It is currently 04/04/25 10:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 18 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
 Post subject: "The Big Story of 2012"
PostPosted: 12/11/12 8:33 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Mann and Ornstein nailed it ~ and nailed it early in their WaPo op-ed, which is the lead post for our "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem" thread ~ while the MSM is not responsible for the GOP/TP's strangle-hold on dishonesty, the MSM's primary responsibility is to report factually ~ and the MSM did fail epically to do that for the 2012 campaign/election ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ Sooz

December 10, 2012 5:15 PM
The Big Story of 2012
By Ed Kilgore

Here’s quite a lede from Dan Froomkin at HuffPost:

Quote:
Post-mortems of contemporary election coverage typically include regrets about horserace journalism, he-said-she-said stenography, and the lack of enlightening stories about the issues.

But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

I’m going to have to plead innocence on that charge. But Mann and Ornstein, of course, in interviews with Froomkin, are talking about our powerful friends in the MSM:

Quote:
“The mainstream press really has such a difficult time trying to cope with asymmetry between the two parties’ agendas and connections to facts and truth,” said Mann, who has spent nearly three decades as a congressional scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

“I saw some journalists struggling to avoid the trap of balance and I knew they were struggling with it — and with their editors,” said Mann. “But in general, I think overall it was a pretty disappointing performance.”

“I can’t recall a campaign where I’ve seen more lying going on — and it wasn’t symmetric,” said Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who’s been tracking Congress with Mann since 1978. Democrats were hardly innocent, he said, “but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top.”

Lies from Republicans generally and standardbearer Mitt Romney in particular weren’t limited to the occasional TV ads, either; the party’s most central campaign principles — that federal spending doesn’t create jobs, that reducing taxes on the rich could create jobs and lower the deficit — willfully disregarded the truth.

“It’s the great unreported big story of American politics,” Ornstein said.

Unsurprisingly, notes Froomkin, Mann and Ornstein, who turned many heads with an April WaPo op-ed on asymmetrical polarization (adapted from a new book they published immediately afterwards), aren’t real popular sources for MSM reporters any more (and they use to be quote machines, with Ornstein in particular long reigning as the “most quoted person in Washington.”).

Quote:
“It’s awkward. I can no longer be a source in a news story in the Wall Street Journal or the Times or the Post because people now think I’ve made the case for the Democrats and therefore I’ll have to be balanced with a Republican,” Mann said.

Neither Mann nor Ornstein have been guests on any of the main Sunday public affairs shows since their book came out. Nor has anyone else on those shows talked about the concerns they raised.

And no wonder, if you consider what the two former Mega-Pundits told Froomkin they would have to say to reporters and editors:

Quote:
Here is what Mann would say: “First of all, I’d sympathize. I’d say I understand that you have the responsibility to use professional norms of accuracy and fairness and not let your own personal feelings get in the way.”

But, he would add: “You all have missed an incredibly important story in our politics that’s been developing over a period of time. You’ll slip it in here and there, you’ll bury it, but you really don’t confront it.”

Ornstein said his message would be this: “I understand your concerns about advertisers. I understand your concerns about being labeled as biased. But what are you there for? What’s the whole notion of a free press for if you’re not going to report without fear or favor and you’re not going to report what your reporters, after doing their due diligence, see as the truth?

And if you don’t do that, then you can expect I think a growing drumbeat of criticism that you’re failing in your fundamental responsibility.

“Your job is to report the truth. And sometimes there are two sides to a story. Sometimes there are ten sides to a story. Sometimes there’s only one.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_12/the_big_story_of_2012041706.php


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 8:39 am • # 2 
Now this is telling it like it is. I am sure many MSM and Republicans find this hard to swallow.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 8:50 am • # 3 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Somehow I don't think the non USian world would consider this the "biggest story of 2012".


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 9:06 am • # 4 
They wouldn't, and I don't even consider it a blip. I think the 2008 campaign was worse.

People have to man up. Romney's 47 percent video said it all. He doesn't care about anyone in need. He has distain for the proletariat. He's a bourgeoisie guy all the way. The entire R party and the R plank reflects this.

