Just Reward
John McCain put his name to the campaign finance bill that, in effect, allows only the media, not other private citizens, unlimited free speech in the run-up to the election. So I think it is hilarious that the media seems to be lined up against McCain in the next election.
There is nothing in any law book that says the media has to be unbiased. In fact, today's notion of an unbiased media is a relatively new concept. Most newspapers of the 19thy century had a clear political orientation, something that is still the case to some extent in Britain today. It was absurd to give such a limited group a monopoly on political speech close to an election. I have opposed this law from day 1, but I do find it funny that McCain himself maybe its first victim.
ccoffer:
Worse still will be if he wins and then is able to revel in it as some sort of vindication. Its sort of a lose lose.
July 25, 2008, 5:24 pmMark:
The problem with media bias is that the media denies that they are biased.
July 25, 2008, 6:55 pmMat Larson:
I think Mark has it right - it's not the bias itself that is so grating, it's that the media displays an blatent bias while proclaiming that they deliver pure, unvarnished facts.
July 26, 2008, 6:31 amFlash Gordon:
In the old days of afternoon newspapers the morning papers were generally, if not universally, Democrat and the afternoon papers were Republican. In our town both morning and afternoon papers were owned and published by the same company. My mother was a an industrial strength Democrat and would not allow the afternoon paper in our house.
It was great fun when I got a paper route delivering both papers and thereby came to know which houses in my neighborhood were Democrat and which were Republican.
I don't know whether the demise of afternoon newspapers has anything to do with the fact there are no Republican newspapers anymore. I doubt it because many of the afternoon papers simply became morning papers and it seems they also became Democrat at about the same time. For example, the Denver Post was clearly a Republican paper before it became a morning paper. But by the time it became a morning paper, or before, it clearly became a Democrat paper.
In those days the newspapers did not attempt to hide the fact that they favored one politically view over the other. But now they must be ashamed of being Democrat since they try to hide it. All this is of purely historical interest since someday soon there may be no newspapers of any persuasion.
July 26, 2008, 8:31 amFlash Gordon:
There is always a catch it seems. The joy of watching John McCain hoisted on his own petard is overshadowed by the prospect of Obama. That is some catch.
July 26, 2008, 8:36 amarizona life insurance:
Yeah, McCain has made some boneheaded decisions. I just don't understand. A republican is supposed to be for the things he is proposing. It doesn't make sense. It's one reason why he is not generating buzz among the groups who are supposed to be supporting him.
July 26, 2008, 11:01 amccoffer:
To his credit, at least McCain believes in his piece of shit bill.(higher good and all that) G.W.Bush signed that steaming loaf of unconstitutional incontinence as a means of passing the buck to a shockingly dishonest SCOTUS. McCain was not by himself in the deal, and even if he was, Bush signed the damn thing while he considered it blatant violation of the 1st amendment.
That right there is what they call dereliction of duty where I come from, Pardner. hoho
July 26, 2008, 12:05 pmFlash Gordon:
ccoffer raises a point that has been ignored, IMO. That is, Bush violated his oath of office by signing McCain/Feingold. Now, wait a minute you say. How does he violate his oath of office by signing a bill you think is unconstitutional? Wasn't there an argument on both sides? Isn't that why it went to the Supreme Court, and they said it was not unconstitutional?
No, Bush himself said he thought it was unconstitutional. He said that. But he signed it. After taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, if you say you believe a Congressional Act is unconstitutional, and then sign it anyway, you have acted with a guilty state of mind and you have violated your oath of office. IMHO, of course.
I'm sure he doesn't see it that way. But I wonder how he does see it? Maybe he said to himself, hey this is what we Bush guys do. It's what my Dad did after the first gulf war in not taking out Saddam. We avoid the here and now by kicking the can down the road to let someone else deal with it. That's what he might say to himself, in an unguarded moment.
