This coverage is indicative the right’s desire for Obama to fail. From what I can tell, Obama took the ‘no drama’ approach to resolving the pirate issue. He apparently left the six-shooter and boot-spurs at home and exhausted all available options before resorting to the fail-safe Navy Seal sniper shot. I bet there were mixed emotions in the Fox News living room at the Rush Limbaugh house when this Captain was saved, for if they were wishing for Obama to fail, Captain Phillips would have been the one who suffered. But instead, as we have now seen, Captain Phillips was saved, and Obama succeeded in his leadership.
If you are a conservative reader of Daddy Hogwash, are you happy that Obama succeeded? Do you wish for Obama’s failure in other areas? If so, since the President’s failure likely means America’s failure in this 21st century global economy, and more unintended victims, (like Captain Philips) how does that make you feel?
Where does Obama get off “talking” to people? What has talking to people ever accomplished for anyone? How dare he! Damn socialist and their talking!
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev admitted to President Obama during their summit meeting last week that American intelligence estimates about the pace of Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons capability have been more accurate than Russia’s, a senior U.S. official told FOX News.
As a result, Moscow is now said to be open to "much more severe" punishment for Tehran if the regime there persists in enriching uranium into 2010.
The disclosures came as part of a wide-ranging discussion about the Obama administration’s now-completed policy review on Iran, which has already led to several high-profile overtures to Tehran by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These gestures have included Obama’s videotaped greeting marking the Iranian new year holiday of Nowruz, and Clinton’s invitation for Iran to attend an international conference on Afghanistan that was held in The Hague on March 31.
Reader analyzes how PMEs have covered current economic crisis
March 11, 2009 - We live in the age of personal media environments, or PMEs, with newspapers, Internet sites, blogs, cable news stations, radio stations, viral e-mails, et cetera. PMEs are customized information sources we build for ourselves over time that closely align with our particular ideologies. We mold our PMEs to reaffirm what we already believe as true. We largely ignore and discredit news items and opinions that are contrary to our belief systems, and we focus in on anything that supports our mindsets. How have our PMEs covered the economy? Media Matters for America analyzed 139.5 hours of programming on the stimulus plan on all major news stations from Jan. 25 through Feb. 8. They found that CNN, Fox News and MSNBC did not have a single economist on to discuss the stimulus plan. What about the rest? "Of the 460 guests making appearances, only 25 were economists — a mere 5 percent." If news outlets really cared about informing their viewers, why would they fill the airwaves with pundits over experts? A good example is this idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are to blame for the current economic crises because of their participation in backing sub-prime loans. The data shows otherwise. By 2006, more than 70 percent of the sub-prime mortgages were privately held and backed — Fannie and Freddie held only 24 percent. As a matter of fact, when you dig in to the Treasury Department data, as McClatchy Newspapers did, it is surprisingly glaring how wrong this pundit-forced accusation is. Space does not permit the details, but two items will shed light on the sub-prime mess. One is David X. Li’s Gaussian Copula Formula, adopted by Wall Street to assess the risks of credit default swaps. According to Wired.com, in 2001, there was $920 billion in these credit default swaps outstanding; in 2007, more than $62 trillion. That’s right, $62 trillion. There was 48 times more fiat money in Wall Street gambling on the securities of home mortgages than there were sub-prime mortgages — more than four times the entire U.S. Gross Domestic Product. The second issue that requires your research is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a 262-page amendment added at the last minute to an appropriations bill by Sen. Phil Gramm. This bill later became known as the "Enron Loophole" and is the law that made these credit default swaps on mortgages possible. So, how could the market that had worked so long and so well for us fail? The simple answer is that it failed because it was not our grandfather’s market anymore. It was a new, untested and radical market, based largely on a faulty mathematical formula, poor legislation, and, of course, a certain degree of consumer ignorance and Wall Street greed. If your PME has been telling you otherwise, it may be time to review the reliability and credibility of your sources. Karl Frank Jr. Oakville Editor’s note: Mr. Frank has served on the Mehlville Board of Education since 2005.
As I do just about every Sunday, I sat and watched Meet the Press, Fox News with Chris Wallace, and This Week with George Stephanopoulos. As we all know, our economy is in shambles. Some say it is going to get worse, some say they see us starting to pull out as early as 2010. Regardless, not a single guest on any of the three shows was an economist.
If these shows are wanting to inform their viewers on the issues of the day, why do they continue to put on pundits over experts? At the very least, why not make an effort to balance out their shows with expert analysis? If there is anything people are sick of, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, it is the constant spin of the various pundits who clearly have an interest in what they can make the general public believe about their positions.
Media Matters for America recently analyzed stimulus coverage over 139 1/2 hours of cable news and Sunday news shows from January 25th to February 8. CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC did not have a single economist, and of the 460 total guest, only 25 were economist. “A mere 5 percent,” stated Media Matters.
In the era of Information Inundation, why can’t the news organizations serve to inform rather than to muddle and confuse?
It would be funny if it was not so disgusting. The problem is that here is a channel called Fox News that people watch to get what they believe is fair and balanced information. Instead what they get is editorial misinformation passed off as “secret” news that everyone should know, but somehow, only the people who watch Hannity are privy too. Which reminds me, I forgot to say that I was thankful for Media Matters this Thanksgiving.
