Path: news.nzbot.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border3.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.am1!peering.am1!peer01.fr7!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tarkus@here.com
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.sleazemovies
Subject: Re: bullseye - 5 attachments (1/2)
Message-ID: <r8k7cbpjhf82jd40en69r6rm767kjjvrh0@4ax.com>
References: <XnsA5AE4AC4691BFtrastrastras@69.16.179.27>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 86
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:49:25 -0500
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3014061910
X-Received-Bytes: 5478
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.sleazemovies:3186
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:20:51 GMT, mjello <non.compos@ment.is> wrote:
>courtesy of thenation dotcom and the treasure that is faye
Interesting article in many respects but also how it falls into the
same 'media trap' when the author includes the phrase:
"Trump articulates the resentments and fears that these voters feel
against particular demographic groups..."
Recognize that? It is actually just a slight re-write of the Michael
Douglas speech at the end of the American President when his character
is attempting to describe his opponent, (Richard Dreyfus), and how he
panders to what can only be described as Obama's assessment of small
town aka small minded America clinging to their guns and Bibles.
There have always been demagogues and as a rule they prosper until
someone takes them down. McCarthy ran unchallenged with his hunt for
communists until finally being deconstructed by Murrow into the small
mound of manure that was emblematic of his nature. As such the
question I find to be of concern is 'where are the Murrows?'
The press has seemingly assumed a role of mediator to the talking
heads and/or friend or foe to interviewed and ultimately have
forgotten the importance of the second question. Without the second
question the current approach to news reporting has turned into
nothing more than extra stump speech time for dogmatics from either
side. It has even come to the point where in some situations it is
impossible to put two people of opposing views on at the same time
since either or both live in such terror of fact that they will only
comment if allowed to do unchallenged.
The failure of the lack of second question in our world today stems
from what I have come to consider as the Gingrich effect where the
interviewer seemingly lost control due to the statement "the real
question is...".
No the REAL question is the question I asked you not the talking point
you would rather address. If I ask you if you still believe your
position that Obama should be executed for crimes against humanity the
'real question' is not should the FBI arrest Clinton over her emails.
I get that it is hard to ask hard questions and no doubt there is a
fear in the 24 hour news world that asking too many tough questions
may diminish the source of talking heads but the current status quo is
merely to stop any in depth analysis and query in favour of allowing
those of a position to promote it without merit or contrast.
As such we see Scalia say that we need to understand that the Founding
Fathers were of a "special intellect" and not the self interested self
serving group of men that they were who were essentially facing
financial ruin as a result of the A&P consortium and in turn whipped a
population into revolution where the reality was that 33% wanted a new
country, 33% wanted the status quo and 33% really didn't care either
way. Yet no one ever seemed to have ability to publicly say "Scalia
that is a load of Dingo's Kidneys!"
Conversely we view pundits like Van Johnson regularly eschewing the
debate and discourse by utilizing the term "check your white
privilege" as if enjoining Scalia with the concept of lazy
unchallenged intellectualism warrants an absolute postulate.
The author in the nation points out "Trump pursues this strategy with
deliberate disregard for the political niceties of the democratic
back-and-forth, labeling opponents as enemies and dissenters as
traitors" as if this is something new. It is not that this tenor is
to be unexpected but rather that lack of thoughtful examination and
cross that is new. To paraphrase from American President again
Michael J. Fox challenges the President to respond to his opponent
pointing out that if all the public hears is outrageous lies then
eventually those lies become truth. How else to explain how Carly
Fiorina could continue to get away with her 'this video proves Planned
Parenthood is bad" rhetoric while days earlier a Texas Grand Jury,
(not exactly renown for its Liberal bias), not only rejected the video
but demanded charges against the video creators and still Fiorina was
making the same lie seemingly without challenge.
Simply put demagogues have always been there and always will. However
their entire premise is based on dogmatic lies that are easily
uncovered but not if the press refuses to assume its role of objective
questioner and bring to light the lack of basis for the outrageous.
My two cents... okay more like a buck fifty looking at the length of
this post.
T.
|
|