I keep wondering about these videos... I'm not American and have no clue who all these political figures are, I guess the only reason I watch them is a combination of boredom and the comfort it gives me knowing right-winged opinions go hand in hand with hypocrisy pretty much where ever you are. What seems unique about the American situation (at least as it's portrayed by liberals) is that that hypocrisy is so obvious, it's so "in your face", every day I see these videos showing political leaders in scandals that I'd imagine would utterly discredit them and destroy their careers... As uninformed as I am about local politics I do get the impression that these things would carry more weight here, that when political figures are discredited in such obvious ways they would actually be discredited, people would not take them seriously...
This obviously doesn't solve the problem of having leaders who do a very good job of keeping their message consistent and representing their voters when the voters are mostly compiled of dumb/racist masses, but at least then you can wholeheartedly place the blame and frustration on the people themselves, their leaders simply being a manifestation of their idiocy. I realize that watching liberal media is hardly the best way of getting an honest and complete view of American politics but come on! by now my perception of the American Republican leaders is that they have the collective intelligence of a cockroach, do these morons actually represent Republican opinions? Republican morals? The world is fast becoming a scary place...

@NinjaInHeat, those are the same questions I have, and I've lived in America my whole life.

My guess is that most people have just given up. There's probably more right-wing media than there is left, but the right makes tons of outlandish claims about Democrats, and are much more vociferous about them.

So people hear both sides constantly saying outlandish things about the other, and assume they're both untrustworthy.

The "straight" news outlets encourage that, by bending over backwards to present both sides claims as equally valid (or sometimes equally invalid), even if the facts support one side over the other.

So there's a huge number of people out there who just don't know who to believe, or who to blame, and assume that the reason why nothing ever gets addressed is because the two sides are too caught up in fighting each other to deal with the problems facing the country (and they're not really wrong about that part).

A ton of people tune out of politics because it seems too full of posturing, lying, and hyperbole, and seems as if nothing makes any difference.

You then have the right-wingers saying "see, I told you, government sucks, elect me!" even though they're responsible for the lion's share of it's recent failures, and 100% of the post-2008 gridlock preventing anything from being done to correct those failures.

But then, people accuse me of being a hardcore left-wing ideologue, I think because it makes it easier to pretend like I'm a liar too.

*quality reporting, Rach.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

To help you understand better, NinjaInHeat, on American politics, just think on this. The concept of a conservative/liberal agenda news agency did not emerge until Fox News turned from 'journalistic quality' in the early 90's to sensational news coverage. Basically, that 'news' agency started to embrace more weird things and not so much stable ideas. During that time, it was not leaning to one or the other side of the political spectrum. With the 'election' of George W. Bush, the owner of Fox News started to switch it from 'neutral' to 'conservative' journalism. During the first couple of years, pass 2000, more and more Americans started to hear of differences between Fox News an all others.

They called it 'the elite media' or 'leftist media'. In an effort to undermine good journalism in favor of their style of journalism. Journalists/reporters were often charged with the task of reporting the news, as it happened, and allow the audience to form their opinions. They would show facts and evidence, and would stay away from opinionated journalism. Think 'Walter Conkrite'. So, Fox News, turned to having a political 'bent' on news reporting. They often tried to put the Republican President, Mr. George W. Bush in the best possible light. Anyone who remains neutral on the subject would point out, that, it undermines good journalism. They were the last ones to report about events in several spots (i.e. Gitmo), and did try to spin the knowledge of an event in the most favorible manner towards the Republican president and Congress (which until 2006, was controlled by the Republican party).

During this timeline, radio, in an effort to draw more listeners, started to bend towards conservative politics. Radio was getting heavily hammered thanks to the Internet, and needed a gimmick to draw more listeners to its site. Largely to get people to buy products and services the radio stations aired on ads.

Conservative radio, actually changed how Fox News 'reported' information. On talk radio, often the host would try to keep the tone and mood of any discussion on subjects that would anger its listeners. Making callers respond in angered voices. As anyone who has studied psychology will understand. Someone who talks in a calm, rational tone, generally can think and be reasoned with. When someone is beyond angry, their ability to think rationally is severally if not, totally, eliminated. Hence were the concept of 'blind rage' comes from. The Frontal Lobe of the human brain shuts down.

