Media "Control" of the Elections?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Aero
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Media "Control" of the Elections?

Postby Aero » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:23 pm

There is little doubt with me that the Media influenced the recent presidential election with unequal, biased and even dishonest reporting. However, I don't know what to do about it for future elections.

You will recall that republicans stayed away from the polls in droves on election day. I stayed away because the continued drumbeat of democratic media lead me to believe that Obama would win by a huge margin. But as it turns out, if I and other republicans had voted, it could have been a horse race.

The media attacked Gov. Palin with a vengeance, repeating unconfirmed negative attacks on her and her family, and while we know that their were equal unconfirmed negative attacks made on Obama, the media quashed them, so reporting was done in a very uneven handed way.

I don't think we will benefit by calling people of any particular political bent idiots or any other disrespectful names. But, as I said above, I don't know how to eliminate effects of media bias in future elections. It must be done, though, or we won't have a democracy.
Aero

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Postby scareduck » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:56 pm

1) If Obama's election were merely media bias, why didn't the Democrats think of that back in 2004?
2) John McCain and the GOP selected someone as a VP candidate who was and is a complete ignoramus. She didn't know about the Bush Doctrine, couldn't answer a simple question about which newspapers she read (and NO, that is NOT media bias or "gotcha journalism"), and comported herself as a full-throated dunce in all respects (the comment about the "pro-America areas of this great nation" was particularly stupid). Get a better candidate. Seriously.
3) For those paying attention, John McCain's painful reversal on torture was unbearable; as someone who spent year in the Hanoi Hilton, he should have known, better than anyone, that it's just not permissible. And yet he made it possible for the Military Commissions Act (which enshrined into law the use of torture by allowing the President to define it away) to get through Congress.

Aero
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:13 pm

Scareduck, You have already violated the premise of this thread that name calling is not helpful. You called Gov. Palin an ignoramus, a dunce and stupid. That in the first and very short post. Such violation makes you fair game, in my opinion. What are you afraid of that you must use name calling as your major point? Many therapists would say that indicates a major insecurity in your own self-worth. Please do not post on my threads until you learn to control your urge to revert to name calling.
Aero

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:32 pm

scareduck wrote:1) If Obama's election were merely media bias, why didn't the Democrats think of that back in 2004?


They did - the trouble with Kerry was he pissed off a lot of 'Nam vets.

Did you know that O'Neil - the head Swift Boat guy - was a Democrat and and not just by vote? He did party work as well.

2) John McCain and the GOP selected someone as a VP candidate who was and is a complete ignoramus. She didn't know about the Bush Doctrine, couldn't answer a simple question about which newspapers she read (and NO, that is NOT media bias or "gotcha journalism"), and comported herself as a full-throated dunce in all respects (the comment about the "pro-America areas of this great nation" was particularly stupid). Get a better candidate. Seriously.


The Bush Doctrine was never enunciated as such by Bush. It was a media creation and the media guy who asked her that question was wrong about its latest media incarnation.

It is rather unfair to her to tar her for not knowing something that was not only a media invention but had morphed over time.

BTW her expertise is in oil, gas, and rooting out corruption. WRT foreign policy she had to negotiate the gas pipeline with Canada. And Obama had to negotiate what with a foreign power? The Goolsbee cross, and double cross?

In fact her "ignorance" was a media creation. And you got suckered.

Now I like her policies on some things - oil, gas, corruption. I'm not so happy about others - the bringing of her religion into the campaign - something she had not done when running for Governor of Alaska.

3) For those paying attention, John McCain's painful reversal on torture was unbearable; as someone who spent year in the Hanoi Hilton, he should have known, better than anyone, that it's just not permissible. And yet he made it possible for the Military Commissions Act (which enshrined into law the use of torture by allowing the President to define it away) to get through Congress.


And the new guy is not going to do anything about it either, despite campaign promises. His supporters are howling.

BTW I kind of like the way the election turned out: the center right guy won. Surprised me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01471.html

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's evident cluelessness when asked in an interview yesterday if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine is appropriately being seen as emblematic of her ignorance of foreign policy.

But as it happens, I'm not sure anyone is entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at this particular moment.

When Palin asked ABC anchor Charlie Gibson what he meant by the Bush Doctrine, Gibson clarifed: "The Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war." That should have helped. After it was obvious Palin still didn't know what he was talking about, Gibson ventured further: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin's reply: "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."

