Note: The following exercise in Obama wankery and bitching about the media is only for those with a high tolerance for such things. All others should use caution. In other words...
We won, bitches! Suck it!
Buck B: Can I just say that this is the fucking awesomest thing ever?
Brian Pierce: I keep thinking that it's finally, finally over, and then realize there's a whole general election campaign left
Buck B: Yes. But I was a lot more worried about Hillary than I was about whoever the Republicans nominated.
Brian Pierce: I'm not worried as much as I am exhausted. But, yeah, it's a fun night. Nice to see none of the nonsense the past few weeks has hurt him.
Buck B: Amazing, really. Maybe people are actually. waking up.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, for all the talk about Obama not responding effectively, it seems like in reality he has an almost uncanny ability to cut through bullshit in a way that is actually persuasive to voters.
Buck B: It's called "telling the truth".
Brian Pierce: No kidding! I think it's not so much that people are waking up, but that the media has this weird view of what "regular people" think that kind of assumes they're all really dumb. So you hear a lot of talk about, "Well, Hillary may be totally full of shit on the gas tax holiday, but it's good politics!"
Buck B: Right. The media won't just give the candidates to the people directly and let them make up their minds, they think they have to analyze it for them. It's hard to build a convincing case in 15-second sounds bites followed by five minutes of analysis.
Brian Pierce: And analyze it not based on what's true, but what's "effective."
Buck B: Yup. With "effectiveness" based on absolutely no empirical evidence.
Brian Pierce: I mean, it should be extraordinarily offensive every time some pundit says that this gas tax holiday stuff was good politics and then in the same breath say that it's bad policy. Yet they say it totally un-self-consciously. Even though there's no way that could be true unless you are saying, "The American people are too stupid to understand they're being lied to."
Buck B: Well...unfortunately, that's at least partly true. But that's why it's so important the media take on the role of informing them. And not reporting on them like they're some sort of amusing beast.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, it's true to great extent because the media doesn't even attempt to ascertain whether the claims politicians are making are true or false. Every time I see Tim Russert chuckling about spin I want to punch him in the face.
Buck B: That's why I prefer partisan media.
Brian Pierce: Ideological media.
Buck B: I don't like wasting energy trying to figure out how a reporter is responding to spin. I want to know what his position is from the start. Who the fuck's side is Russert on? What is he doing? No one knows.
Brian Pierce: And because Tim Russert doesn't have a particular stake in anything, there's much more of a focus on game-playing.
Buck B: Yes. Surprisingly, taking a particular side makes you focus more on issues and less on politics.
Brian Pierce: In part because a focus on politics leads the public to view everybody as being the same, because it's just this confusing haze of spin. But if you're trying to advocate one side, you're going to be jumping up and down trying to draw clear distinctions on issues.
Buck B: And because you assumably believe in what you're advocating, you're going to want to build sound and convincing arguments.
Brian Pierce: That's why I used the term "ideological media" before, rather than "partisan." If you're advocating a particular point of view (as opposed to being purely partisan), you will be willing to call even candidates of your own party on shit you don't like. Fox News is just a partisan version of CNN, but with all the same flaws as CNN that we're talking about.
Buck B: Good point. That kind of distinction might be the eventual death of the two-party system.
We won, bitches! Suck it!
Buck B: Can I just say that this is the fucking awesomest thing ever?
Brian Pierce: I keep thinking that it's finally, finally over, and then realize there's a whole general election campaign left
Buck B: Yes. But I was a lot more worried about Hillary than I was about whoever the Republicans nominated.
Brian Pierce: I'm not worried as much as I am exhausted. But, yeah, it's a fun night. Nice to see none of the nonsense the past few weeks has hurt him.
Buck B: Amazing, really. Maybe people are actually. waking up.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, for all the talk about Obama not responding effectively, it seems like in reality he has an almost uncanny ability to cut through bullshit in a way that is actually persuasive to voters.
Buck B: It's called "telling the truth".
Brian Pierce: No kidding! I think it's not so much that people are waking up, but that the media has this weird view of what "regular people" think that kind of assumes they're all really dumb. So you hear a lot of talk about, "Well, Hillary may be totally full of shit on the gas tax holiday, but it's good politics!"
