- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Technoviking said:
She's lost all credibility ever since the "Million Little Pieces" fiasco, and getting mauled by Tom Cruise. SMART people learn their politics and voting tricks via talking dogs from Rhode Island.
Decision Points
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
She's lost all credibility ever since the "Million Little Pieces" fiasco, and getting mauled by Tom Cruise. SMART people learn their politics and voting tricks via talking dogs from Rhode Island.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
For what it's worth, fascism actually sits neither "left" or "right" because it draws from both ends of the spectrum, but I might suggest that the traditional "allies" of the left were some of the most persecuted by fascist regimes, and it's the traits of ultranationalism, xenophobia, and subservience to mythical "free markets" that tends to take hold in states that become fascist. Similarly, there becomes a need to vilify one's opponents in order to justify subversion of democratic processes, and that is something that FRINGES of the right seem to be doing... Of course, the same could be said of some aspects of the far left as well, though they don't have a massive machine like Fox "News" pushing their message for them.
Frankly, TV has a point - there are people with delusional ideas on the left, but can anyone name any of them? Probably not. Why? Because while they're just as fringe, they aren't getting the media play. I'll hypothesize that this is the reason that the right has to play up their big "Red Scare" show on people who are slightly left-of-centre.
What's more telling is that their big arguments against any given policy seem to be based on wild mischaracterizations of those policies. Look at Beck's attack on the food safety bill that passed yesterday. Look at his slanderous attack on George Soros (and yes, it's slander to knowingly spread false information about someone, I'm kind of disappointed that Soros hasn't sued him, but his justification is probably to make sure he doesn't give Beck even more media attention, and it's not like he needs the money). Look at Beck and Limbaugh's complete misunderstanding of the concept of Net Neutrality. Look at how Neil Cavuto got into an argument on his show disputing the impact of tax cuts (that every dollar in cuts only brings back $0.30, torpedoing the right's argument that tax cuts are stimulative), despite the fact that the research on the matter is clear.
I find it telling, as well, that some "engagements" on these shows which purport to be "fair and balanced" degenerate rather quickly into any dissenting opinion being shouted down by the hosts (BillO being rather famous for this), whereas I seem to have a hard time finding examples of that on other networks like MSNBC.
The problem as I see it has less to do with ideology and more to do with impact on process. A democratic society requires a strong civil society - that is, a public who are engaged, who are informed, who can discuss the issues of the day, and can do so armed with enough facts to make reasonable decisions, whatever they may be. That is breaking down in America - and it's starting to happen in Canada as well, and will spread - because what's being discussed is no longer facts, it's so heavily spun that any such discourse is well divorced from reality.
The thing of it is, that if people had the inclination to do their own homework as it were, to scratch the surface of the claims, they'd see they're nonsense, but not enough people are doing that, so the lies propagated so commonly become accepted by some as canon, when nothing at all could be further from the truth. So people then potentially are casting votes not based on any sort of informed participation, but purely on hearing what they want delivered by self-described "rodeo clowns" (that was Beck, incidentally).
Frankly, TV has a point - there are people with delusional ideas on the left, but can anyone name any of them? Probably not. Why? Because while they're just as fringe, they aren't getting the media play. I'll hypothesize that this is the reason that the right has to play up their big "Red Scare" show on people who are slightly left-of-centre.
What's more telling is that their big arguments against any given policy seem to be based on wild mischaracterizations of those policies. Look at Beck's attack on the food safety bill that passed yesterday. Look at his slanderous attack on George Soros (and yes, it's slander to knowingly spread false information about someone, I'm kind of disappointed that Soros hasn't sued him, but his justification is probably to make sure he doesn't give Beck even more media attention, and it's not like he needs the money). Look at Beck and Limbaugh's complete misunderstanding of the concept of Net Neutrality. Look at how Neil Cavuto got into an argument on his show disputing the impact of tax cuts (that every dollar in cuts only brings back $0.30, torpedoing the right's argument that tax cuts are stimulative), despite the fact that the research on the matter is clear.
I find it telling, as well, that some "engagements" on these shows which purport to be "fair and balanced" degenerate rather quickly into any dissenting opinion being shouted down by the hosts (BillO being rather famous for this), whereas I seem to have a hard time finding examples of that on other networks like MSNBC.
The problem as I see it has less to do with ideology and more to do with impact on process. A democratic society requires a strong civil society - that is, a public who are engaged, who are informed, who can discuss the issues of the day, and can do so armed with enough facts to make reasonable decisions, whatever they may be. That is breaking down in America - and it's starting to happen in Canada as well, and will spread - because what's being discussed is no longer facts, it's so heavily spun that any such discourse is well divorced from reality.
The thing of it is, that if people had the inclination to do their own homework as it were, to scratch the surface of the claims, they'd see they're nonsense, but not enough people are doing that, so the lies propagated so commonly become accepted by some as canon, when nothing at all could be further from the truth. So people then potentially are casting votes not based on any sort of informed participation, but purely on hearing what they want delivered by self-described "rodeo clowns" (that was Beck, incidentally).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Redeye said:
You may want to re-think that one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Really? Name me the left's answer to Glenn Beck? To Bill O'Reilly?
The closest you might come up with, conceivably, is Keith Olbermann. The thing is that while he has a rather distinctive style and has no bones about taking on those he opposes, he will call out anyone where appropriate. On the odd occasion he's been called out for misrepresenting something, he's retracted it. There's a marked difference.
Despite Fox's fair and balanced claims, I'd say MSNBC has that down far better (though, they do undermine their position by having Pat Buchanan as their "token right" guy sometimes). There's a reason that right wing candidates avoid the media, especially them, because their journalists do their jobs and hold their feet to the fire.
