View Full Version : Where has intelligent media gone?
Lone Laugher
11-16-2007, 07:57 PM
We are lucky to be living in a time when news comes fast and in many forms....or are we?
I am fed up with the sound bite media. Last nights debate had a perfect example.
Barack Obama did a good job of describing his position regarding the issuing of drivers licenses to undocumented aliens.
The main thrust of his explaination outlined that while he supports the idea for public safety reasons...he thinks that it is NOT THE REAL ISSUE. He explained that focusing on the drivers license issue distracts us from working on the bigger picture...stopping the flow of undocumented aliens...and figuring out what to do about the one's that are already here. He discussed making sure that we enforce existing laws against employing undocumented workers.
But Blitzer wanted no part of such an intelligent answer. Instead he INSISTED that everyone give a sound-bite yes or no answer to the question. BULLSHIT!!! It is too complicated an issue for that.
I guess having so many options for getting news fast means that we will only get sound bites...simple stuff...and never get to the real converstaion.
It sucks.
cassandra
11-16-2007, 08:22 PM
Sad really. :kickcan
Trueblue
11-16-2007, 08:46 PM
You are so right, LL. They want sound bites and gotchas instead of substance.
Wabash
11-16-2007, 10:34 PM
Plus..........The White Wash...see book review this section.
The debates were set to make Hillary look good after the last debates made her look bad.
quiet man
11-16-2007, 10:48 PM
You are so right, LL. They want sound bites and gotchas instead of substance.
sound bites are easier to twist into what you want than the truth or a real opinion. :drevil :drevil
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 07:06 AM
sound bites are easier to twist into what you want than the truth or a real opinion. :drevil :drevil
True.
I can't listen to the debates because they are so focused on that. The debates between the actual contenders for the Presidency are somewhat better.
Lone Laugher
11-17-2007, 07:10 AM
The debates were set to make Hillary look good after the last debates made her look bad.
Yeah...go on believing that, Rev. It is all a conspiracy to elect Hiilary. Can you provide ANY link between CNN and Hillary's campaign? What does CNN have to gain by having Hillary look good? If Hillary fucks up...will CNN avoid airing it?
For what it is worth...she didn't gain any points with me...all it took was hearing that maniacal fake laugh again.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 07:19 AM
:werd
What's the world like when everything is a giant conspiracy against the nice conservatives of the world?????
Yeah...go on believing that, Rev. It is all a conspiracy to elect Hiilary. Can you provide ANY link between CNN and Hillary's campaign? What does CNN have to gain by having Hillary look good? If Hillary fucks up...will CNN avoid airing it?
For what it is worth...she didn't gain any points with me...all it took was hearing that maniacal fake laugh again.
I was just saying what it looked like to me. Sorry if you disagree. She got soft questions and basically a pass.
:werd
What's the world like when everything is a giant conspiracy against the nice conservatives of the world?????
Didn't say that was the case either. I also believe that the Rep debates are set up to make Rudy look good.
Lone Laugher
11-17-2007, 07:40 AM
Well...they are not. They are set up to get sound-bites so the networks have material the next day.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 07:40 AM
Fox News has been caught promoting Rudy. The other outlets as an entity just don't operate like that, and as you can see, Fox got caught.
Well...they are not. They are set up to get sound-bites so the networks have material the next day.
Either way the debates are useless in helping determine who should run this country.
Fox News has been caught promoting Rudy. The other outlets as an entity just don't operate like that, and as you can see, Fox got caught.
Doesn't suprise me.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 07:50 AM
Fox is unique in their agenda. They aren't really a news outlet as much as a mouthpiece for the GOP.
Fox is unique in their agenda. They aren't really a news outlet as much as a mouthpiece for the GOP.
:roll here we go again.
All media is biased in one way or another
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 07:55 AM
:roll here we go again.
All media is biased in one way or another
Absolutely, all media is biased in one way or another. All people are biased in one way or another. But I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about an agenda designed to promote the Publican party and point of view.
Absolutely, all media is biased in one way or another. All people are biased in one way or another. But I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about an agenda designed to promote the Publican party and point of view.
And the NY Times and MSNBC and a few others don't promote the Democrat agenda and pov?
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 08:00 AM
And the NY Times and MSNBC and a few others don't promote the Democrat agenda and pov?
In the way that Fox News, does? No, they don't.
The editors of the NYTs [to include MSNBC in the mix is pretty laughable] may well be Democrats. But their commitment is to honest reporting. Do they fail at that task? Of course. But Fox is specifically set up to promote not a pov, but a political party agenda.
