How The Media Makes Us Stupid
Former Democrat operative and current Democrat-operative-pretending-to-be-a-journalist George Stephanopoulos was at it too during Saturday night’s debate. The Clinton hatchet man asked Mitt Romney a (literally) out-of-left-field question about the 1965 Supreme Court decision that forbid states from banning contraception by discovering a hitherto unheard-of “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution. Taken aback by the question’s irrelevance, Romney said he found the whole issue “kind of a silly thing.” The studio audience clearly agreed and let Stephanopoulos know it by booing him.
In this case, it’s not that Stephanopoulos asked the question in a particularly twisted way, it’s that the question itself was intended not to elicit information but to play off audience emotionalism. It clearly had no other purpose than to deceive the listener by distorting the candidate’s image. It was about a Democrat working for Democrats trying to discomfit a Republican candidate for the sake of the Democrats. Left-wing pundits caught the ball and carried it forward the next morning.
Our media — so many of them, like Stephanopoulos, Democrats working for Democrats for the good of the Democrats — consistently confuse principle with prejudice and process with purpose. They then attempt to obscure the confusion with hot button issues that arouse emotions rather than thoughts. They ask about abortion when they should be asking about the behavior of the courts. They ask about contraception when they should be asking about the reach of the federal government. They know we have strong feelings on these specific issues and hope those strong feelings might induce us to forget the terrible long-term price we pay for scuttling the Constitution in order to get our way short-term.
It doesn’t have to be like this. There are questions that need to be asked and journalists could easily ask them. The fact that they don’t speaks to their purposes. They make us stupid because stupid is how they want us.
That was extremely thoughtful. Thanks.
I wish that Klavan had written a longer piece, this time mentioning the crucial issues that the media suppress. For instance, the danger of nuclear holocaust that still exists and that only a tiny number of persons addresses. Tom Nichols wrote a guest blog for me on the subject of denying that we live in a dangerous nuclear age. Here is the link: http://clarespark.com/2012/01/09/living-in-the-nuclear-age/. There are lots of other subjects, but this is the biggie.
Thoughtful commentary, indeed.
But the word I would use is not “stupid”.
The word that comes to my mind is “ignorant”… as in UN-informed and MIS-informed. Mis-informed would largely be the fault of the media, academia, politicians, the entertainment industry and other guilty accomplices. Un-informed, on the other hand, is always to be found in the mirror.
And not enough people not paying enough attention…
…can be really dangerous for a voting public.
“Ignorant” would be the correct word, Scott, but “stupid” is the one that resonates. When your pen won’t write, do you denounce it as “ignorant”? When you get disgusted and walk out of a movie, do you do it because the movie’s “ignorant”?
“Stupid” stings, Scott.
I like the use of the word “stupid” here.
STUPID, as in the literal sense of being in a STUPOR.
Recall that Orwell described StopThink as a form of “proactive stupidity.”
He might have said “proactive ignorance,” except that it includes both a will not to know and a resolution not to think.
“They” don’t “make us stupid”.
We ARE stupid.
“They” simply mirror the real mouth-breathing brainwashed public.
I would use the word “foolish” in the Biblical sense, namely that a fool is one who is morally and spiritually deficient rather than mentally or intellectually undersized.
Commentators like Shepard Smith and George Stephanopoulos have long ago turned away from what they know to be right, and embraced the wrong. That darkens their moral insight and, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans chapter 1). Having rejected the plain truth in the bright light of day, they certainly have even less ability to discern subtle truth in the gray.
The best way to answer this sort of “question” is to call it what it is: push polling (delivering a negative hit in the guise of a question, usually on political telemarketing phone calls) from a political hack. And use vivid word pictures along with it.
Observe:
Smith: “How much longer is being anti-gay rights going to be something that’s a conservative principle…? How long before you catch up with the rest of the country and realize everybody’s okay?”
Conservative: “There you go again. I wish you political hacks would stop push-polling and calling it questions. You question is so full of questionable assumptions that it reminds me of a baby diaper after he ate a bowl of chili. But a real man isn’t afraid to change a diaper, so here goes.
Your question “presumed that marriage was a right; it presumed to know the opinion of the majority of the country; it presumed that that opinion was an advance on Santorum’s, that he needed to “catch up” with it rather than the other way around; and worst of all, it presumed that Santorum could have no other basis for his stance than a sort of prejudice or ignorance that caused him to be blind to everybody’s glowing okayness.” (thanks Andrew)
Where did you learn to think anyway? Until you stop confusing “principle with prejudice and process with purpose,” (thanks Andrew) you’re part of dumbing down the American people. Other than that, I won’t dignify your confused and foolish question with an answer.
Agreed, with the caveat that you’re talking about a very specific type of “news reporting” – the one-on-one studio interview. The purpose of an interview isn’t to extract factual information from the interviewee – it’s to create drama, gin up conflict, elicit emotional reactions (the more compromising and embarrassing the better). If the subject can be goaded into saying something uncalled-for or angrily walking off the set, so much the better. The newsie is part of the drama and he or she knows it. If partisanship does the trick, why not use it? In this atmosphere, a partisan interviewer is an asset, not a liability.
That’s the essential problem with TV news: it’s not enough to present information, there has to be a “show.” A candidate can write volumes of intelligent, factual text outlining a policy. All that can be turned into nothing by one unguarded reaction in an interview. Who am I supposed to believe – the deep thinker of the editorial page or the embarrassed fool of the sound bite?
“If partisanship does the trick, why not use it?” I don’t buy that it’s just a ratings thing and that they use partisanship to that end. If that were the case, any Obama interviewer could take advantage of his notoriously thin skin by goading him about any number of things (the corruption in his administration, the poor economy, his penchant for partisanship masquerading as high-mindedness.) It’s almost guaranteed he’s get snippy and mean. Boy would that drive the ratings! But almost no one has ever done it, because it’s not about ratings. It’s about a narrative. It’s about helping the home team.
Apparently somebody did not watch the O’Reilly interview.
Like he said, almost nobody.
The goal is to sell advertising. This goal never changes. TV is means to market products. NBC sells advertizing 24/7. Mostly through their regular programming. If they take small hit with thier Liberal hit parade, so be it. They still make profit and can keep thier Crony relationship with the goverment.
The dummbing-down efforts of the media continue. We see it in Hollywood with the mind-numb productions,on cable news,and television.
Validates why I turn off Fox every evening at 7 pm.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
You’re not the only one who turns off Fox News at 7 pm.
It’s a 7PM TURN OFF FOX landslide!
Lou Dobbs, 7 PM (same as Sheppard), Fox Business channel.
News programs have become pretty much non-news programs. You get more national and international information watching Entertainment Tonight.
Right!
“News” and “entertainment” are oxymorons, hosted by real morons.
The Dems always seem bent on bringing up the “right to privacy” in the context of Griswold and Roe/Wade…but it never seems to be about the constitutional issues such as how those decisions were reached and the extent to which the government can disregard specific constitutional provisions. You did a fine job of bringing up this issue for comment, Mr. Klavan.
