New York Times endorsement of John Kerry

[Rspaight]

And the idea of giving WMD's to terrorists can occur at any time (i.e North Korea and Al Qaeda).

In point of fact, all evidence indicates that Pakistan made it possible for North Korea to get nukes. But we essentially gave them a pass because we needed their cooperation for the Afghan operations. It seems current foreign policy is geared less toward preventing proliferation and more toward acheiving unrelated strategic objectives.

Ryan

[Dob]

...I wore my Mondale/Ferraro button without incident...it's (been) clear that a meaningless but memorable catch-phrase is far more useful that a factual, well-reasoned argument.

Wasn't Mondale responsible for one of the most "meaningless but memorable" catch-phrases ever -- "Where's the beef?" It feels like I heard that a million freakin' times during that campaign...as if hearing it on the Wendy's commercial wasn't enough.

[Rspaight]

That's very true.

IMO, what lost the election for Mondale was his statement that, "Whoever wins the election is going to raise taxes. Reagan won't tell you. I just did." As it turned out, he was right.

Ryan

[czeskleba]

I can't remember... did Bush resurrect Reagan's classic "Well, there you go again" quote at all during the debates? I'm sure that would have REALLY helped send his poll points through the stratosphere!

I kept wishing for Kerry to steal Reagan's "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" line from the 1980 debate. The line is a moronic appeal to selfishness but the great thing is that it puts the incumbent on the defensive and would be impossible for Bush to effectively respond to.

[Mike Hunte]

I respectfully disagree. I don't agree that the media has a pro-conservative bias, in general. I think primarily they are biased toward simplicity, sensationalism, and novelty.

Yes, we do disagree then.

There's no argument from me that the media does run toward sensationalism (hence, my comment about "only if the story is too big to ignore" regarding the Dems). More importantly, they'll go where the money's at. That is, if it suddenly becomes fashionable to be a "lib" in America...they'd probably break like the wind to get in on the action.


BUT....


I still do believe, taken as a whole, that the current corporate news/talk-show media structure -- and related advertising dollars -- tip to the right of the scale. While there's the no-brainer, obvious conglomerates (e.g. FOX News, Clear-Channel, etc...), there's much more subtle stuff going on every day. Just today, one of the news polling organizations flipped their usual method of chronologically listing accumulated poll results (by date) to show a more favorable number for Bush (ironically, it was a Fox poll that they included that should have been dropped from the running total). Then, there's the Gallup samples. How can anyone tell me that their cooked sample numbers (35 % more Republicans in the mix!) reflect any sort of reality and not a right-leaning balance? With no basis of reality regarding past voter turnout...what else could it be? Do they know something we don't? If this isn't a right-leaning balance...then it's just sheer recklessness (or stupidity) on their part!

Sure, there's always going to be the stray talking-head lib (e.g. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite in the old days), but it just doesn't compete with the current corporate radio and TV news climate in America (and, yes, I have seen Jon Stewart's latest interview on C-Span). I'll give you newspapers, as a whole, and that's only because it's a more individually-controlled media regarding editorial and contributing writer opinion, and they're not quite the slaves/whores to the advertising dollar as the other mediums are. *Most* journalists are college educated and liberal. Unfortunately, not many people read anymore....lol!

I think a lot of this *does* stem from the whole fashionable feel-good and jingoistic (is that a word?) aspect of modern conservatism in America - perhaps here's where a certain *sensationalistic* aspect plays into the fold. That is, I do believe the tide could turn again. But it's going to take many years (or perhaps a VERY popular Democratic administration) to deflate the current corporate media landscape. Perhaps, some renegade voice that might normally appeal to a conservative crowd. Howard Stern anyone?....lol!

One thing, I'm sure we both agree on Jason....there currently *isn't* a "liberal media" bias. We have Spiro Agnew to "thank" for that one!


One of my Bartcop favorites (dated...but still a classic!):

http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm


later,
DM

[czeskleba]

I'll give you newspapers, as a whole, and that's only because it's a more individually-controlled media regarding editorial and contributing writer opinion, and they're not quite the slaves/whores to the advertising dollar as the other mediums are.

Perhaps the difference in our perceptions stems partly from that, then. I rarely watch TV news, so I was basing my comments mostly on the print media.

[krabapple]

Ranting aside, Americans will never fully understand how their country is perceived. One lady raised it during the second debate ("My daughter was in Europe and felt great hostility toward the US"). But the issue is never really discussed on US television. The big question - "Why do they hate us?" - is always limited to "crazy Islamists". Well, that's just not the case. Here in Canada, many politicians and business people are really concerned about the increase in anti-Americanism and the effect it has on business and tourism.

Intelligent, open-minded, cosmopolitan Americans can understand how others perceive us. We're all human after all(*), and humans have certain common traits...for example,t he tendency to believe we are the best, and a suspicion of the Other. Fold that into a controverisal, not to say disastrous, foreign policy, and it's pretty much explained

I personally can understand a bit how 'foreigners' perceive our country because I *live* with one. My girlfriend is British. Her commentary on our news often leaves me, how shall I say it, 'gobsmacked'. (We alse get hte Guardian delivered weekly).


(* except for Karl Rove, who clearly is a shell harboring an insectoid puppet-master.)

[lukpac]

Intelligent, open-minded, cosmopolitan Americans can understand how others perceive us.

Unfortunately the "US is better than you, so shut the fuck up" crowd seems to be much larger and vocal.

[stinsojd]

I kept wishing for Kerry to steal Reagan's "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" line from the 1980 debate. The line is a moronic appeal to selfishness but the great thing is that it puts the incumbent on the defensive and would be impossible for Bush to effectively respond to.

What a missed opportunity! I'd have loved to see ol' sour face processing that one.

I guess Bush could argue that we're much safer now that we're on the offensive. Attack 'em first, ask NO questions later. If the enemy is found to have no WMDs, give 'em some. Visit America's great vacation destinations and leave the bombing to us.