Buck B: Right. The media won't just give the candidates to the people directly and let them make up their minds, they think they have to analyze it for them. It's hard to build a convincing case in 15-second sounds bites followed by five minutes of analysis.
Brian Pierce: And analyze it not based on what's true, but what's "effective."
Buck B: Yup. With "effectiveness" based on absolutely no empirical evidence.
Brian Pierce: I mean, it should be extraordinarily offensive every time some pundit says that this gas tax holiday stuff was good politics and then in the same breath say that it's bad policy. Yet they say it totally un-self-consciously. Even though there's no way that could be true unless you are saying, "The American people are too stupid to understand they're being lied to."
Buck B: Well...unfortunately, that's at least partly true. But that's why it's so important the media take on the role of informing them. And not reporting on them like they're some sort of amusing beast.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, it's true to great extent because the media doesn't even attempt to ascertain whether the claims politicians are making are true or false. Every time I see Tim Russert chuckling about spin I want to punch him in the face.
Buck B: That's why I prefer partisan media.
Brian Pierce: Ideological media.
Buck B: I don't like wasting energy trying to figure out how a reporter is responding to spin. I want to know what his position is from the start. Who the fuck's side is Russert on? What is he doing? No one knows.
Brian Pierce: And because Tim Russert doesn't have a particular stake in anything, there's much more of a focus on game-playing.
Buck B: Yes. Surprisingly, taking a particular side makes you focus more on issues and less on politics.
Brian Pierce: In part because a focus on politics leads the public to view everybody as being the same, because it's just this confusing haze of spin. But if you're trying to advocate one side, you're going to be jumping up and down trying to draw clear distinctions on issues.
Buck B: And because you assumably believe in what you're advocating, you're going to want to build sound and convincing arguments.
Brian Pierce: That's why I used the term "ideological media" before, rather than "partisan." If you're advocating a particular point of view (as opposed to being purely partisan), you will be willing to call even candidates of your own party on shit you don't like. Fox News is just a partisan version of CNN, but with all the same flaws as CNN that we're talking about.
Buck B: Good point. That kind of distinction might be the eventual death of the two-party system.
Labels: Barack Obama, media, politics
First, this post is lame and pointless. It does nothing to further discussion or to provoke thought. We all care as much about your chat conversations as we do about that dreamy date you had on friday night. Please don't post either.
Second, it's far from over. Barack needs to win 84% of the remaining votes to win the nomination outright. He's not going to do that. That means he gets this nomination one of two ways: 1) Clinton does him a favor and drops out; 2) The superdelegates give it to him. With Clinton loaning herself another seven million, option 1 does not look very likely. This will continue to drag on, and Barack's past will continue to haunt him. It will eventually catch up with him to the point that Hillary gets put up, or he will enter the general election so tattered and destroyed that McCain will need to drop dead not to be elected.
Kofi,
There's a whole discussion of the media in there that I think might provoke some thought, not to mention the thoughts in the second paragraph of your comment it seemed to provoke.
And if there's some way to do it without putting your precious anonymity at risk, I would be willing to bet significant sums of money that you are wrong.
haha, guys.
you sure drink the corporate media koolaid.
you should check out operation mockingbird.
nothing changed yesterday.
nothing changed when she won Pennsylvania.
nothing has significantly changed the game since Texas.
this is going to convention,
and i already explained how the convention will argue.
ONCE I REALIZED THIS WAS A BUNCH OF DEMOCRAT HACKS AND NOT SOMETHING ABOUT INDIANA JONES I STOPPED READING.
NOT TO DIMINISH THE TAKEN-FOR-GRANTED ANNOYINGNESS OF KOPI, STARTING WITH THE NAME AND ENDING WITH HIS EVERY LAST WORD... IF SOMEONE COULD COLLECT ALL THE WASTED, GLIB ELECTRONS OF INTERNET TRAFFIC GENERATED BY HIM AND KEVIN C ON THIS BLOG AND REDIRECT IT I THINK YOU COULD DO A YEAR'S WORTH OF ELECTRECUTIONS IN TEXAS.