What gets me the most is how liberals defend the aforementioned decisions as ‘just’ because the constitution is a “living document”. It’s a straw man; no one is going to say the constitution is not a document meant to adapt and evolve as time progresses…but the whole point is that, if a right is not specifically enumerated, it must be added through a legislative/legal process i.e. Article V. Justices do not have the authority to say that such and such a right exists in the vague constitutional provisions; such authority is a blank check which, yes, could be used to protect legitimate rights…but could also be used to obliterate rights and strengthen the arm of government in our lives.
SC Justice Thurgood Marshall summed up the liberal view precisely when he said:
“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”
And we know why Mr. Marshall felt that way. At the time, it wasn’t even clear if Congress had the constitutional power to end state-mandated racial segregation nationally. And even if they did, a Congress still heavily influenced by powerful Southern segregationist congressmen and senators might not have acted for many more years.
In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supremes were clearly looking for something, anything, to justify striking down a really antiquated and oppressive state law that forbade the sale of contraceptives to even married couples. Anybody here want to defend that law?
The error that many conservatives keep making is allowing the Tenth Amendment to trump the First Amendment–to assume that the Federal Government has no power to force a state to stop abrogating the rights of its citizens.
As for marriage not being a right: It’s really hard to make that case given all those drive-in wedding chapels in Las Vegas and other tourist spots:
Q: How does the drive thru work?
A: You will pull up to the drive thru window in your vehicle. Our church-ordained minister will then perform the ceremony while you remain seated in your vehicle.
Q: How long does the ceremony last?
A: About 3 to 4 minutes.
http://drivethruidos.com/
Well, that old horndog Douglas wrote Griswold and I’ve always believed that it was mostly based on the penumbras and emanations of his having recently married a much younger and presumably fertile woman.
Yes, I will “defend that law.” The entire purpose of the Supreme Court respecting the Tenth Amendment, and federalism generally, is to ensure that the love of liberty remains vibrant at the grassroots level. Connecticut has an “oppressive and antiquated law?” Why, then, Connecticut citizens should petition their legislature and their government, and should force the law to change. Keep liberty a grassroots, locally-grown (as the modern buzzword has it) enterprise, instead of outsourcing the protection of liberty to the Supreme Court—because once the Supreme Court gets into the habit of bringing down new tablets from the mountain every court session, you’ll get to see a top-down oppression of a wholly new variety.
By the same token, it was perfectly clear that Congress “had the power to end state-mandated segregation,” if you go back to the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments as written. If it was “not clear,” that would be due to the Supreme Court of another era (outsourcing again) putting its kosher certification on “separate but equal,” which flew in the face of the clear intent of the Amendments themselves.
And, as to marriage being “a right”—where do you get that? Exercising the ability to marry in tawdry fashion, which is what you cite to, is a matter of taste, but there is nothing in the US Constitution or in state Constitutions which “defines marriage as a right” that the homosexually-inclined are being denied. Same-sex marriage is the invention of a new, historically-unprecedented, kind of marriage, which its advocates want to cram down the throats of the body politic.
If government were confined to its appropriately limited sphere, the definition of marriage would not be a political issue to be decided by majority rule. It would be up to individual people and their churches. Gay folks already can marry wherever and however some church or other organization permits. Others are free to disapprove and refuse to recognize it as such if that is how they feel about it. We should not need marriage “licenses” and “certificates” from the government at all — straight or gay. The government’s only job should be to enforce the contractual elements of marriages, or personal partnerships of whatever nature, as a private contract according to their terms, to the same extent any other private contract would be enforced.
I suggested this to my fiance almost 20 years ago. I had married her in my mind long before we were officially married and that is all that mattered to me. A government certificate means nothing to me, except to annoy me. But she did not get the political theory of it so we went ahead and got the government license and the certificate in addition to the church wedding. But I still resent the government for making people expect a license and certificate to secularly “bless” our personal choices.
It ain’t about “secular blessing,” whatever that means. It’s about providing evidence of the relationship so that you can tap into whatever tax breaks are going, so that the courts know how to properly apportion property in the event one of you dies intestate, so that the legitimacy of your children (back when that mattered) could be determined, etc. In short, it’s the offer of certain benefits to you in exchange for making governmental processing easier.
Buzzsaw’s right; marriage is the oldest contract there is. Who gets custody in the event of a break-up? Who pays support – and what else does “support” entail?
Messing with marriage is unbelievably stupid. (And your girlfriend was smart to call you out on “in my heart” marriage, you cheeseball.)
Look how we messed with welfare. It used to be that poor married couples with children could get “relief” to help feed their kids, but none for single moms. (That’s what adoption was for!) Then we emoted that that was cruel, and we should fund single motherhood. Result? Single-motherhood sky-rocketed, followed shortly by the crime rate. (Remember that racial disproportions among convicted felons disappear when you correct for illegitimacy, which obviously still matters, Buzz!)
Children do best with a mother and a father. The state should continue to favor this ancient model.
“… once the Supreme Court gets into the habit of bringing down new tablets from the mountain every court session, you’ll get to see a top-down oppression of a wholly new variety.”
VERY well said, monkey.
This is what concerns me, namely, that there is a dangerous confusion between what is Constitutional and what is just, good, desirable, “enlightened,” etc. A law can be stupid or downright bad, but still not violate the Constitution, even as slavery was Constitutional before the 13th amendment, though clearly it was a horrible evil.
If you have judges who take it upon themselves to decide what is GOOD, as opposed to what is LAWFUL, you have indeed placed yourself under a kind of theocratic tyranny. And it hardly matters if they make their decisions based on “enlightened world opinion,” as Justice Ginsburg likes it, or if they read the entrails of a chicken. They have spoken and there is no appeal.
Shep Smith is one of the worst offenders on Fox News Channel. We turn him when he comes on. His sarcastic manner is offensive and he always ends up looking like a Jerk in a suit. He never retracts his erroneous statements and taints all news with liberal opinion.
He’s not out of the closet yet, but Shepherd Smith is as gay as they come.
And this is relevant to what? Oh, maybe why he questions the Santorum obsession with the gay marriage issue? I don’t care whether he is gay or not, but the train is leaving a lot of you at the station on the gay marriage thing.
It’s not that the media makes us stupid so much as the necessity of being stupid to continue assuming any level of media credibility. Which brings me to pointing out that Democrats regularly claim that they can’t see any media bias anywhere (except for that giant Fox News tower built with the skulls of children on Gandhi’s grave). Yet, if someone is incapable of seeing the hard-left media bias, they’re either willfully ignorant or unwillingly so.
Democrats deny media bias for the same reason they deny election fraud: they depend upon it.
WELL PUT!!!
Shep Smith is a tool. Even people from Bullfrog Corner, MS laugh at him being from Oxford. Smith also played a Santorum clip last week introducing it with, “Here’s Sen. Santorum clearly saying “black people”, and then ending it with “You decide.” Nothing like salting the well, Shep, you wall-eyed pinko.
Shep is that most tortured of creatures, a Southerner trying to make Yankees think he’s cool. It’s the same thing that destroyed Jimmy Carter, a reasonably bright man and a pretty good governor rendered a blathering fool by trying to please the BoWash elite. I can barely stand to listen to Shep but I do try to cut him a little slack since I understand he is trying to perform an unnatural act.
