reported by the mainstream at that time.  Again, nothing new...

The topics are nothing new...or, at least, the general theme of the topics aren't anything new.  But the reach of the media is far different.  I'd dare say that fewer people had access to the media, or had access but didn't actually consume it, during the 18-19th centuries.  Today, you can't go to the doctor or get lunch without seeing a TV, hearing a radio, etc.

Back then, people didn't really know (or care) what went on in another state.  Now, we have the technology and resources to disseminate information about things occurring worldwide.  Modern media and its informational abilities have captured our attention to the point that George Clooney can't take a shit without people knowing what it smells like.

The ease with which media can disseminate information (and the ease with which said information can be consumed) has caused us to be reliant upon the media for our information.  While that may be laziness on the consumer's part, there is still an apparent authority there, and that authoritative presence is being abused.

All of the blame should go to that consumer.  Why do you think the blogosphere has become so popular?  We're looking for alternative reliable sources.

I don't personally think that all of the blame should go to the consumers.  Yes, I do blame them to some degree, but again, when a sense of trust to an entity or institution has been developed, that entity or institution needs to take responsibility for that.  With great power comes great responsibility, and all that corny cliché jazz.

I couldn't help but share this...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx

Several things:

1.)  The article states that a significant portion of people polled (~81%) believe that the "media" is too liberal or too conservative, and this is where their distrust of the media comes in to play.  Surely these people don't think that all media is either too liberal or too conservative; while there may be a general slant one way or the other, there are obviously media figures on both sides of the fence.  Those who think it is too conservative may watch O'Donnell/Maher, while those who think it is too liberal may watch O'Reilly/Limbaugh.  Just because they don't trust the liberal media doesn't mean they don't blindly trust the conservative media, and vice versa.

2.)  Assuming that the above is patently wrong (which is unlikely), 43% of the population is still a significant number; the proverbial wool is still successfully covering a lot of people's eyes.

3.)  The poll's accompanying article basically proves my point that the lesser intelligent in our society are placing blind trust in the media.  The media takes advantage of this, and should take the blame for that.

4.)  While people may claim to distrust the media, it's still their primary (if not only) source of information.  57% may not trust the media, but where are they getting their information?  Personal conversations with Herman Cain?  Camping out in George Clooney's bathroom?  Doubtful.

5.)  Irony strikes again:  You used a form of media (albeit in the form of a research institute's online press release) to reinforce your point, which further shows how reliant we are on the media to provide accurate information.

[GarMan]

Regarding both of the last responses, I just can't accept that way of thinking.  It's the same thing over and over again separating the Conservative viewpoint from everyone else.  The Conservative viewpoint is always grounded in personal responsibility above all other things.  If you're unwilling to accept personal responsibility, you assign blame and responsibility to others, whether it be who pays for the birth control or who is ultimately responsible for finding out the truth with a fucktard media.  I refuse to live that way or let others get away with it. 

[Vandy Vol]

Regarding both of the last responses, I just can't accept that way of thinking.  It's the same thing over and over again separating the Conservative viewpoint from everyone else.  The Conservative viewpoint is always grounded in personal responsibility above all other things.  If you're unwilling to accept personal responsibility, you assign blame and responsibility to others, whether it be who pays for the birth control or who is ultimately responsible for finding out the truth with a fucktard media.  I refuse to live that way or let others get away with it.

In regard to personal responsibility and accountability, we have similar views...except that I'd want to have that apply to the media just as much as it does to individuals.

[Saniflush]

Two minor points:

1) "Birth Control" medications are commonly prescribed for non-reproductive, hormone-related conditions.

2) I'd rather pay for someone's birth control than their birth, post-natal care and childhood doctor's visits.

Truf, but I would rather not pay for either.

[GarMan]

Truf, but I would rather not pay for either.

Zackly...

I really shouldn't be responsible for subsidizing Susie Rottencrotch's expenses...