July 27, 2008, 5:58 amBrandybuck:
There are two definite media biases, but neither of them are the liberal bias the conservatives imagine, nor the conservative bias the liberals imagine. I don't have the link with me, but there was an objective bias study once, and most media clustered around the center.
The first real bias is the bias towards controversy. Controversy, conflict and opposition sells. Every story has to have a conflicting opposition. If 80% of the public is in favor of a certain issue, the other 20% will be given the spotlight. Even the most conscientious journalist will still portray the issue as a 50/50% split, even though it is not.
The second bias is the bias towards big government. Where is the biggest source of new? Government. Even the smallest hometown newspaper spends an inordinate amount of time on city council doings. This leads naturally to a unbalanced focus towards government, which in turn affects the perceptions of the reporters.
July 27, 2008, 10:29 amccoffer:
Brandybuck, with all due respect, that is just plain stupid. The media in this country are all a bunch of friggen partisan democrats. To pretend otherwise is simply delusional. As to the "conservative" versus "liberal" thing, thats a red herring because neither word has any real meaning. Just because the average so-called reporter is something other than a balls-out Marxist(like the people who control the democrat party are) doesn't mean he is any less of a democrat party foot soldier.
I wish you were right, but you're not.
July 27, 2008, 4:59 pmbbartlog:
I would expect something meatier than mere campaign contribution stats as evidence of media bias. That's enough for a disinterested observer to operate on a presumption of bias, but hardly proof.
July 28, 2008, 7:31 amAnd I say that mainly because while I would expect a strong D/R bias in the media, it's also well known that they love McCain even though he's a Republican. See for example their coverage of his 4th place finish in the Iowa caucuses during the Republican primary.
bbartlog:
I would expect something meatier than mere campaign contribution stats as evidence of media bias. That's enough for a disinterested observer to operate on a presumption of bias, but hardly proof.
July 28, 2008, 7:32 amAnd I say that mainly because while I would expect a strong D/R bias in the media, it's also well known that they love McCain even though he's a Republican. See for example their coverage of his 4th place finish in the Iowa caucuses during the Republican primary.
Yoshidad:
Says ccoffer "The media in this country are all a bunch of friggen [sic] partisan democrats. To pretend otherwise is simply delusional."
Hmmm. And that's why "labor" coverage overwhelms the "business" coverage in the newspapers and on TV... It's because the media is so lefty...Yeah! That's the ticket!
And labor union membership hasn't dramatically declined, has it? We certainly don't need to thank labor unions for the 40-hour week or health benefits they fought for! Nah! We're all rugged individuals here! We don't need no stinkin' infrastructure, we live in caves and eat bark!
And that lefty Noam Chomsky, don't get me started! Why he appears *everywhere* in print...! (True story: even the "liberal" New York Review of Books banned Chomsky from writing for them. See "chomsky.info" for more) Of course the fact that the "conservative" oligarchs now own all the media is completely irrelevant to how utterly establishment "conservative" they've become....Yeah, that's it!
That's why there's so little coverage of anything but personalities and "character" -- precious little attention is paid to real issues or information. It's as though we elected our officials the same way we decide what cars to drive -- not because of their mileage or reliability, but because they have those cool babes driving on the moonscapes in their commercials... Yeah!
How's that Hummer working out, BTW?
Anyway, we've got government marketed exactly the same way. And what kind of government have we had for more than 30 years now? Liberal, right? Man, if you'll believe that...please, come to my house and play poker, because I never bluff. Honest.
August 5, 2008, 2:02 pmccoffer:
Labor coverage? WTF? What exactly is labor coverage? Is it some simpering half-wit reporting from the Union Hall? Have you ever worked a day in your life?
Try spending your formative years with weight on your back and climbing stairs, son. Labor? Labor, my ass. Leisure is more like it. I can pinch your head off with my right hand precisely because I have spent my life LABORING for my wife and 4 children. It is because of my willingness to LABOR that I am in the highest percentile of income earners.
Twits abound. Happy LaborUnionDay, assclown.
September 6, 2008, 7:59 pm