Is that what is wrong with him? I dunno. I think he’d be smarmy regardless. Hubby thinks he talks in such a way that he must think we all have IQs maybe 2 points above a chair. LOL.
Yeah, he’s got enough of the Southern good-looking frat boy about him that he’s always going to make you want to count your fingers after you shake hands with him.
“Shep is that most tortured of creatures, a Southerner trying to make Yankees think he’s cool.”
An art only perfected by the likes of Dan Rather.
True ‘dat!
what…..unnatural acts, I thought that was Anderson Cooper? Oh never mind.
I remember ole Shep during Katrina crying about how the “poor” were only looting stores because they were starving (an hour after the hurricane was over). Then behind him you hear a crash & see 2 guys pushing a baby grand piano down the street…and not a word from Shep on the nutritional value of a B flat.
Shepard Smith is on Fox News? I thought he was the hurricane guy on MSNBC.
I had to chuckle a little bit at the question asked by that smarmy Shepard Smith due to the fact that he is gay. (Disclosure: I support gay rights).
What rights do homosexuals have as such? None. I do not think that homosexual activity per se should be illegal, as it once was, anymore than any other form of mental disturbance is. Pederasty, sexual activity with children, whether homosexual or heterosexual is wrong. But the birds that mate on my balcony, male to female, show what is wrong with “gay marriage.” Sexually reproducing animals mate male to female, It is dishonest and ridiculous to mandate marriage between homosexuals: nothing prevents homosexuals from living together, from making financial agreements with each other. But this is not marriage. Homosexuals who are “married” by the state will be able to adopt children – to the detriment of all. Santorum is quite right.
Homosexuals could have been making their own marriages all this time. Contract law is pretty easy and open – people leave their fortunes to their dogs and cats, for cryin’ out loud! But they never did it. They never attempted it. It was never important to them. (Only about 4% of them are monogamous anyway; and I’ve never met any of that 4%. I still think it’s closer to 0%.)
This sudden marriage push (literally out of nowhere) is nothing more nor less than an attack on the church.
I reckon that’s what it’s all about–forcing churches to perform these ‘marriages.’ As always, the jacobin/fascist/socialist/marxist/Pharaonic/liberal/communist/romantic/progressive/ad nauseam agenda is about ordering other people around. The content of those orders is completely secondary and less important, but these petty dictators take special joy in forcing enemies to act against their own beliefs. Whatever one finds morally, and especially relgiously repugnant, is what they really REALLY want to force one to do.
I don’t understand your logic. Group A is saying to group B “You are not entitled to a right that we are entitled to solely because of your sexual orientation/practices.” When Group B petitions for that equal right, Group A claims that B cannot access this right because somehow giving Group B this right will somehow diminish Group A’s right and/or force them to do something against their will? But what right of Group A is being diminished? And what are they being forced to do, other than acknowledge that Group B is entitled to the same rights? This makes absolutely no sense.
That’s because the issue is not an argument or right; there is simply no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is a piece of paper that formally delineates the birds and the bees human style. Without that paper there is still marriage cuz mother nature says so.
Fire burns and water is wet: call them what you will and it will not diminish them nor add gay marriage as one of the elements of antiquity. This is a faddish cultural conceit and not part of the ascent of man to enlightenment. Formally and legally recognizing weird people’s peculiar views of the world that they sleep and breathe should not be part of law.
Copulation is not the issue. There are many fertile arrangements, but the pairing of a man with a woman as the nucleus of a family is to make contract between persons that is complementary and equal. Where one spouse (usually female) is not chattel to the other. This goes through the family to the children and outwards to the community and is why the church blesses monogamy, and not polygamy or polyandry or some other gang f…… which usually devolves into conflict and politicism, resolved in a power struggle. Christians made monogamous marriage a standard in contrast to the customs and habits of the citizens of Rome, hardly liberal-minded people by any means…….
Shep said that? I mean, I know the guy’s a left-wing hack, but come on now. Fox should dump him. And not because he’s a left-wing flunky, but because he’s a piece of crap agenda journalist.
New internet acronym, TGIGROMC. Thank God I Got Rid Of My Cable.
Trickle down leftist propaganda is a fully developed art form, where non-leftist candidates are asked questions that are not intended to elicit any meaningful infomation…but rather, intended to elicit the ability of the leftists to give a “wedgie” to the target.
A “wedgie” as any of the weaker kids in junior high know…is a bully’s way of tormenting someone they have dominion and control over….physically.
The propaganda machine loves to bully non-leftists. We usually don’t fight back, but sit there and take it…with a sort of resigned inevitability. If we fight back successfully, we will be portrayed as angry and dangerous. If we respond meekly and in full retreat, we will be portrayed as evasive and suspicious.
It’s a no-win proposition. Intentionally so.
A “wedgie” is the specially formed “wedge issue” sought to divide the GOP base on all manner of spiteful little tricks. It works wonderfully, virtually every time.
And…as long as we remain wimpy… and don’t stand up to the bullies and start being the anti-bully…getting in the faces of bullies and telling them they have to go through us to get at the weaker, the meeker, the more timid among us…they are going to continue to terrorize the neighborhood. I never liked bullies. Still don’t. So…I’m game if you are.
What drives me nuts is stupid Republicans who feel compelled to answer the “gotcha” questions that lead, assume facts not in evidence, or which are just pontification mistating something and asking the candidate/officeholder to agree to the mistatement. All that stuff is the stock in trade of scumbag defense/plaintiffs attorneys and 15 minutes of witness prep is usually enough to make people of normal intelligence immune to it. I simply couldn’t stand watching that punk David Gregory ask questions that NO advocate would let his witness answer and GWB would just wade in to try to explain how he’d stopped beating his wife. And GWB was just the worst, almost all of them do it, and Newt is about the only one that won’t play.
I have some lefty friends and when challenged I am always accused of being angry.
Not at all, I just believe if you make a point you better be able to defend the premise on which its built…argue with a liberal about any of there ‘givens’ and you get lots of huffing and puffing. Take the wall street journal article today about bacteria cleaning up the gulf oil spill (naturally of course), and see what kind of huffing and puffing you get about evil oil companies…It these idiots really believed in the law of accelerating returns and progress, they would not see the doom and gloom they project a century out…they need catastrophe to be on our doorstep to justify their power grab. And Shep Smith is one of them: a sneering little twerp that can handle a verbal beatdown.
Can’t handle a verbal beat-down…sorry for the typos, I need to air blast the dust out of my keyboard.
I’d be happy if he would’ve asked what the candidate’s priorities were as far as running for office rather than foisting 2 or 3% of the population’s rather peculiar concerns off as if it was the burning question of the day that all America must by into or be bigots.
How about foreign policy? Why not just ask our candidates what they see as the major foreign policy issues rather than formulating that priority and shoving it down the candidates’s throat?
The President is not President of gays and their world view or major league babeball players who’d like to see baseball declared as America’s “official” sport or comic book collectors who like to turn the Library of Congress into comic world. Everybody should lighten up and think about the greater good instead of their micro environment.
The MSM—now almost totally the wholly owned subsidiary of the Left–is obviously one of the main attacking armies prosecuting the many decades old, full spectrum Gramscian attack against Western civilization; their job–dumb everything down—most especially including deviance, ignore/hide the truth and misdirect your audience, spread disinformation, tell people black is white, up is down, imply and act as if any “right thinking person” knows that lie spouting ignoramuses on the Left are enlightened intellectuals, who are only selflessly “looking out for the little guy,” while people on the Right are ignorant, knuckle-dragging fascists, racists, and hypocrites, and the tools and puppets of the selfish, evil rich.
And their snide, self-satisfied, supercilious manner, on full display by the “moderators”—Democratic tools all–in the recent so called Republican “debates,” illustrates just how grating and infuriating their performance of their subversive task can be.
I do not understand why any of the Republican candidates have agreed to deal with the leftist media at all—at least during the primary. Cozying up to the bastards during the primary will not stop them from turning upon the eventual nominee and seeking to rend him asunder, so there is nothing to be gained by going into enemy territory to debate and nothing to be gained by having the snide, shallow, insinuating questions of the leftist media determine what is said in the “debates.”
The candidates should have chosen their own news outlet or ignored the standard outlets entirely and simply streamed the debates online, moderated by several intelligent conservative questioners. After all, the primary is supposed to be among the Republicans, the supposedly-conservative party. Why have the contestants/candidates deal with hostile questioners when the purpose is for conservatives/Republicans to decide whom they want to be their standard-bearer?
I agree Buzz and it frustrates me too. Just like having open primaries in certain states – I can’t remember which, but even one is too many. Only a truly stupid party would allow the other side to play mayhem with their candidate selection process. I think it boils down to the fact that many Republicans just simply do not understand what a ruthless, bad faith opponent they have in the left, which has taken complete control of the Democratic Party. The only reason Democrats don’t actually kill their Republican opponents is because it is not yet legal to do so. Just give them time and they’ll take care of that little technicality.
Because you sharpen your wits, your dialogue, your game and if you’re good you turn the tables on them. This is why Obama will not field tough questions; he knows he’ll be toast and that’s why even a hint of such starts him stuttering and filibustering canned responses.
If I were a candidate I’d be interviewed by the people who hate me the most as often as possible to make them look like the politically correct morons and gatekeepers of a depraved race-based Democratic Party they are. Taking out racists is as easy as eating apple pie and having a nice glass of milk because they always contradict themselves and throw up soft serves easily batted back for a winner.
If you can’t take down a moron like Soledad O’Brien, Al Sharpton, O’Donnell, Matthews and others, you don’t deserve to be Prez cuz they are dolts with prominently racial double standards you could read by in the dark.
You are mistaking the necessary prep by the eventual winner for the explication of views which the candidates competing for the nomination need to make to their base electorate.
That’s the kind of point I would’ve responded with “What in 7 hells are you talking about”
I would expect nothing better of you.
Judging from your use of language — dense and turgid with meaning well hidden — you occupy a chair in sociology.
I understood that bzzzdonkey but not why you’re so suddenly shy with words. Do you say things you can’t defend as some kind of a hobby or do you just have the knee-slapping sugar substitute lyrics?
Why, no—I just like to bait greasy little trolls like yourself into outing themselves by showing that they have about fifteen different sockpuppet names.
Kiss kiss.
Agreed. Several weeks ago I posted a comment on this site with the same thought concerning the Repubs naiveté (or just plain stupidity) by allowing their candidates to participate in “debates” that were almost exclusively moderated by liberal shills for the Democrat (Socialist) party. The Democrats would never be so dumb as to allow such to happen to their slate of candidates. Can you imagine the instant middle finger salute that you would receive if you suggested to the DNC that they hold a series of two-hour debates moderated by Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Levin. But Lord Almighty, wouldn’t that be a wonderful event to witness? But the larger question is when is the RNC going to quit being led around by the nose like a bunch of saps?
Rush sums it up pretty nicely with his impression that Pubs want these people’s approval which,of course, is utterly unrealistic Each & every stupid question asked should be treated as an invitation to launch into an unceremonious tirade about Obama’s many misdeeds That would surely show them & please the conservative base to boot.
Has anyone else noticed how bad Shep looks these days? As a fellow who’s brother died of AIDS (don’t fret yourself, he was a complete and utter jerk, if stylish and definitely a super-genius), he ain’t lookin’ so good…and it would make sense of some of his more bizarre rants. Being from Mississippi does not automatically disqualify one from being gay (what a strange word to convey a condition which is most decidedly not).
I will broach the same point that I make to people regarding Bernard Goldberg: to a CBS news schmuck, he’s a conservative, but to us, he’s just a confused liberal. I welcome them to the real world, but to expect them to get it, is a forlorn hope.
What kind of person even attends J-school? Who ran your high school paper? Same jerks. Oh, my goodness…J-school…Jerks…how droll of me!
Pray forgive me.
Yes, Mr. Klavan, all sadly true. And yet as we know, the corporate interests that are the “mainstream media” exist to make money. Their primary business is advertising, and to be successful they must titillate and excite the listeners whom their sponsors want to reach. Americans who wish to be truly informed must read, reason and think. If they rely on the intellectually dishonest mainstreamers to give them their information, much less their knowledge and understanding, it is they, not the mainstream media, who are at fault. Witness today’s “flap” over Romney’s supposed fondness for “firing” people. Pure distortion. But it sells.
You are correct.
Americans who ARE thoughtful, reasoned and informed tend to be IMMUNE to most advertising.
Which is why I dont have/need cable TV, or any mainstream entertainment programming. The only “retail” items I tend to “need” are socks, and underwear…
The rest of my “desired purchases” are simply not available at the mall…
Old books…gun parts…Vintage Motorcycles….
Not a celebrity endorsement, TV commercial, glossy newspaper section for any of it.
But I get out-voted every time by the dumb ignorant masses that “need” the latest gadget/entertainment/pacifier, and believe all the advertising.
We used to have a Constitution that was “smarter” than your average stupid American, but we’ve dumbed down the masses so much, they now actually believe the “spray” is better than “the creme” for instant weight loss…
And they vote accordingly.
…they now actually believe the “spray” is better than “the creme” for instant weight loss…
It *is*. Duh. You’re obviously just a cream-centric old boomer anyway.
Shep Smith is like a disc jockey for teenagers broadcasting news. I find him annoying and I can’t figure what Fox News sees in him.
Sorry, the “media” doesn’t make us stupid (isn’t PJM “media”?), however,
it can make us uninformed and misinformed and, to the extent we’re stupid to begin with,
the “media” only reinforces said stupidity. From a movie I loathe, “stupid is as stupid does”.
Sometimes they even make me feel stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
As far as gay marriage, as soon as you say that one group is entitled by the law and state to do one thing, but another group is not, thats discrimination. Plain and simple. It would be the same as saying blacks can’t marry, or Jews can’t marry. Marriage is not a right, but as a priveledge sanctioned by the state you cannot exclude one group from it, while offering it to another. The simplest solution is to eliminate state sactioned marriage and replace it with civil unions, for everyone. Then if the want to get “married” thats between them and God. A state sanctioned civil union would merely equate to a contractual agreement between 2 individuals. Simple, elegant and easy. The Republicans shoot themselves in the foot consistently on these issues, because, yes they may be acting on prinicple, but when your prinicples discriminate against one group in favor of another, you leave yourself open to these types of attacks.
On the issue I could care less, but I gotta disagree. Gays can get “married’” or have civil unions now; there are plenty of Universialist and other liberal churches which can perform the “wedding.” But that’s not their agenda. Their agenda is to make the Catholic church in particular but all Christians bow to them by forcing their churches to recognize their marriage. So your analogy to blacks (very tedious and over used) and jews does not hold water because slavery was denying a civil right and jews can get married in their own synagogue-not a Catholic church.
I agree that it wouldn’t be commonly accepted, by either the left or the right. Neither side wants to give ground, and accept a solution. Replacing state sactioned marriage with civil unions is the best option, but neither side wants to accept that as a viable alternative because it creates a rift that they can use to engergize their base. The fact is that this nation was based on the principle of the primacy of the individual over the state. Both Social conservative and Democrats in my opinion have a total disregard for this, and feel that their moral principles are superior and that whether or not people disagree they should live according to their values. Its two sides of the same coin. The subjugation of the individual to the state. While I agree morally with christians objection to the morality or gay unions, it is not my place to force my sense of morality on another individual. Nor is it the states.
And yes the argument does hold water. The issue is not how the marriage is performed the issue is that the state recognizes and sanctions marriage as a legal institution, but denies same sex couples access to it. The state has no place to inject any moral principles on people of faith ie making Jews marry in a christian church, but when the state recognizes the marriage as an institution of the state it has an obligation to make it availible to all who seek it. They cannot discriminate against one group or another by refusing to recognize them. By replacing the state institution of marriage with civil unions it allows same sex couples the same legal status (which is the crux of the argument) while simutaneously allowing religious institutions the ability to continue to act on their moral principles.
Seems to me that you are arguing over semantics rather than the actual term involved.
Our government has been regulating terms ever since they legislated certain words as being “offensive, abusive, hurtful”.
It’s not only unconstitutional, it’s inhumane to attempt to regulate any terms or speech.
But, they’re doing it, ain’t they?
In some ways it is an issue of semantics. On another its an issue of principle. People of faith do not believe that a marriage between people of the same sex is in line with the principles of their faith, and on that issue, I agree whole heartedly. The government has no right to force its idea of morality on people of faith. The problem is that the government legally recognizes marriage, and there are priveledges and benefits that come with it according to the state. There is an argument there that it discriminates against one group in favor of another. The easist solution is to take religious principles out of it, leaving only the contractual legal portion. The state would regognize a person status as being legally bound to another person before the state, not before god. The Church would then not have its religious principles threatened by the state.
I agree, jacob.
The government (Federal, State, local) should be prohibited from using the term “marriage” in any form that applies to personal relationships. The government can use some other term to designate a legally bound couple that have spousal privileges.
The Catholic Church has such strict customs on “marriage” that it doesn’t “recognize” all unions as “marriages” within its own sanctioned membership.
I’ve lived “Common Law” several times. In several states. “Common Law had legal status, but was never enforced.
If the government can use the term “marriage” as loosely as they want, then I should be able to loosely use the terms “ethnic minority”, “race”, “creed”, “poor”, in any fashion that benefits me and my chosen “family”.
With the unbridled authority the government is seizing, we’ll be getting fined for the most trivial sin in the not too distant future. And we’ll be charged with a “federal hate crime” in the high school cafeteria for not eating our spinach.
“Republicans shoot themselves in the foot consistently on these issues, because, yes they may be acting on prinicple, but when your prinicples discriminate against one group in favor of another, you leave yourself open to these types of attacks.”
?????????????
One can easily make the case that the Dems “discriminate against one group in favor of another” every day. Examples: the so-called poor against the so-called rich, the urban against the rural (even the semi-rural), the trial lawyers against the doctors and hospitals, the unionists against the right-to-workers. They leave themselves open to these types of attacks alright, but the MSM never accepts the invitation. That is precisely what Andrew has written about above.
Actually thats not the argument that Andrew was making. Andrew was saying that the news people should focus on the issues important to their constituency, instead of constantly deflecting attention away from them by asking stupid questions things no one cares about, which is a point agree with. BUT, when Santorum made social issues part of his platform he left himself and the entire republican feild open to those stupid questions. He has no room to get butt hurt about getting asked about gay marriage. Mitch Daniels had the right idea in saying, lets set social issues aside for now and focus on the economy. Social issues are only relevant when you have a job and enough time to think about it.
jacob (23) said,
As far as gay marriage, as soon as you say that one group is entitled by the law and state to do one thing, but another group is not, thats discrimination. Plain and simple.
No it isn’t discrimination. Discrimination would be if I said a gay man could not marry a woman like every other man can.
Plain and simple – read a dictionary.
Gays want different rules, not the same rules as everyone else.
Besides people are discriminated against all the time. You act as if it is a bad thing just because someone is discriminated against. Children can’t join the military – gasp – discrimination! Midgets can’t be pro basketball players – gasp – discrimination! Boys can’t join the girl scouts – gasp – discrimination! Ad nauseum!
That entire line of argument makes no sense whatsoever. The NBA is a private organization not the state, so thats a no go, same with boyscouts. The only one of those that is government is the military, and the military technically can allow minors to join, with parental consent. Your whole line of argument is beyond the pale. It patently is discrimination to say that you can engage in a contractual agreement sanctioned by the government, but a gay couple can’t. Thats pretty clear cut. and the solution is pretty simple. Civil unions across the board. Then anyone can do it. and that leave the church free to decide whether they want to “marry” them or not. Being as the church like the boyscouts and the NBA is a private organization free to discriminate as they see fit.
And on another note, Rick Santorum deserves to take heat on these issues. Rather than setting aside his Social Conservative idealology he has made it his platform. If he’s running as a Social “compassionate” conservative, he has no right to complain when he is asked to defend his stance on these issues. Its more than a little irritating that he did that, because now he has left the entire Republican field open to this assanine line of questioning, with no defense. If a candidate questions why they are asking questions about gay marriage when real unemployment is at 11%, the media can say its relevant because Santorum made social issues part of his platform. I think he should be hammered mercilessly for basically dooming the entire primary to this type of un mitigated crap.
OMG (which I hear now means “Obama Must Go”) Andrew,
THANK YOU!!! for saying what I yell at the TV regularly these days! Thank you for saying it so clearly for the rest of us, who refuse to give in… despite the knuckle-dragging press corps. (Or is that CORPSE?!)
What is the only legal agreement recognized in the entire world? It’s marriage. Christian, Muslim, Jew, communist, democracy..it doesn’t matter..marriage is a legal status recognized around the world by GOVERNMENTS.It’s not just “a piece of paper”. It is a LEGAL status that is wide spread on this planet since time immemorial. Either “It’s just a piece of paper” or its an important legal status. It’s not a right, its a rite that governments recognize with appropriate gravity and custom and it’s not going to change because someone says ‘it’s just a piece of paper.”
The problem is that marriage is a recognition before God the the union of a man and a woman. That cannot change, nor should it. When the state also recognizes this union it becomes a foil for the left to force their moral principles upon people of faith. As long as the state recognizes “marriage” as a legal institution rather than a religious one. This argument will continue. They can rightfully point out that the state refusing to recognize a particular group and denying them access to this institution is discrimination, and they will never let that go. Civil unions on the other hand are a simple legal contract, with no religious connotations. By replacing the state recognition of marriage with civil unions it denies the left the ability to enforce their beliefs on those who disagree on moral level while extending to them the same legal benefits. It seems like a no brainer to me.
Be aware, as long as the government regognizes “marriage” as a state institution the left will continue to try to enforce their morality on all people of faith.
Eventually, everyone will have a civil union – it will be the state-sanctioned form of union that will entitle couples to legal rights. “Marriage” will be a solely religious rite and will be recognized within one’s church but not by the state. Thus most people will have two “marriage” certificates – one from the state that actually contain the bundle of rights associated with marriage, and one from their respective church which will not afford them any rights beyond their religion recognizing those vows. In this way, churches would be free to deny marriage to any couple they deem unfit to wed, but those couples would be free to petition for the same civil union and rights that everyone else has.
Should a brother and a sister consider their marriage a right? Should first cousins believe they have a right to get married? How about a 25 yo and a 10 yo? Do they, also, have a right to get married?
The problem with the libertarian (I am one) argument that marriage should not be a state function is that, historically, it has been, forever it seems.
Should I be able to marry my cat, a tree, a marching band? Which of these unions will be given cover of law the same way traditional marriage has the cover of law, with the rights of inheritance and so forth? Perhaps there is a way to organize society so that marriage of any kind is not an issue. But a legal sanction of gay marriage is not enough to make that change.
Moreover, the Gay marriage issue is little more than a way to apply the Frankfurt School Critical Theory with the goal of societal disruption and destabilization paving the way to to a socialist Utopia.
It’s the same way with all the other messing about with the language, native American, flight attendant, Asian versus Indian, stewardess, oriental. What was the big improvement? Nothing except for the Left being able to “get over” on us instilling guild and confusion where there was none before.
Shepard Smith is a liberal twit. Typical of the liberal line of questioning to preload the volley with presumptuous facts that may not be true – like most people are OK with gay marriage – it just ain’t so. Even in Ca. they could not pass it.
So ask yourself – is Fox the conservative network you think it is? Because I don’t. Sure – it doesn’t have the MSNBC mentality – but the liberal bent is there. You don’t even have to look hard. At 4PM Pacific time Gunsmoke comes on the Western Channel – Shepard Smith is someone I haven’t watched for a very long time.
I don’t think the goal should be to have a conservative news source. I think the goal should be to have a balanced news source. Far left loonies are not worth listening to but moderated democrats share more in common with what we believe then you would think. No side is perfect. We need Shep because without him the libs can’t really called FOX news biased. The opinion shows from 8-10 are very biased but I always believed that the hard news reporting of FOX was pretty fair and I would like to keep it that way.
We are headed towards a Planned Bolshevik revolution unless we wake up and learn from History, if you all know that the Media lies to us about current events, isn’t it possible they’ve lied about historical events.
In Shep Smith’s case, the stupidity is all his. I would venture that three-fourths of his audience are smarter than he is.
WHOA, THERE ANDREW!
Who’s this “US” that’s supposed to be so stupid?
Many of “US” know the media and the Democrats have been trying to direct the narrative for a long time.
(These comments prove many of “US, in the know”, are here).
The “press/media” is successful to a great extent because it has a lot of people thinking along the same line. They even use a buzz word with the same accent across networks to hammer the point they wish to emphasize.
Although you do illustrate what they are deploying against “US”, and YOU ARE USING ONE OF THEIR TACTICS WITH YOUR HEADLINE; But, “MAKES US STUPID”?
Recently I read where a town hall meeting with one of the candidates went 45 minutes before any of the talking points of the “press/media” came up. I’d say the “press/media” have failed to “make us stupid” to a significant degree if their narrative has been ignored for this period of time.
This tactic of “WE know what’s best, so you and him fight to see what’s fair” has been used by the “press/media” for so long, it only snags the most frustrated, angry, and gullible.
Thank God “US” ain’t as stupid as we’re led to be. If we were, we’d be at “Media Matters”, “Huffington Post”, or “Politico”, instead of at “PJM”, and your comments section would be as schizophrenic as theirs.
How many years has Shep been ending his show with trampoline bear? Not funny anymore.
He did word a question very cleverly once and without the bull, so we know he is capable. It went like this; “Why do firemen rescue cats from trees?” Answer;
“No one has ever discovered a cat skeleton in a tree.”
Well, that certainly made me feel stupid. I think your on to something…
I have actually worked in at least half a dozen local Republican campaigns. So I know a thing or two about what happens behind closed doors.
The first thing everyone needs to know, is that the GOP and Democrats drink together, and go to the same brothels. The big difference is their constituents.
The reason Reagan accomplished so much in 8 years is quite simple, he focused first on the economy. I’m 48 and I remember quite well how a rising tide floated all boats. Then, about equally, he focused on the biggest shame our country ever had, Vietnam, and by that I mean, he brought back our military from a bunch of under funded losers getting stoned at sea and in the field, to a professional military.
Reagan had numerous faults and failures. I cold catalog them. But if the issue is how to succeed against a left wing media the answer is to focus on the economy. Obama has fumbled the economy, and is open to being knocked off his humpty dumpty wall. It’s time for Conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans, everybody who dislikes where we are to focus on getting A CANDIDATE elected.
Therefore, that candidate needs every vote. That includes the votes of union members, gay people and non-gun owners. EVERY VOTE. PJM readers are never going to vote for any Democrat just as many people will NEVER vote GOP.
Let’s get real
We certainly miss your videos, Andrew!
Touche’!
WE, meaning Conservatives/TEA Party, need to direct the narrative to THE BUDGET (inhale, repeat, inhale, repeat), which, Obama will try to ignore as he has for the last three years, so he/they can spend all the money they want as wanton as they want.
This comment a reply to:
32. RICKNYS
As pre-WWII Marxist theoretician and Italian Communist Party member Antonio Gramsci realized, not arms and armies, but Propaganda– broadcast by new technical media that would eventually expand its reach and penetration into every institution, and down to the very foundations and bedrock of our civilization, into every home, and school, church and place of work–and its ability to shape and define “reality” and, thus, to shape thought–would be the key to the victory of Communism.
You have to see and recognize the, by now, almost totally leftist MSM here in the West—with their ability to control news—reporting on some things, not reporting on others–to shape news, to define and control what we “know” and don’t “know,” and thus to shape “reality,” as just one success, as just one victory among many that has been won as part of a very successful, much broader, 70 year long Gramscian campaign on all fronts against the West, whose aim has been to slowly, patiently, mostly peacefully, propagandize, subvert, and eventually to “totally transform” essentially the entire West, until it becomes “replaced” and is no longer really the West, but what used to be the ” East “ i.e. in terms of its leadership, actual functioning and organization, its “ ideals” and “values,” “knowledge,” “behavior,” and “goals” –is subverted and transformed into some variety of a Communist state, ruled over by the Marxist hierarchy, aided by their minions, propagandists, acolytes, functionaries, and fellow travelers; a Marxist “nomenklatura,” ruling and directing and parasitizing the “masses,” all in the name of the “people,” and for their benefit, of course.
