>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)

Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.

If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.

I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.

Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.

Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.

>> ^MrFisk:

I'm upset the excuse of protecting children erodes our rights.


No kidding, fuck kids! O hey, it's the FBI guys again, what's up this time?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^WKB:
He was a real force of honesty in the senate. While he may have resorted to lies...
yeah... good one.
"patriot!"
ditto.


I see what you did there! Awesome Faux News editing! Well done!

>> ^deathcow:

what if a mutating panel of 1 million people over the web decided what was decent


I'd by that for a dollar!

>> ^NetRunner:

Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.
Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.
Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.
But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".
At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!
Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?
I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"
Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...


We just have a different take on it.

When I said "silly argument", I didn't mean that you were silly or that you didn't get it, I meant that I felt the argument was silly because I agree with almost everything that you're saying here. I'm not trying to get in your face. I guess I'm just a little cynical lately because I feel that the "problem" begins and ends with the consumer. There is a lot of corporate crap in the middle of that shit sandwich, but in the end it's the consumers eating it. They are the ones choosing to increase ratings and they are the ones who refuse to stop watching. I'm not trying to tell you not to make a fuss about anything. I'm just telling you how I see things.

I feel like I'm being misunderstood here. Try not to read that as "you are incapable of understanding", because that isn't what I'm saying.

I don't think you can "change the minds of consumers". I think most people just don't care. And yes, most of them are just oblivious. I randomly asked someone today (a statistical analyst) "Who is the Secretary of State" and their answer was "Rumsfeld". I also think that most people prefer to have "news" reflected back to them that confirms their views.

Forget it, I don't want to rehash my opinion . I just want you to know that I'm not saying "yes it does" have to be this way. "Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices." For me, that sums it up, in your own words.

Like I said, I'm not trying to win anything here, not trying to sway you or get in your face .. just telling you what I think and I apologize if you think I was getting in your face. I honestly believe we agree 99% of the way here .. but for me the balance of culpability leans towards the consumers not the broadcasters. In other words, I place more hope in people than I do corporations, and although I'm universally disappointed by both, more so by the people.

I'm sorry you took offense to what I had to say here. I never wanted that. I'm not trying to shout you down or tell you you don't understand reality, I'm telling you my opinion of how I perceive the reality of the situation. That's all. I'm going to just drop it because like I said, it's silly to argue with someone that I basically agree with.

This pretty much showed how JS is a hypocrite so blinkered by bias that he personifies the very evil he decries.

Let’s call a tiger a tiger. Cable news channels have two completely different facets. One facet is the “news” update – which is when channels are announcing stuff that happens – the cut and dry stuff. The other facet is “commentary”: biased, agenda driven, subjective, interpretive, talking-head bologna that preaches to a specific ideological crowd. Whether you want to admit it or not – ALL news channels have both of these facets of News and Commentary.

Now, the cable news channels have a lot higher “Commentary to News” ratio because they are filling up a 24/7 schedule. Fox is not unique in that regard – but shares the same market space as MSNBC & CNN - about 20% ‘News’ and 80% ‘Commentary’. Whether you like the commentary of a particular channel depends on your own bias. To people who are leftists (the majority of the Sift and JS) commentary on Fox News is like garlic to a vampire. To someone on the right (such as myself) commentary on MSNBC is like salt on road rash.

If Stewart was really a true “satirist” (as he likes to say he is) then he would be mocking all sides because they both have plenty of targets. However, 99 times out of 100, Stewart focuses on the side he ideologically opposes while ignoring juicy targets on the other side. A real satirist doesn’t handcuff himself like that, so what Stewart is doing is less ‘satire’ and more ‘biased commentary’ because what he selects as subject material is driven by his biases.

Stewart can’t admit that or his audience of smug, self-congratulatory neolibs would lose their self esteem. So when presented with ironclad proof that he is biased by Wallace, Stewart CANNOT bring himself to admit it. Instead he desperately cringes behind his typical dodge of being “comedy informed by an ideological background”. What a load of honk. You were nailed Stewart. Your claimed beef with Fox News (that they are somehow ‘unique’ in commentary bias) is proven demonstrably false. Instead, it was made crystal clear that you simply don’t like Fox’s brand of commentary because it ideologically opposes your own. Kind of hurts when you can’t just mack at the camera when you get pegged don’t it? You got visibly irritable and defensive because the truth hurts.