AND YES I KNOW I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS
I don't know who you are, but I have noticed one thing: at least my worthless comments are few and far between. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for yours.
ha. i'll give you that. but you have to admit that you usually disagree with me. and when you do, i can't help but think you are wrong (at least so much as I think that i am right, and i usually agree more or less with myself, and i'm not saying that to be ironic)
people know me. i know who you are. and i'm watching you sleep right now.
I find something offensive about the way much of the mainstream press feels the need to pre-digest everything for me, like some mother bird vomiting food into my mouth, as I am clearly unable to interpret anything on my own. Every nugget of information has to be torn apart, chewed, spit out, inspected, rechewed if there's a bit that hasn't been reduced to an unrecognizable slurry, and then poured down my gullet using the world's largest beer bong. Even something like, "_____'s unfavorables are up 15%. What does this mean?" Well, I'd say it means that the number of people who have a negative view of the candidate has increased by roughly fifteen out every hundred. I don't need five talking heads each putting in their two cents on what exactly they think caused it. It's more speculation on top of speculation as they have no way of knowing, save in the most obvious of cases. If it comes out on Tuesday that the candidate enjoys dining on raw puppies and a poll on Wednesday shows their numbers are down, I don't need a team of analysts telling me that America just isn't ready to vote for a puppy-eater!
Sadly, any and all discussion of policy has gone out the window in favor of dissecting the process. The whole thing has turned into ESPN Washington. In fact, CNN is even calling their Mr. Creosote-like election coverage Ballot Bowl '08. Thing is, sports-style coverage doesn't work for politics. It may garner ratings, which is all that matters as far as the media is concerned. But it's more than a bit lean on information when it comes to the issues.
Posit: It makes no direct difference on the Bears game how it is covered in the weeks leading up to the game. Sure, if the talk is predominantly negative where it regards the team's chances, ticket sales may be depressed. And one could argue that over the long haul bad press would depress ticket sales thus beginning to hurt the team financially, etc, etc, etc. That said, there is no need for the fans to understand the team's strategy or their game play. The Bears will win or lose depending on how they play, which is entirely independent of the fans.
In politics, it is essential for the electorate to understand the issues involved, unless you're the sort of power-hungry wanker who would much rather the lazy, unwashed masses stay home and eat cheese food product directly out of a spray can. (Here I'm thinking of what Paul Weyrich said. Asshole.)
Once upon a time, and it wasn't that long ago, broadcasting the news was the cost of doing business. In exchange for the use of the public airwaves, the major networks were required to run programming in the public interest, ie-news. The news was produced at a loss, that is to say, it didn't make money for the station, but, again, they got free rights to use the public airwaves. Once someone worked out how to turn a dime off the news, and that the FCC taking action was less likely than Boy George suddenly taking an interest in girls, they happily began spluttering out the most sensationalistic garbage they could find. So much for informing the public. Of course, with cable, there are no public airwaves and thus no obligation to the public. And with a full day to fill with news, a day which may not contain enough news, it is sometimes necessary to create the news. Or just a massive echo-chamber where suits at desks "report" on what's happened, and what other suits say happened, and what still more suits think about what happened and what someone said happened, every comment a potential story in itself and a way to fill just a few more minutes.
My advice: Grab hold of your own crank and start pumping. You'll learn as much, but you'll have more fun.
True, the media does assume the US populace to be a bunch of rubes - but then, they've been disconnected from the public since at least 1972 (cue reporter's lament that she didn't know anybody who voted for Nixon.)
It's also very much the case that we all know somebody who won't vote for him because he's a secret Muslim, or alternately a black supremacist. There is a substantial moron vote out there, and they've definitely been a major factor in recent presidential-year elections (and here, I'm not talking in explicitly partisan terms, just a wide range of political behavior ranging from Buchanan butterfly ballots to the God Damn WWE promos.) This year, though, I don't think that bloc is going to be large enough to be the deciding factor. But there's only so much we can do - the media really is irreparably out of touch.