We are to be like one of those insects, which has been stung by a parasitizing wasp, and whose insides have been devoured by the wasps progeny, until, eventually, only our empty shell, only the “appearance” of our former selves and our individual freedom and democracy, will remain; form but no substance.
Of course, one of the chief, critical transformations is that of language–see Orwell–so that this Gramscian warfare and subversion, this Marxist transformation are never called that (and are, thus, much less likely to be recognized for what they are), but are disguised/termed/identified as things like freedom and tolerance, reform and progress, democratization and fairness, diversity and inclusiveness, caring and compassion, being modernized, made more relevant, and brought up to date—and who could object to these “good” things?
The key objective of this warfare is not only to “transform” the institutions of the West but, more importantly, to employ these “transformed” institutions to transform the “audience,” the citizenry here in the West and especially in the United States, and its stubborn individualism, its knowledge of its history and its self-knowledge, its confidence and analytical capabilities, its value system and behavior, and its patriotism and adherence to freedom and democracy–the audience that formerly rejected and fought against Communism. Transform the audience by employing these subverted institutions to gradually—almost imperceptibly– disarm that audience, by depriving them–piece by piece–of their armor and weapons—the basic concepts and history, the knowledge and philosophy, the morality, the standards and values, the behaviors and intellectual tools–by which and through which that audience formerly understood and analyzed Democracy, Freedom, Communism, and the conflict, and fought.
Encouraging division among the forces fighting such a transformation–and thus reducing this force’s unity, its strength and power, and its ability to mount a strong defense–by Balkanizing the citizenry, by pitting one group against the other, by inflaming grievances–the haves against the have nots–has always been a main and very effective Communist tactic too, and conflict, turmoil, and confusion tosses our citizenry like an angry sea.
One of the other major Gramscian campaigns –handily won by now– has been to subvert and take over the Academy, so that education could be totally “transformed,” and it has been, so that today’s “audience” is much less historically and philosophically grounded, much less well educated and motivated, much less intensely patriotic and religious, much less aware than were their ancestors.
Another Gramscian army—whose individual members may also fight on the educational and many other fronts—subverted, enveloped, and has taken over the Arts and Popular Culture. Then, there are the further fronts of Religion and the Church, the Family, Law, Business, Government, Politics, Cultural and Community Organizations, etc.
We have thus been gradually enveloped by these Gramscian “transformations”; we are, increasingly, fish who are surrounded by, swim in, and have their being in a turbulent Gramscian ocean. And, so, by this gradual process of Propagandizing, of Orwellian subversion of language, of controlling, modifying, and warping “reality,” of subversion, destruction, and replacement of institutions, knowledge, standards, ideals, behavior, and understanding, is the formerly free and democratic West “transformed.”
Seth-
You have masterfully described the myriad of Gramscian takeovers over the past several decades. At this late date, with the python’s coils slowly but inexorably squeezing the life out of our culture, education and and every institution and tradition that supports our republic, how do we sever the serpent’s head? I fear we are headed for a violent revolution which will be a terrible thing for all. Please share you thoughts.
Lee
Unfortunately, diagnosing the illness—and it has taken me many decades to “catch on to” and to come around to this diagnosis–is the easy part, but prescribing an effective cure is much, much harder, and I have no easy answers or quick, miraculous cures.
The systemic “transformation/infection” has spread so thoroughly and so far that is it easy to despair, especially when the “patient” –most of our citizenry–at this point is so far gone that it does not even believe that it is “infected” and has an illness, has swallowed the propaganda virtually ”hook, line, and sinker,” is immersed in a very different, very carefully and artificially constructed, skewed and “blinkered” version of “reality,” has constantly been told and believes that it has “progressed, “ has been improved and modernized, is more ”aware,” educated, humane, democratic, sophisticated, and enlightened, and, consequently, sees no need for a “cure” i.e. a return to what it has been told and sees as “old-fashioned,” ”ignorant,” “antiquated” and “prejudiced” “judgmental, black and white thinking,” values, behaviors, and ways of thought and being.
That is the key point.
This Gramscian “transformation” of consciousness and “reality” has to be reversed, and the patient’s, our citizen’s zeitgeist and view of “reality” has to be changed, or nothing can be accomplished.
The patient must be lead to realize that they are infected and sick and, then, to subscribe to a very difficult, long drawn out course of “treatment” that will involve a very violent ”purge” to begin to throw off and eliminate the systemic infection, followed by a relearning and a “revalorization” of things that have been thrown up, discarded—like eating yogurt to re-infect the gut with “good bacteria,” after the antibiotics have rid the patient of the infection, but destroyed a lot of beneficial intestinal flora, too, in that process.
To use another analogy, taking back the city from its “occupiers” will involve an arduous, very long, and costly process of house to house fighting.
Unfortunately, as I see it, a transformation that has taken 70 or so years to arrive at the cusp of almost total fruition and victory cannot be easily or quickly reversed and, absent a miracle and/or some massive, transforming event (which I hope we never have to experience), any substantial reversal will take a very long time, dedication, and very deliberate, systematic, incredibly hard work. Moreover, I am afraid that, in the end, even if we are successful in throwing off this infection, and become “healthy” again, it will leave a lot of scars, deficits, and deformations, and things—though substantially reversed—will never really be totally what they once were; they will be different, for we can never really “go back again.”
It appears to me that we will have to follow a two-pronged approach—active and passive. The active approach is obvious—the house to house campaign, the counter-revolution, our very own “long march through the culture/institutions,” starting with the MSM and the Academy.
But, given the almost total infiltration, subversion, and transformation of all of our fundamental institutions and our zeitgeist—analogous to the coming of the Dark Ages (and, ultimately, in the long run, to perhaps end up being as devastating and deadly as they were) —we may also need to prepare a passive approach, and craft institutions and situations, safe/secure environments and locations to preserve and to propagate traditional culture and democracy in the equivalent of Medieval monasteries, to form parallel organizations—universities and other centers of learning, settlements, organizations—that can preserve things when and if it all goes bust, and we have to rebuild on the ashes.
Seth-
Thank you for your very thoughtful analysis and strategy. I like the active/passive approach. Each one of us needs to become an active instrument of education and warning to our kids, grandkids, friends and family. The internet and other new means of communication make this increasingly possible. Many people are having their “light turned on” and once they begin to see what has happened they will never go back. We need to continue to multiply and propogate the truth-seers. I believe the passive approach is also underway with the Hillsdale Colleges, Heritage and Hoover Institutes, etc. I am hopeful that we will soon be able to achieve a tipping point (I think we are closer than we realize) and when we do, we need to begin the active eradication of the insidious moles who have burrowed into and infected so many of our institutions over the past 70 years.
Thanks again for your insights,
Lee
Excellent analysis. Thank you Seth.