MSNBC is trying to win a ratings war. The channel that dismissed Phil Donahue and hired Michael Savage is not carrying the water for the DNC.
In the way that Fox News, does? No, they don't.
The editors of the NYTs [to include MSNBC in the mix is pretty laughable] may well be Democrats. But their commitment is to honest reporting. Do they fail at that task? Of course. But Fox is specifically set up to promote not a pov, but a political party agenda.
MSNBC is trying to win a ratings war. The channel that dismissed Phil Donahue and hired Michael Savage is not carrying the water for the DNC.
I agree wth tthe commentators on Fox promote the Reps but they are news casters. The news on Fox is the same news elsewhere.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 08:04 AM
I agree wth tthe commentators on Fox promote the Reps but they are news casters. The news on Fox is the same news elsewhere.
The big headline summary may be the same, but the news isn't.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 10:48 AM
How would a debate be "rigged" to favor Clinton without anybody noticing? Wolf Blitzer may not be the world's best journalist, but he'd have to be in on any rigging-so why would Blitzer cooperate with it?
Easy, soft questions. She can't answer the tough ones with out flip-flopping
Lone Laugher
11-17-2007, 12:39 PM
Ridiculous assertion.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 01:13 PM
Ridiculous assertion.
Agreed. Again, Rev, why would Blitzer agree to play along and how could he keep people from noticing?
And nobody does a good job with the tough ones. The idea that Hillary alone is inconsistent is pretty hilarious.
Wabash
11-17-2007, 01:28 PM
:werd
What's the world like when everything is a giant conspiracy against the nice conservatives of the world?????
Actually TB, you don't get it and never have....it's not just conservatives, it's all of us!
I was just saying what it looked like to me. Sorry if you disagree. She got soft questions and basically a pass.
Sure she got a pass, Blitzer was warned, he won't publicly admit it...but he GOT the Word!
issac the dragon
11-17-2007, 01:39 PM
And what other stupid, unprovable things do you believe. Blitzer has made his position as anti-Clinton pretty obvious. As has Jack Cafferty. Cafferty nearly gags every time her name comes up. I find a lot of men are frightened by her. They fear women who are assertive.
issac the dragon
11-17-2007, 01:52 PM
Before someone says otherwise, every one of the canidates got to invite the same number of people to the debate. But I thought it was very good that Obama and Edwards got booed when they started piling on Clinton again.
If they think the only way they can win is to destroy Clinton, they don't deserve to win. And the Democarats don't like Republican behavior. Canabalism is a Republican trait.
Ridiculous assertion.
Agreed. Again, Rev, why would Blitzer agree to play along and how could he keep people from noticing?
And nobody does a good job with the tough ones. The idea that Hillary alone is inconsistent is pretty hilarious.
Really; what tough questions was she asked?
She is given a pass because she is the DNC's darlin.
Trueblue
11-17-2007, 05:22 PM
And what other stupid, unprovable things do you believe. Blitzer has made his position as anti-Clinton pretty obvious. As has Jack Cafferty. Cafferty nearly gags every time her name comes up. I find a lot of men are frightened by her. They fear women who are assertive.
Really; what tough questions was she asked?
She is given a pass because she is the DNC's darlin.
I direct you to Issac's statement above, what other stupid and unprovable things do you believe?
Think about this-why would Blitzer give a crap who is the DNC's darling?
Why does Blitzer care more about the DNC's alleged darling than about his own career?
How are you so sure that Hillary is the DNC's darling? When Bush was the RNC's darling, the RNC went after McCain as a threat. You don't see that happening with any of the other Dem candidates, do you?
Why don't you answer my question them
What hard questions was she asked?
Blitzer is paid by CNN and if they give him questions then those are what he asks.
Lone Laugher
11-17-2007, 08:53 PM
How many questions were directed at Hillary during the last debate, Rev?
Please tell me which ones were "easy" questions.
Thanks.
I asked first.
On the drivers license for illegals she was given a pass. for starters. C'mon what hard questions was she asked.
On top of that what makes her "uniquely qualifies" (her words) to be President?
Sure she got a pass, Blitzer was warned, he won't publicly admit it...but he GOT the Word!
Tell me what your source is for this statement.
Kurtz
11-17-2007, 09:55 PM
I see y'all are pickin' on Hillary,
that's coz she's ahead. :lol
Actually I want to know what qualifies anyone for President.
Also none of the debates either Dem or Rep have asked substanive questions.