So, back to Fox News, and your question. Any news source that doesn't blindly agree with Fox News or conservative talk radio, is, to those people, liberal media. Whether the media is actually liberal bias or not, is irrelavent. So, for example, CNN (i.e. cnn.com) is considered liberal. The BCC, in England, is liberal. The Washington Times (or is the Post?), is liberal. The Boston Globe, is liberal. Newsweek, Money, and even Forbes, is liberal. Generally, any publication that questions Republicans, is automatically liberal. Conservative media will not show things, that hinder its philosophy or show moderates/liberals in a positive tone.

/end neutral bias

I've seen alot of news coverage by Fox News on the sift here, showing how they undermine good jounalism in favor of the latest spin to keep Republicans out of scrutiny. I'm sure many of the people here could post links of some of the more amusing moments in which Fox News, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, or even Rush Limbaugh tries to change the facts to place conservatives/Republicans in to the best possible light. And, to lump moderates as liberals. Then, to show liberals/Democrats in the worst possible light.

Honestly, to understand American politics, one needs to listen to all possible sides on a given piece of information or event. Use, 'critical thinking skills', wisdom, and reason, to figure out what the reason information and facts are, THEN, decide on how to accept that information. For most conservatives, and some liberals, that's way to much effort to expect to take in.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
by now my perception of the American Republican leaders is that they have the collective intelligence of a cockroach, do these morons actually represent Republican opinions? Republican morals? The world is fast becoming a scary place...


They're certainly not dumb... as Rachel makes abundantly clear, they know what they are doing and are not embarrassed.
The dumb ones are the supporters who stick with them no matter how bald-faced their political ambition and disdain for the country.

Good stuff, deserves a quality.. if I had my power points.

this hasnt just been going on since the bush administration.
i remember hearing the same tone concerning clinton in the early 90s. like way early, like 92.
except, i think at least newt gingrich, while awful and nasty and hideous, actually managed to get things done.

this hostile climate and tone started with nixon and has grown and grown since then. fueled by conservative talk radio, rush has been on the airwaves for 20 years now and started writing his fat idiot books during clintons first term. conservative talk radio begets fox news. and now its all kinds of out of control.
corporate media is very very responsible for this, theyve enacted a policy of sensationalism for ad $$$. conservative talk radio is basically like one big fucking political tabloid, and fox news absorbed its rhetoric because it saw a successful business model. they're not journalists, they disgrace the name and almost everyone who worked for newscorp during bush's first term should be imprisoned for facilitating war.

oh and other news outlets just parrot fox news's talking points. basically, we're all fucked.

turn off the tv and quit buying what it tells you,or it'll just get more shameless. passive resistance.

^NetRunner:

But then, people accuse me of being a hardcore left-wing ideologue, I think because it makes it easier to pretend like I'm a liar too.



Hardcore left-wing ideologue? Compared to me, you're a rank amateur.

At best you're center-left, and on the cautious side.

@rougy, why thank you. I don't want to be an ideologue. I try to be a pragmatic progressive.

@NetRunner:

To a certain extent, you are.

I want to tell you a parable:

Guy on the left (me) gets told by a guy in the center (you) "You have to vote with us, because if you don't, they will win...and it will be your fault!"

(me) I say "Well, are you going to adopt any of my platforms?"

(you) You say "Sure, someday."

Ring a bell?

@rougy, you keep taking these swings at me like I've been twisting your arm to compromise your principles.

You're also acting as though you and I have radically different goals, and I can't actually recall ever seeing you say something I thought was "too radical."

I think if you're voting against incremental steps to the left on the basis of them "not going far enough" you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Look at Alan Grayson and Sherrod Brown. I think I'm about where they are ideologically -- I haven't seen either one say or do anything I disagree with yet.

@NetRunner, you're right.

But what I said does apply to the Democrats as a whole.

There is a passive-aggressiveness about the Democratic party against its left flank that is just unbearable at times.

Again and again, they want the left of their party, which I consider the vanguard, and which they treat like the rear-guard, to just shut up and do what they're told.

I'm a big Grayson fan, and a Kucinich fan, and somehow or another we need to figure out how to put those guys at the top of the heap instead of people like Pelosi and Reid who always talk a tough fight, but bend over backwards not to offend anyone.

@rougy, total agreement there. I'm all for pushing middling Democrats left, and telling the leadership to grow a pair.

I spend more time trying to convince right of center people to come left though.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.