As Media Matters for America has demonstrated time and again, Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been a prolific and influential purveyor of conservative misinformation. But never has he so enthusiastically applied his talents for spreading misinformation as he did to the 2008 presidential race, focusing his energies primarily on President-elect Barack Obama. Day after day, Hannity devoted his two Fox News shows and his three-hour ABC Radio Networks program to “demonizing” the Democratic presidential candidates, starkly explaining in August: “That’s my job. … I led the ‘Stop Hillary Express.’ By the way, now it’s the ‘Stop Obama Express.’ ” Hannity’s “Stop Obama Express” promoted and embellished a vast array of misleading attacks and false claims about Obama. Along the way, he uncritically adopted and promoted countless Republican talking points and played host to numerous credibility-challenged smear artists who painted Obama as a dangerous radical. When he was not going after Obama, Hannity attacked members of Obama’s family, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton and other progressives, and denied all the while that he had unfairly attacked anyone.
This is good stuff. It’s funny looking back at what these people say and then consider how much credibility our society gives them.
“If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. … Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.” —William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006
Last night the Daily Show called out MSNBC as the new Fox News. I am not sure what took the Daily Show so long, but they finally did it. It was very obvious that MSNBC made an orchestrated move to appeal to the left in the run-up to the election. So essentially, you had two very obvious biases with MSNBC and Fox News, scrunched in the middle by CNN who goes so far out of the way to try and pretend they aren’t biased, that they are actually biased by giving weight to the other side, even if the other side is clearly wrong.
For example, lets say that two men are in a bar arguing over whether or not the sun is shining today. One says that it is so cloudy that they can not see a thing. The other says there is not a cloud in the sky and that he is going to have to wear sunblock when he leaves. This argument gets rather heated and CNN shows up on a tip. That night CNN would say, “Breaking News: Two men got in an argument over whether or not the sun was shining.”
Then, in large white letters, they would read you a quote from the anti-sunshine guy. Then they would quote the pro-sunshine guy…and never actually report whether or not the sun was actually shining outside, which could easily be observed just by stepping outside and taping it. This is out of fear that they would be accused of being biased for the pro-sunshine crowd and losing the anti-sunshine crowd in the process.
The point is, so much of the mass media is now about the bottom dollar, and not actually telling the truth, regardless of political consequences, because they have shareholders to face in the morning. On the otherhand, there is nothing wrong with MSNBC being liberally slanted and Fox News being conservatively slanted, as long as people understand that the news they are getting has their particular slant. There is a problem with an obviously biased organization saying they are “Fair and Balanced” when for the most part, they clearly are not. (Yes, the pew research organization says that Fox News reports balanced news, but they do not make value judgements on the content of the stories, just the reporting. It’s one thing to cover something, it is another thing to cover it with equal zest and zeal.)
This is what you get with corporate news programming and people getting their news on the fly. Most people will search out the type of news slant that reaffirms what they already feel politically and on personal issues. Very rarely will the average working or partying person take the time to find out what the truth is. All they know is that they heard it on T.V. so it must be true.
So what is someone supposed to do if they do want to know the truth?
1. First, and most important, know the perceived biases of the news organization you are getting your news from. CNN is so fickle that it is hardly news at all. Fox News is zestfully conservative. MSNBC is awkwardly (but working on it) liberal, NPR is generally considered liberal, but experience has proven to me that even if they are covering a liberal topic, they seek and respect opposing viewpoints, the New York Times and The Nation has a liberal, but in depth and well sourced slant, the Washington Times and National Review has a conservative, but in depth and well sourced slant.
2. Take number (1.) with a grain of salt. Each reporter and each story deserves independent consideration.
3. If you really care about the truth, you need to get your news from multiple sources. If you get all of your news from Art Bell in the middle of the night, you might not have a good read on reality.
4. Practice being a critical thinker. Look at the data presented, throw away the editorial comments, and make a value judgement on the data. Does it hold up under scrutiny? Does it make sense? What is the motivation, not just for the subject(s) of the story, but the reporter and news organization as well.
5. Do your own research. The internet is full of peer reviewed journal papers, books, and other raw data sources. Just make sure you apply step (4.) to your research.
6. Make sure you are aware of your own biases. And remember, bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is O.K. to be pro-sunshine when you can look outside and see clearly that the sun is shining.
7. Be aware that most of what you see on T.V. and listen to on the radio (with a couple of exceptions for both) is no longer news. It is infotainment. It is meant to entertain, not educate. We live in a passive news society and the large media conglomerates are milking it for all it’s worth.
8. Credible bloggers are changing number (7.) Which is why number (5.) is an important part of the process. Bloggers have their biases as well, so be careful, but it is much harder for a political hack or corporate croanie to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes anymore because there is an army of citizen journalists standing by to debunk and discredit them.
9. Practice your critical thinking and discernment skills by reading and discussing everything you can get your hands on, regardless of slant. Teaching your mind to think should not finish after high school or college. Teaching your mind to think should be a life-long process.
Here are two videos to provide emphasis.
The first video is an oldie but goodie of Jon Stewart single-handedly putting Crossfire on CNN off the air, and the second is Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal) openly admitting that he uses his media to sway opinion:
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a6a27f29-f8ab-4cd3-bb2f-73b7ea73d1b5)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=976c721c-43ae-4807-970d-44744d48ff61)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ffa02516-f48b-4e01-97af-1071997f3593)
As ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bba15ba3-d8b2-4be4-80a6-91fa5812de52)
quote the pro-sunshine guy…and never actually report whether or not the sun was actually shining outside, which could easily be observed just by stepping outside and taping it. This is out of fear that they would be accused of being biased for the pro-sunshine crowd and losing the anti-sunshine crowd in the process.
Recent Comments