Ringo
11-18-2007, 10:39 AM
We are lucky to be living in a time when news comes fast and in many forms....or are we?
I am fed up with the sound bite media. Last nights debate had a perfect example.
Barack Obama did a good job of describing his position regarding the issuing of drivers licenses to undocumented aliens.
The main thrust of his explaination outlined that while he supports the idea for public safety reasons...he thinks that it is NOT THE REAL ISSUE. He explained that focusing on the drivers license issue distracts us from working on the bigger picture...stopping the flow of undocumented aliens...and figuring out what to do about the one's that are already here. He discussed making sure that we enforce existing laws against employing undocumented workers.
But Blitzer wanted no part of such an intelligent answer. Instead he INSISTED that everyone give a sound-bite yes or no answer to the question. BULLSHIT!!! It is too complicated an issue for that.
I guess having so many options for getting news fast means that we will only get sound bites...simple stuff...and never get to the real converstaion.
It sucks.
What did ya think would happen from a HILLARY Operative? Hell the Dixie Mafia warned him not to ask Hillary anything even remotely difficult, and to cut off all challengers at the knees!
ITS RIGGED folks and the only ones who can stop the bitch are YOU Liberal Voters! We will stomp her ass in Nov 08, but don't you think you deserve more than the Commie Progressive Party of Soros-Hillary???:godzilla:sparks:mw:godzilla
Ringo
11-18-2007, 10:43 AM
The big headline summary may be the same, but the news isn't.
Poor little brain washed girl, BUT you are f right the NEWS isn't the SAME, its BETTER, far more TRUTHFUL, and is geared towards a REAL AMERICAN audience and not Liberal Progressives!
Basically I label ALL the rest of the Media in America, the NEW AMERICAN PRAVDA!!:sheep:devil
Trueblue
11-18-2007, 10:45 AM
Actually I want to know what qualifies anyone for President.
Also none of the debates either Dem or Rep have asked substanive questions.
Exactly, Rev. As I have said, I have little tolerance for these debates because the questions are so stupid.
Your claim that CNN tells Blitzer what to ask and that he has no choice shows a lack of understanding of how journalism works, what drives a media personality like Blitzer, what drives a media outlet like CNN, and how difficult it is to keep such a conspiracy as you allege a secret.
issac the dragon
11-18-2007, 12:17 PM
Exactly, Rev. As I have said, I have little tolerance for these debates because the questions are so stupid.
Your claim that CNN tells Blitzer what to ask and that he has no choice shows a lack of understanding of how journalism works, what drives a media personality like Blitzer, what drives a media outlet like CNN, and how difficult it is to keep such a conspiracy as you allege a secret.
Blitzer didn't ask Clinton much about the license thing because it had been extensively talked about on the news for days. Why waste time doing it again.
And debates are are waste of time, except for the few times someone puts their foot in their mouth.
Deadshot
11-18-2007, 01:25 PM
You wanna know why there aren't any really tough questions? Because it's just a little less then a year before we vote.
After February, when both sides should know who their nominee is, THEN you'll see the hard questions.
To be honest, the Dems don't really want to beat up on the Dems, just as the Reps don't really want to beat up on the Reps. After the first quarter of 2008 the gloves will come off for everyone and the questions, as well as many of the T.V. ads will get mean and nasty VERY, VERY quickly.
Enjoy Debate "light" while you can.
issac the dragon
11-18-2007, 04:28 PM
Hopefully we will get our questions answered then. I've got plenty and they aren't getting answered in 10 seconds.
Exactly, Rev. As I have said, I have little tolerance for these debates because the questions are so stupid.
Your claim that CNN tells Blitzer what to ask and that he has no choice shows a lack of understanding of how journalism works, what drives a media personality like Blitzer, what drives a media outlet like CNN, and how difficult it is to keep such a conspiracy as you allege a secret.
Who plays Blitzer?
I never said it was a conspriacy, when you aork for and outlet you do what they tell you to do.
Trueblue
11-18-2007, 08:09 PM
Who plays Blitzer?
I never said it was a conspriacy, when you aork for and outlet you do what they tell you to do.
They don't tell journalists what to do to this degree, though. They do not tell them what questions to ask somebody, and dictate that they cannot use their own judgment. This is simply not a credible accusation.
And what you are outlining is a conspiracy, plain and simple, even if you didn't call it that name.
It is not a conspiracy, Media outlets just want to control what goes on.
You can't prove me wrong nor can I prove myself right, this is how I see the Media today
Trueblue
11-18-2007, 10:54 PM
It is not a conspiracy, Media outlets just want to control what goes on.