It's up to the individual citizen to watch that tape, read the platform and figure it out. It's not up for the press to spoon feed people their opinions. In fact, there is just too much spoon feeding of opinions. Say the press said, "THESE ADS ARE ALL LIES" Do people care? Do they just want to believe the lie because it is more comfortable for them than the truth.

People don't read studies. They don't want to read there is NO correlation, well enough causation, between lower tax rates on the wealthy and job creation. They also don't seem to want to know the federal government is the only one who can put people back to work in significant numbers.

I am rather tired of it all.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 9:21 am • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
IMO, the willingness to buy into the lies is pure, blind hatred.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 9:28 am • # 6 

What is MSM? Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 9:40 am • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
MSM = main stream media ~ iow, the TV/radio networks and published newspapers/magazines ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 9:57 am • # 8 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
IMO, the Republicans no longer know who they are. They've lost their own identity by abandoning whatever political philosophy they had.
Methinks they considered Obama's election to be a fluke that they blamed on Dubya being a complete screwup.
The approach to this election was simply that all that was needed was a god-fearing white boy to get rid of that illegitimate ni**er occupying the White House.

(I know, bad grammar. I'm doing something else at present.)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 10:00 am • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
totally. and what is more, this lying is really bad for politics. it doesn't engender rational solutions.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 10:48 am • # 10 
oskar576 wrote:
IMO, the Republicans no longer know who they are. They've lost their own identity by abandoning whatever political philosophy they had.
Methinks they considered Obama's election to be a fluke that they blamed on Dubya being a complete screwup.
The approach to this election was simply that all that was needed was a god-fearing white boy to get rid of that illegitimate ni**er occupying the White House.



Yes and no. I think there is a huge problem because the economic conservatives don't like the social conservatives anymore than they like the Ds. The Rs serve two masters; money and God. Romney couldn't even pretend to serve the other one. Obama painted him as a rich guy who didn't give a shit about anything or anyone else and he played that role pretty well.

The R water carriers didn't play their roles very well either. Rush and Aiken and all those idiots pissed off a whole lot of women who were probably only slightly left of Woolen Norma. I mean, most women have sex and use birth control and "legitimate rape"????

I have no clue what the R political philosophy is. There are probably legitimate elements in there. Something should be done about the bloated and unproductive rolls in civil service, but....


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 11:10 am • # 11 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I have no clue what the R political philosophy is.

Neither do they. That was my point.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 1:31 pm • # 12 
oskar576 wrote:
I have no clue what the R political philosophy is.

Neither do they. That was my point.



And my point is that they have different ones dependant on the the branch of R-dom.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 1:33 pm • # 13 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Really?
And their philosophy is what? and how do they propose to implement it that benefits the nation as a whole?


Last edited by Anonymous on 12/11/12 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 1:48 pm • # 14 
Social conservatives want to overturn Roe V Wade, make sex education illegal and make it difficult to access birth control. They want to make it harder to get foodstamps and disability benefits.

Fiscal conservatives will ease restrictions on Wall Street and keep the tax cuts as they are. They also want to give Wall Street access to Social Security Funds

Fiscal benefit (from their POV) - It will generate more jobs because the business owners don't have to pay tax and will put extra money into employees. The employees will have more money to buy stuff because they have jobs. Rich guys will buy lots of stuff since they pay less taxes. FICA funds will make more money for Wall Street and employees alike.

Social benefit - People will have neither sex ed in school or access to food or birth control. The pious will be studying in school or all working double shifts in the surplus jobs due to the fiscal benefit. All new born babies will be wanted and loved. All costs associated with a baby in the family will be assumed by the families.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 2:30 pm • # 15 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Hardly a political philosophy.
Those are the incohesive talking points that say next to nothing other than we're different from that socialist, Muslim n***er in the White House.
They haven't a philosophy. They once did-pre Reagan.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/11/12 4:34 pm • # 16 
I don't call them "mainstream media" anymore. I call them "presstitutes".


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 4:43 pm • # 17 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
sooz06 wrote:
MSM = main stream media ~ iow, the TV/radio networks and published newspapers/magazines ~

Sooz


False!
MSM = main stream media = everything else which is not in any way, shape or form connected to Fox News, right wing fringe publications, Rush, Sean, Glenn etc.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/11/12 4:50 pm • # 18 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
That's Main Scream Media, jab.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 18 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.