For those of you who have difficulty with Shep and his views which he parades at every opportunity, Lou Dobbs is on at the same time on the Fox Business channel. It’s just as good as his former show on CNN which I use to watch instead of Shep.
Perfectly stated. I have tried to put exactly these’ journalistic’ practices into words for, literally, years. Should be picked-up and repeated by different conservative writers daily for at least the duration of the election cycle.
The answer to this question is pretty obvious . . . .
The MSM is not about distributing information . . .
It is about selling advertising.
The days of TV actually supplying the public with information died when CNN made “The News” a profit center.
Maybe even before that . . . .
I don’t know why anyone is angry with Shep, FOX news needs more dudes like him. If you get rid of him then the libs are right, FOX is nothing more than another mouth of the Republican party. I’m a life long Republican but even I can see that FOX needs to tone some things down. If you are a conservative and hate MSNBC but love FOX and condemn Shep then you are a hypocrite. If you condemn Shep and the MSM as a whole that’s a different story…..
This is the state of the so called professional media charged with educating the public about current events. It’s called “Journalism” but is really political advocacy which most of its practitioners are incapable of suppressing that causes a faulty execution of their professional responsibility to impartially present fact based news. The modern public’s political ignorance, interest in conflict, sensationalism, drama and personal degradation has made sensationalism and defamation supersede impartiality as the preferred marketing, income producing approach to television “news” broadcasting.
Modern society desperately needs its contemporaries and especially its prominent achievers to be no better than equal and preferably worse than they perceive themselves. Thanks to Americas archaic, defective education system dominated by progressive, disaffected, intellectual elites, achievement is dumb luck, inherited, or nefariously acquired by evil, devious cheaters, Capitalist exploiters of the poor and middle class and is to be denigrated not emulated. And, typically and one would think blatantly obvious, is that these “arch enemies of the common man” are all of a Conservative political persuasion.
The purveyors of this faux journalism ply their trade thus and are encouraged by their media bosses to do so based on the number of viewers which is the criteria that controls advertising participation and revenues. This is the horns of the dilemma that could result in our undoing; the subversion of the fourth estate.
As for Sheppard Smith he like many others of his ilk are chosen for their good looks, a strong, resonant voice, a certain charisma and the ability to read a teleprompter, while not seeming to do so, seemingly impromptu. While I have no evidence I suspect most of his questions are scripted to appeal to the majority of his listeners and also likely are inflected by his own political inclinations. FOX News “fair and balanced” does not preclude liberal influences or personal bias on the part of its newscasters.
So, to Mr. Klavan, I agree totally but expect Americans will have to be educated to this reality or more likely un-indoctrinated, before the networks will modify their approach. Don’t expect this to occur any time soon, if ever. America seems to be in a downward spiral with no sign of a bottom but I’m a glass half empty and sincerely and desperately hope to be proven wrong though it will likely, in any case, be posthumously.
The old adage says that there are no stupid questions.
Countless times every day, our media stars prove that adage completely wrong.
However, while I do think that most in the media are both ignorant AND stupid, the real problem is neither.
The real problem is that they are dishonest.
Were Romney half as smart as the MSM would have us stupid, all he had to say was that Griswold and Roe were ruled upon under the Ninth Amendment. Steph’s brain would have exploded.
Hollywood and Other Liberal Hypocrites
Scratch a liberal often enough and you’ll always uncover a bigot–and a hypocrite.
No less a figure than George Lucas of Star Wars fame has discovered that fact of life and called out Hollywood liberals–if that’s not redundant–for its racism.
Accused of racism himself after the release of Star Wars due to the lack of inclusion of blacks, Lucas should have been prepared for the racial politics that exists in the Movie Capital of the World.
The famous film producer didn’t, couldn’t, express his feelings in those terms since he still has to work in Tinsel Town but he left no doubt what he meant during an appearance on ultra-liberal Jon Stewart’s ”Daily Show.”
The subject of Lucas’ charge concerned his film about the segregated Tuskegee Airmen in WWII, Red Tails, and Hollywood’s monumental disinterest in distributing the movie or having anything to do with it because, as he told Stewart, “It’s an all black movie. There’s no major white roles in it at all. It’s one of the first all black action pictures ever made.”
He also described Red Tails as “very patriotic, very jingoistic, very old-fashioned, corny,” which may have been another factor in Hollywood’s refusal to assist Lucas even though he financed the filming on his own.
Bigotry is acceptable in Tinsel Town but they cringe at patriotism there saying, “No. We don’t know how to market a movie like this. . . And they don’t believe there’s any foreign market for it. That’s 60 percent of their profit.”
See a brief clip from the film and Stewart’s sit-down with George Lucas here http://bit.ly/zAJ3HG.
In other words, the big wigs wouldn’t distribute Red Tails because it was all about blacks, was patriotic AND, as is typical with “black movies,”didn’t have enough profit potential to stuff their wallets.
Maybe if Lucas’ next effort involves African-Americans bad-mouthing their country, he’d get more support from Hollywood hypocrites.
Hypocrisy–and deception–are rampant in Liberal Land and the current effort to resurrect and refurbish President Barack Hussein Obama’s mentor and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, is probably the most blatant in Washington.
In the event no one has noticed, 2012 is an election year and the president is in the process of “pulling a Clinton,” that is, ostensibly moving to the middle of the socio-political spectrum, transforming into a “moderate,” in hopes of concealing the extremist changes and dashed hopes of the past three years.
With the economy still a mess, there’s little hope in the White House of restoring any real economic hope before November 6th so rehabilitating Obama’s radical background is one way he can forestall anticipated Republican campaign attacks on his extremist past and his far-out leftist associations.
Obama’s old buddies, the un-reconstructed revolutionary Bill Ayers is as out there as he ever was preaching revolt to the Occupy Wall Street anarchists and Rev. Michael Pfleger has never given up his message of self-hating race hatred.
However, Rev. Wright has been relatively less-incendiary–relatively–since candidate Obama disowned him under pressure in the heat of the last campaign.
Therefore, close presidential adviser and confidante, David Axelrod, figured this was a good a time as any to re-hab the good reverend so that the Republican nominee can’t beat his boss over the head with Wright. Since the mainstream media ably assisted last time around in hiding the intimate Obama-Wright connection, the MSM should be onboard again.
Notwithstanding Wright’s history of denouncing white people as congenital liars, his mindless, vicious allegations that America brought on September 11th, 2001, that we caused the AIDS virus, that America is under the control of the KKK and supports terrorism, plus a slew of other craziness, Axelrod is defending the certifiable racist nut.
Axelrod contends that all the criticism boils down to “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”
Either David is smoking what his hero smoked for years, and it’s not cigarettes, or he has evolved into a bigger nutcase than Rev. Wright. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12135.)
Good article – forwarded – you are all right as to the terms – but I would just like to dub them Horses-Asses! Manipulative horses asses! Manipulative liberal truth-twisting-nation-destroying-horses asses! and on and on………
“How The Media Makes Us Stupid”
I guess you saw that study that found viewers of Fox News knew less than folks who didn’t watch any news channel, and the other study that found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information.
As Mark Twain supposedly said: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”