You can't prove me wrong nor can I prove myself right, this is how I see the Media today
Yes, you are alleging a conspiracy to give Hillary Clinton an advantage in the Presidential debates. It's an attack on the democratic process and a violation of ethical principles.
You know, anybody can make any wild accusation and then say "I can't prove it, but you can't prove me wrong". George Bush has a love child. Dick Cheney wishes he were a Paris runway model. Laura Bush talks about having a sex change operation. The Bush twins were conceived through in vitro fertilization. And on and on. Your speculation just doesn't hold up, though.
Who at CNN is the Dr. Evil who puts together the softball questions, why does a journalist like Blitzer violate every journalistic principle by complying with this conspiracy, why wouldn't somebody involved leak this foul plot and gain themselves instant notoriety and job offers galore from rival media outlets?
Wabash
11-19-2007, 01:14 AM
Yes, you are alleging a conspiracy to give Hillary Clinton an advantage in the Presidential debates. It's an attack on the democratic process and a violation of ethical principles.
You know, anybody can make any wild accusation and then say "I can't prove it, but you can't prove me wrong". George Bush has a love child. Dick Cheney wishes he were a Paris runway model. Laura Bush talks about having a sex change operation. The Bush twins were conceived through in vitro fertilization. And on and on. Your speculation just doesn't hold up, though.
Who at CNN is the Dr. Evil who puts together the softball questions, why does a journalist like Blitzer violate every journalistic principle by complying with this conspiracy, why wouldn't somebody involved leak this foul plot and gain themselves instant notoriety and job offers galore from rival media outlets?
Fear of reprisal up to and including death would do it!
Vince Foster wanted to speak out...:wink
You are soooooo naive TB! Or....maybe it's more than that.........
Wabash
11-19-2007, 01:16 AM
They don't tell journalists what to do to this degree, though. They do not tell them what questions to ask somebody, and dictate that they cannot use their own judgment. This is simply not a credible accusation.
And what you are outlining is a conspiracy, plain and simple, even if you didn't call it that name.
Since when are you an expert or privy to info on this????
You aren't that dumb are you?
The Clintons are Ruthless!
Yes, you are alleging a conspiracy to give Hillary Clinton an advantage in the Presidential debates. It's an attack on the democratic process and a violation of ethical principles.
You know, anybody can make any wild accusation and then say "I can't prove it, but you can't prove me wrong". George Bush has a love child. Dick Cheney wishes he were a Paris runway model. Laura Bush talks about having a sex change operation. The Bush twins were conceived through in vitro fertilization. And on and on. Your speculation just doesn't hold up, though.
Who at CNN is the Dr. Evil who puts together the softball questions, why does a journalist like Blitzer violate every journalistic principle by complying with this conspiracy, why wouldn't somebody involved leak this foul plot and gain themselves instant notoriety and job offers galore from rival media outlets?
Ok this shows that you have not read all of my posts.
I didn't say this is just towards Clinton. I also am not just attacking CNN I said and I quote
Didn't say that was the case either. I also believe that the Rep debates are set up to make Rudy look good.
Either way the debates are useless in helping determine who should run this country.
Doesn't suprise me.
:roll here we go again.
All media is biased in one way or another
Easy, soft questions. She can't answer the tough ones with out flip-flopping
Actually I want to know what qualifies anyone for President.
Also none of the debates either Dem or Rep have asked substanive questions.
Who plays Blitzer?
I never said it was a conspriacy, when you aork for and outlet you do what they tell you to do.
It is not a conspiracy, Media outlets just want to control what goes on.
Clinton was just he example for this thread.
ALL of the debates have been useless and NONE of the debates have asked any hard questions. ALL of the candidates aare getting passes, but especially Clinton and Rudy.
And yes I DO believe Blitizer was told what he could and couldn't ask, the same as with all the moderators. It happens frequently in politics. Not to believe that is extremely niave.
Yellowdogtexan
11-19-2007, 09:02 AM
[/B]
Fear of reprisal up to and including death would do it!
Vince Foster wanted to speak out...:wink
You are soooooo naive TB! Or....maybe it's more than that.........These claims are so stupid that they are getting old. Ken Starr is a clinton hater and even he could find no evidence of a crime being committed.
Ringo
11-19-2007, 09:51 AM
And what other stupid, unprovable things do you believe. Blitzer has made his position as anti-Clinton pretty obvious. As has Jack Cafferty. Cafferty nearly gags every time her name comes up. I find a lot of men are frightened by her. They fear women who are assertive.
No they fear Women who have the BLESSINGS of the Terrorists, the Communists, the Drug Cartels, and the Sodom & Gomoorah Community!
There fixed that Post!
Ringo
11-19-2007, 09:58 AM
These claims are so stupid that they are getting old. Ken Starr is a clinton hater and even he could find no evidence of a crime being committed.
That wasn't what Ken Starr was supposed to investigate! Hell the body had been moved, the case wrapped up by the CRACK PARK POLICE, and Livingston had the KEY papers removed, before the body became cold!
Can you say MOB hit??
issac the dragon
11-19-2007, 11:08 AM
Can you say moron?
Trueblue
11-19-2007, 06:42 PM
[/B]
Fear of reprisal up to and including death would do it!
Vince Foster wanted to speak out...:wink
You are soooooo naive TB! Or....maybe it's more than that.........
Tinfoil hat talk, Wabash.
Since when are you an expert or privy to info on this????
You aren't that dumb are you?
The Clintons are Ruthless!
I just have common sense.
And yes I DO believe Blitizer was told what he could and couldn't ask, the same as with all the moderators. It happens frequently in politics. Not to believe that is extremely niave.
I have read your posts. I know that you believe that Clinton was asked softball questions by Wolf Blitzer because CNN told him to. I think that is ridiculous.
Where do you get your information that moderators are frequently told to ask softball questions or otherwise compromise their integrity?
That wasn't what Ken Starr was supposed to investigate! Hell the body had been moved, the case wrapped up by the CRACK PARK POLICE, and Livingston had the KEY papers removed, before the body became cold!
Can you say MOB hit??
Ringo, Ken Starr wasn't authorized, but he did it anyway and he said it was a suicide.
Face up to reality for five minutes.
issac the dragon
11-19-2007, 11:10 PM
I couldn't believe when it was happening that the filthy minded old man would do what he did. Ken Starr was another Cotton Mather. And Ringo and Wabash are still yelling, "Their withches."
I have read your posts. I know that you believe that Clinton was asked softball questions by Wolf Blitzer because CNN told him to. I think that is ridiculous.
Where do you get your information that moderators are frequently told to ask softball questions or otherwise compromise their integrity?
hat does it. It's time for the Democratic Party to stage its own debate, ask its own questions, and offer the video to networks as a completed package. Allowing CNN to not just air a debate but to ask the questions proved on Thursday night (even more dramatically than in the past) to be a soul sickening disaster.
A serious debate would begin by asking each candidate (including Mike Gravel, who was locked out of the room) what he or she would do if elected president. Thursday's debate in the opening 30 minutes had me longing for even the level of honesty and substance of the MSNBC debate hosted by Keith Olbermann in Soldier Field some months back, at which Olbermann managed the superhuman feat of asking things like "Would you cancel NAFTA?"
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18108/42/
From the LIBERAL Daily Kos
Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."
Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.
So what happened?
Writes Luisa:
"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/16/125315/12
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/cnn_denies_diamonds_and_pearl_girl_was_forced_to_a sk_question.php
issac the dragon
11-19-2007, 11:34 PM
I agree that the debate was stupid. CNN and other stations have become far to enarmoured with causing friction, having sound bites, and trying to start everyone piling on Clinton. The whole exercise now is entertainment, not intelligent debate. I'm not watching any more of them.
Trueblue
11-20-2007, 06:58 AM
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18108/42/
From the LIBERAL Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/16/125315/12
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/cnn_denies_diamonds_and_pearl_girl_was_forced_to_a sk_question.php
This does not prove some sort of collusion on the part of CNN to make Hillary alone look good by asking her softball questions.
Trueblue
11-20-2007, 07:05 AM
The debates were set to make Hillary look good after the last debates made her look bad.
This is alleging a conspiracy.
This does not prove some sort of collusion on the part of CNN to make Hillary alone look good by asking her softball questions.
WHAT??!!!! They chose the questions that we going to be asked and CHOSE the soft ones. It is here in black and white
This is alleging a conspiracy.
I can see where you would think that but that is not what I meant.
Trueblue
11-20-2007, 07:12 AM
WHAT??!!!! They chose the questions that we going to be asked and CHOSE the soft ones. It is here in black and white
They chose all the questions, not just the ones for Hillary. The final question for Hillary was silly, yes. And it's out in the open, it didn't involve Blitzer being told what to ask or else.
I can see where you would think that but that is not what I meant.
I don't see what else it could mean. CNN is deliberately making Rudy and Hillary look good, according to you.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.