So in this interview Stewart couldn’t dive into the tall grass of his standard “Hey – I’m just a comedian! No fair! My clown-nose is on!” coward defense. The commentary of many news channels is liberally biased just as bad (or worse) than any of Fox News’ conservative commentary. Wallace proves it in black and white. In fact there are many studies that have proven this point routinely. But Stewart can’t bring himself to SAY that news outlets he shares an “informed ideological background” with are biased because that would mean that he would have to admit that he HIMSELF is biased. So in the face of all evidence he says that hack organizations like MSNBC are not biased but “trend toward sensationalism and laziness”. I haven’t heard a weaker, more pathetic rhetorical dodge in a long time.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

Of course Stewart doesn’t want to mention polls like this that prove that FOX patrons are about 2X as ‘informed’ as people on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, or CBC. He doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Couric’s audience is about as ‘informed’ as the average reader of the Inquirer. Of course Stewart isn’t going to admit that people who listen to LIMBAUGH are more informed than his audience. No – like Obama – Stewart only sticks to isolated, biased polls that favor his own personal world view - and ignores the evidence to the contrary. BIASED.

If you’re a fan of Stewart then bully for you. He can be entertaining sometimes, and he even has the occasional decency to admit (albeit sarcastically) his own problems – such as with the whole Weiner scandal. But those of you who are patting yourselves on the back pretending that he somehow ‘skunked’ Wallace are living in a self-insulated fanboi fantasy world.

Wallace made his point. Wallace never tried to say Fox News doesn’t have biased commentary on it. Wallace proved conclusively that other news channels – including Stewart’s own show – are primarily driven by biased commentary rather than news. To the world, Stewart proved that he cannot bring himself to simply admit that left-wing, neolib commentary is biased. Thus, proving to all that Stewart himself is an untrustworthy, intellectually hypocritical, biased tool. Game, set, and match to Wallace. Now Stewart can slink back to his show and lick his wounds by selectively re-editing reality so he doesn’t look quite as big of a tool – as is his wont.

>> ^burdturgler:

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.


Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.

Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.

Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.

But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".

At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!

Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?

I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"

Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...

>> ^lavoll:

so what did he do really? for real, someone summarize for us foreigners?


He lied. More to the point, he got caught lying with photographic evidence. What hurt him the most was saying "it was a prank" when he should have just said, "yes, I did it. It was private correspondence and has nothing to do with my public work in Congress." He made an ass of all of his supporters by lying. It was only until he was busted with pictures that he revealed the truth. That's the problem. People believed in him and supported him, and would have continued to do so even through this "scandal", but by repeatedly lying to everyone he set himself up as fodder for the G.O.P. as an antidote for all of their poisonous scandals in recent years.

I like a lot of what he was doing, but clearly he has a problem because it's just stupid to send pics of your dick out to people when you're a congressman, so maybe he isn't as smart as I thought.

>> ^NetRunner:

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?
If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?
It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.
Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?
What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"
As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

"If you asked everyone...?


It's a loaded question. Of course, most people are going to respond that they don't want to be lied to. The problem is, it's not a lie if the person lying to you agrees with you. That's just affirmation.

Let's say there is a magical room that "everyone" can sit in. On the left side of this room there is serious debate being honestly reported and covered by good journalists over the fiscal solvency of social security. On the right side of the room is a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or a Jerry Springer episode, a Lady Gaga video, an Alex Jones bit .. ie. anything else). In which direction do you think most of "everyone" is looking?

Most people honestly don't give a shit, they are struggling with their own lives and a quick escape is what they're after. When it's time for news, they don't want honesty, they want the comfort of a voice that confirms their own beliefs. I don't think Hannity viewers (for example) are making a choice between "comforting lies" and "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?", I think they are comforted by lies because it confirms the easily digestible "truths" they already hold and they're either unwilling or unable to invest more time or intelligence to understand the complexity of reality further.

McCain/Palin got around 46% of the vote in 2008. That means 46% of people were comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes of the U.S. arsenal if McCain died (a real possibility considering his age). Don't overestimate people.

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?

It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.

Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?

What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"

As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

>> ^burdturgler:

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?
You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.
Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

All jump into the weiner pool!

Here's something Republicans do well -- they have the discipline to keep a united message.

Dems just turned on Weiner when Vitter broke the law, actually bought and paid for sex, and he was still re-elected.

He was hustled off to maintain a united front, I'm thinking.

>> ^burdturgler:

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

And my point is that this kind of reasoning winds up being an easy excuse for virtually any decision anyone in power ever makes. It's sort of a "the masses didn't rise up in rebellion to stop me, so it must be okay" sort of philosophy.

Nobody wants the environment protected, because they haven't given up using electricity or gasoline.

Nobody wants to stop sweatshops from operating, because they keep buying cheap clothes at Walmart.

It's not the people watching Fox, buying gas, and tube socks who're spreading propaganda, playing fast and loose with safety on oil wells, and running sweatshops.

I agree, in theory collective action could stop all those things. But that's very different from saying the people running the companies cannot or should not be held responsible for the choices they're making about how they do business, because it's really their customers making all the moral choices.

I was going to say the reason Weiner was pressured out was because of the Health Reform debate. But I'm against Weiner on his Obamacare.

Still, Weiner was a strong progressive, that may be the unsaid reason he was pushed out. If he was a neo-liberal, maybe someone would have saved his ass.