But Gibson was making a common error, and what Palin said in her response did not actually address what was so radical about Bush's contribution to American foreign policy. Preemption has in fact been a staple of our foreign policy for ages -- and other countries' as well. The twist Bush put on it was embracing "preventive" war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening.

And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years. Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good."

And then there was Bush's second inaugural address, when he pledged himself to spreading freedom and ending tyranny in the world.

The one thing all these Bush Doctrines have in common is that they are, at this point, utterly inoperative.

As I suggested in my August 18 column, the current Bush Doctrine could perhaps best be described as "Incompetence and Internal Warfare."

Back in March 2006, when Bush officially reasserted his doctrine of preventive war in a reissued National Security Strategy document, it was a bit surreal. The Bush administration had by then, of course, lost any credibility in making the case to attack another country with anything short of incontrovertible evidence of an imminent threat.

And Bush's vaunted democracy initiative was never anything but a farce, as he cozied up to one dictator after another as long as they helped us with other strategic goals, including fighting terrorism and providing us with energy.

Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines: Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01); Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02); Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03); Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05); Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06); and Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all."


And that is just the first page. Six different Bush Doctrines. If Palin Picks one she loses. If she talks about more than one the tape gets edited to make her look bad. Better she ask Charlie what he means and respond to that.

Here is a interview by a Canadian:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qsI-7ajkKto

Let me know what you think.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Postby scareduck » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:08 am

A quick trip to Wikipedia indicates that Froomkin's revisionism is just a smokescreen.
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[5] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[6][7][8] It was updated in 2006[9]and is stated as follows:[10]
The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.


The principle tenets are unilateralism and reserving the right to declare preemptive (optional) wars. It's not that hard, and something that should have been evident to anyone paying attention to what the neocons have been up to.

And the new guy is not going to do anything about it either, despite campaign promises. His supporters are howling.


Indeed? Because he just picked two people to run the CIA (Leon Panetta) and Office of Legal Counsel (Dawn Johnsen) who are untouched by issues of torture. Indeed, Johnsen looks to be profoundly interested in ending U.S. torture programs. So it's premature -- and possibly even wrong at this point -- to say he plans on doing nothing about it.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:22 am

Scareduck,

You cheated. You should have quoted the opening of the wikipedia piece which said that there were a number of evolving doctrines of which a few had been codified. I quoted Froomkin because he made that point clearer.

So yeah. I had looked at the wiki first and Froomkin is not a revisionist. He reflects what the wiki says in more detail.

As I said: the media got to you first and told you a story and now you are attached to it because it fits your world view and not the facts. A dangerous place for a scientist or an engineer.

BTW as much as I have had apprehensions about the new guy he seems a lot different than what my understanding of him was during the campaign. I thought he was lying to the people in the center to get their votes. It turns out he was lying to the people on the left to get their votes. And are they ever howling. Well I'm cheering.

As far as I can tell all he wants to do is be a crook. I can live with that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:40 am

Scareduck,

No need to torture prisoners. We can just send them to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Or make them listen to Barry Manilow records all day.

===

So what do I think PE Barry will do? He will give general orders: see that no bad shite happens on my watch. Do what you have to do. It won't be official policy. It will happen if judged necessary. After all we have used it on a few bad guys and it worked.

Gitmo? It will still be there in 4 years. Them jihadis judged innocent have a bad habit of turning up on new battlefields - often dead. If there is no Gitmo it may be just easier to dispose of them in the heat of battle. A double tap. Be careful what you wish for.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Media "Control" of the Elections?

Postby djolds1 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:49 am

Aero wrote:There is little doubt with me that the Media influenced the recent presidential election with unequal, biased and even dishonest reporting. However, I don't know what to do about it for future elections.

Don't do anything. Let them run wild. The stench of the rot will become too much to hide in time.

The GOP Reagan Coalition is dead. Let it rebuild in the wilderness while the Dems rule, and their wingnuts (media included) go crazy.

Aero wrote:You will recall that republicans stayed away from the polls in droves on election day. I stayed away because the continued drumbeat of democratic media lead me to believe that Obama would win by a huge margin. But as it turns out, if I and other republicans had voted, it could have been a horse race.