The closest you might come up with, conceivably, is Keith Olbermann. The thing is that while he has a rather distinctive style and has no bones about taking on those he opposes, he will call out anyone where appropriate. On the odd occasion he's been called out for misrepresenting something, he's retracted it. There's a marked difference.
Despite Fox's fair and balanced claims, I'd say MSNBC has that down far better (though, they do undermine their position by having Pat Buchanan as their "token right" guy sometimes). There's a reason that right wing candidates avoid the media, especially them, because their journalists do their jobs and hold their feet to the fire.
Sapplicant said:
- Reaction score
- 2,918
- Points
- 940
Canadian university professors.Redeye said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Redeye said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Respectfully, you'll have to forgive me for dismissing both your answers.
Journeyman, as you well know, no one really cares what university professors say about anything.
And they don't host TV programs or radio shows.
Sapplicant, Layton's a politician. Not the same thing as a pundit/"journalist".
Journeyman, as you well know, no one really cares what university professors say about anything.
And they don't host TV programs or radio shows.Sapplicant, Layton's a politician. Not the same thing as a pundit/"journalist".
- Reaction score
- 2,918
- Points
- 940
How very left-of-centre of youRedeye said:
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 210
In fairness to Redeye, he's asking for an answer to American political commentators who have radio or television shows.
I can't think of anyone in the American left who is anywhere near as high profile as those two, but isn't that more a question of ratings ?
That fact that not many people are listening to Randi Rhodes (or whoever) doesn't mean she doesn't have an equal platform to speak from -it just means a significantly larger portion of the American public are more interested in what Beck or O'Reilly have to say.
That's the free market at work, non ?
It's pretty well established that the right dominates talk radio.
But what about the entertainment industry ? ("minstrel media" -I like that). They hold considerable sway over what people believe and how they vote. You don't see too many right wing answers to Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone -hell virtually anyone in Hollywood.
I can't think of anyone in the American left who is anywhere near as high profile as those two, but isn't that more a question of ratings ?
That fact that not many people are listening to Randi Rhodes (or whoever) doesn't mean she doesn't have an equal platform to speak from -it just means a significantly larger portion of the American public are more interested in what Beck or O'Reilly have to say.
That's the free market at work, non ?
It's pretty well established that the right dominates talk radio.
But what about the entertainment industry ? ("minstrel media" -I like that). They hold considerable sway over what people believe and how they vote. You don't see too many right wing answers to Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone -hell virtually anyone in Hollywood.
- Reaction score
- 2,918
- Points
- 940
I haven't the slightest interest in being fair to Redeye.Bass ackwards said:
But after several years' abuse, he seems to be OK with that. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Redeye said:
Fine.
Respectfully, you'll have to forgive me for dismissing your dismissal.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
TheHead said:
And arsenic isn't as toxic as cyanide. They'll both kill you dead though.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
Sapplicant said:
Depends on quantities. >
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Rhetoric we agree with is seen as artful, thoughtful, brilliant and direct telling of the "truth". Rhetoric we disagree with is seen as simplistic, distorted, pandering, lies, a pox on the earth, an evil to be fought etc etc. The degree to which it is seen as good or bad tends to be in proportion to how we view the underlying choices. The ability of rhetoric to win over reasoned argument and logic has been pondered for thousands of years, as has it's ability to lead the less wary astray. That however assumes one argument is correct and the other wrong which for a lot of the choices we have today is very simplistic and even framing the question in such a form is done through rhetoric not reasoned argument and logic.
This is why somebody listening to Limbaugh/Colbert/others making simplistic arguments ridiculing Limbaugh/Colbert/others for making simplistic arguments can feel enlightened. For those in the middle it all sounds like simplistic trash.
I am no fan of some of the decisions G.W. Bush made but the man himself I have no complaints about. Nobody can make all perfect choices in real situations. The book gives some insights into the man and the decisions.
This is why somebody listening to Limbaugh/Colbert/others making simplistic arguments ridiculing Limbaugh/Colbert/others for making simplistic arguments can feel enlightened. For those in the middle it all sounds like simplistic trash.
I am no fan of some of the decisions G.W. Bush made but the man himself I have no complaints about. Nobody can make all perfect choices in real situations. The book gives some insights into the man and the decisions.
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
Back to the actual topic, is anyone here reading Decision Points?
The issue of President Bush apparently not receiving information (i.e. being "blindsided") is very important; how is the Chief Executive supposed to make correct decisions (on any topic) if there are no clear lines of communication? This issue is actually touched on in Martin Van Crevald's book "Command in War", so it is not particular to the administration. I'm pretty sure you could also find examples in business books and case studies of companies which have gotten into trouble as well.
So is the problem residing in personalities, infighting among bureaucracies, factions with political agendas (I believe there was a lot of that, the now redacted National Intelligence Estimate which claimed Iran was no longer working on a nuclear weapon was a pretty blatant example) or the sheer size of the government apparatus which prevents the clear passage of information?
The issue of President Bush apparently not receiving information (i.e. being "blindsided") is very important; how is the Chief Executive supposed to make correct decisions (on any topic) if there are no clear lines of communication? This issue is actually touched on in Martin Van Crevald's book "Command in War", so it is not particular to the administration. I'm pretty sure you could also find examples in business books and case studies of companies which have gotten into trouble as well.
So is the problem residing in personalities, infighting among bureaucracies, factions with political agendas (I believe there was a lot of that, the now redacted National Intelligence Estimate which claimed Iran was no longer working on a nuclear weapon was a pretty blatant example) or the sheer size of the government apparatus which prevents the clear passage of information?
Similar threads