McCain built his rep as being every Democrat's favorite Republican, and declared war on the GOP base with Amnesty. Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary over him, for Chrisake! In retrospect his opening was 2000. And in retrospect, Hillary's was 2004. Hindsight and all that...

Aero wrote:I don't think we will benefit by calling people of any particular political bent idiots or any other disrespectful names. But, as I said above, I don't know how to eliminate effects of media bias in future elections. It must be done, though, or we won't have a democracy.

Comparisons of the Modern West (Napoleon and points after) to Alexander through the end of the Roman Republic are not improper.

Duane
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:57 am

scareduck wrote:Indeed? Because he just picked two people to run the CIA (Leon Panetta) and Office of Legal Counsel (Dawn Johnsen) who are untouched by issues of torture. Indeed, Johnsen looks to be profoundly interested in ending U.S. torture programs. So it's premature -- and possibly even wrong at this point -- to say he plans on doing nothing about it.

IIRC, waterboarding was used twice. And if you think we won't use it (and worse) again at need, you're deluding yourself. The only difference will be that the CIA Officers/Military personnel will know going in that they will receive prison sentences, instead of legal support from the White House. And then those officers and soldiers will walk into the dark rooms and do the nasty. The question has never been will we torture, it has been will we admit it and will we provide legal cover to the government employees who do it on the President's behalf?
Last edited by djolds1 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:02 am

What Duane said.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:43 pm

MSimon wrote:Scareduck,

You cheated. You should have quoted the opening of the wikipedia piece which said that there were a number of evolving doctrines of which a few had been codified. I quoted Froomkin because he made that point clearer.

So yeah. I had looked at the wiki first and Froomkin is not a revisionist. He reflects what the wiki says in more detail.

As I said: the media got to you first and told you a story and now you are attached to it because it fits your world view and not the facts. A dangerous place for a scientist or an engineer.

BTW as much as I have had apprehensions about the new guy he seems a lot different than what my understanding of him was during the campaign. I thought he was lying to the people in the center to get their votes. It turns out he was lying to the people on the left to get their votes. And are they ever howling. Well I'm cheering.

As far as I can tell all he wants to do is be a crook. I can live with that.



I am re-assessing Obama Myself. Today I read a quote from him in which he states he will ban all earmarks! Now that he's in, he has no reason to lie. Of course he CAN'T ban all earmarks, because that is within the purview of Congress, but it's nice to see his heart is in the right place.

Hmm...


David

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

DailyHowler

Postby jgarry » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:10 pm

Bob Somerby gets tiresome after awhile, especially since he's a former college roommate of Al Gore's, and tends to harp on the horror of the press coverage circa 2000. But I think if you read this web site for a week or two, you'll come to appreciate the fact that the corporate press looks after it's own interests.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Re: DailyHowler

Postby ravingdave » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:23 pm

jgarry wrote:Bob Somerby gets tiresome after awhile, especially since he's a former college roommate of Al Gore's, and tends to harp on the horror of the press coverage circa 2000. But I think if you read this web site for a week or two, you'll come to appreciate the fact that the corporate press looks after it's own interests.


A friend and I discussed Fox News and Rupert Murdoch today. From articles i've read, it is believed that Rupert Murdoch is a liberal, but Fox News is more conservative than other news sources. My friend asserted, and I tend to agree that Murdoch looked at the Media Landscape, and concluded there was money to be made by being different from the other News sources.

This decision appears to have paid off in spades, because it exploited a ready made constituency. Right leaning people who were frustrated by the years of Biased coverage from Most media sources.

Corporate press looking after it's own (economic) interests ? Appears to be so in the case of Rupert Murdoch.


David

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Murdoch is a liberal

Postby jgarry » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:34 pm

Murdoch is a liberal? This nonsense speaks for itself.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Postby Mike Holmes » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:42 pm

Er... wasn't that what I was saying? It's a business, and if there's a market, it'll get filled?

I'll even take off my supposition that Murdoch is conservative... he's corporate (I tend to equate the two, but we can cut them apart, if that's neccessary). His interest in the WSJ is based on the fact that they're the leading corporate news source. They don't care a ton about social issues, mostly just the financial end of things. That fits Murdoch to a T, far more than ascribing a left or right bias.

Capitalism at it's best, filling the needs of the people.

Mike


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests