Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Whats to defend?

We Want the Washington Post to Be More Than an Official Echo Chamber

Washington Post reporter Paul Kane proffered what blogger Matthew Yglesias aptly called a "full-throated defense of journalism-as-stenography." Kane had been criticized by Media Matters that he had quoted Sen. Olympia Snowe (R.-Maine) as saying that Barack Obama's use of the filibuster-avoiding budget reconciliation tool would make it "infinitely more difficult to bridge the partisan divide" without noting that Snowe had backed budget reconciliation when it was used by George W. Bush. Asked in a WashingtonPost.com chat to defend himself against this criticism, Kane responded:

I'm sorry, what’s to defend?

Someone tell Media Matters to get over themselves and their overblown ego of righteousness. We reported what Olympia Snowe said. That’s what she said. That’s what Republicans are saying. I really don’t know what you want of us. We are not opinion writers whose job is to play some sorta gotcha game with lawmakers.

It's a little dismaying that we have to explain this to professional journalists, but what we want them to do is to examine official claims and put them in context. It's not clear why society would need the kind of institution that Kane thinks he works for; if we want to find out what Olympia Snowe said, we can sign up for her RSS feed.

There is a place for Journalism, and the decline in newspapers is concerning, it is a trade that is in very great need.  But there is also a place for bloggers and media watch groups... to keep the journalists who still have a job in line...

 

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Friday, April 10, 2009

FAIR on PBS distorts health care

PBS Distorts Global Healthcare Options

A recent Frontline documentary (3/31/09) presented mandatory for-profit healthcare as the only alternative to the current U.S. healthcare system, suggesting that this was the system all other developed nations use--even though the documentary was a sequel to an earlier Frontline report (4/15/08) that examined a wide range of international options, including Taiwan's single-payer model.

If you'd like to ask Frontline why it distorted the healthcare policy options, you can take part in FAIR's Action Alert here.  And you can leave copies of letters you send to Frontline in the comments of this post.

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Baracknophobia...

Baracknophobia: Hannity, Bachmann, And Beck Terrified Of Obama (VIDEO)

"the mid-term election are coming up in 20 months... pace your rage!"

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

The Debate Over Online News:

 It's the Consumer, Stupid

Watching media execs talk about building walled gardens around content reminds me of watching Detroit execs ten years ago spend billions lobbying the government for fuel efficiency loopholes and trying to convince consumers that gas-guzzling SUVs were the cars of the future.

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Wasn't it about taxation without representation?

This is a hoot.


I'm going to be taking photo's for the blog, might try to get an interview or two, at the event in Henry County.

Though it seems weird to connect Liberty and Obedience so directly...

Didn't communist always say that we had to adhere to the doctrine no matter how painful and in spite of all consequences?

Conservatives keep saying things in ways that remind me of Communists I always used to debate. I'm still working on a more coherent explanation of that...

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Jon Stewart doing what he does best

Friday, March 6, 2009

TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | Rush Gets Played by Rahm

TPMCafe | TalkingPoints Memo | Rush Gets Played by Rahm
I had lunch with a very conservative friend today. We haven't seem eachother since early October of last year, before the Obama victory. The lunch was very civil and we found some common ground when my friend said upfront, he was glad Obama beat McCain and Palin. And then we found some more common ground on Health and Education Reform. So the meal was a lot less tempestuous than I expected. As we were getting in our cars, I asked him "How did Rush allow himself to get played like a stradavarius by Rahm Emanuel?".

It was at this point that my friend went ballistic on me and said "Obama was a chicken" not to debate Limbaugh one on one, like Rush has been asking on the air for weeks.

As I was driving away he was still ranting and I thought, only if Rush is the Republican Presidential candidate in four years, will he actually get a one on one debate with President Obama. Until then, he's just a bystander who helps the Democrats attract the 80% of the country who think El Rushbo is a drug addled loon.

Because he is becoming the Republican Brand, Limbaugh will find out just how small his "base" of white males really is. This is what I call the "Whig" strategy. Make your party's base so small that centrist's (like Abe Lincoln leaving the Whigs) break away and form a new party. Leaving you with just the dittoheads and the crackers.

I think its actually quite shocking how most conservatives I know in GA don't realize what a small group they are. I had great working relationships with Republicans in California... I have next to nothing in common with folks here. I'm not really sure why. One thing I noticed is that most "debates" on issues that I had with Republicans in Cali were productive and I learned a lot from. Most "debates" here are spent dwelling on basic facts, and acknowledgement of how government, markets, human beings exist.

Then again, notice I keep saying "Republicans in California." I guess the point is most Republicans here in GA are conservatives.

Keep on talking Rush... keep on talking. It only helps Barrack Hussein Obama, which will hopefully mean a new New Deal coalition of moderates, liberals, and the left.

Monday, January 26, 2009

was darwin wrong?

Darwin : The Genius of evolution
Its not a surprise that Darwin was wrong and in fact he was wrong at many places but he cant be blamed for all those as he did not have any knowledge about the science of microbiology and molecular evolution at that time.

But keep in mind ,the two biggest ideas in Natural selection and common descent survived all the tests for more than a century, speaks volumes about the brilliant man and his insights on subject.

Graham Lawton’s article “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life “ talks about horizontal gene transfers in bacteria and consequences of that on tree of life. The article somewhat justify such a headline ,which talks about some very valid points that Darwin didnot and could not know , but definitely these things doesn’t go against the theory of Darwin but just fills in the gaps occurring in tree of life.

and back to my theme for the day...
But with such a strong headline tilts the balance more in favor of headline than the real content. To be honest most people read just the headline and few lines than the whole article. So i believe that editors should be more careful in selecting the titles especially on subjects like evolution which can send wrong signals to students

interesting point to the quandry of post industrial new media information overload

Coturnix
Very few readers will read your article. But everyone will see the cover.

Very few people will read this post to the end, especially the links on the bottom that really contain the meat of the argument. But everyone will see this post title in their feeds.

Graham, you know print is swiftly dying and that journalism is moving to the Web, don't you? Do you understand that this means that in a year or two you will have to come here and play with the Big Boys? Do you understand that all the silly comments you plastered all over the blogs will be remembered? And if not remembered, easy to find - this blog has bigger Google juice than The New Scientist, you know?

Do you understand that in your future transition to online journalism you will have to abandon all the lies you were taught in J-school? That you will need to upgrade your journalistic ethics in order to match the higher ethics of the blogosphere?

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Sean Hannity wins!

Misinformer of the year
Because of the unending stream of falsehoods and character attacks that fueled the "Stop Obama Express," and the countless other distortions he promoted throughout 2008, Sean Hannity is Media Matters for America's Misinformer of the Year.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Ah... Dean...

Tax Increases Are Not Stimulus

The NYT tells us that President Obama's plans to increase taxes on the wealthy are not part of his stimulus package. It would be very surprising if they were since tax increases, even on wealthy people, are not stimulus. His plan to withdraw from Iraq is probably not part of his stimulus package either.

--Dean Baker

media...

Obama, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News: A Look at Media in 2009
The Washington Post ombudsman and others claim that the media was too kind to Obama and hard on John McCain. This superficial analysis is both wrong and misleading. Wrong because you had a candidate that was forcefully embracing the policies of George W. Bush while the nation spiraled into one of its darkest moments in its history. The idea that the press should not exert sharp criticism of such a candidate reflects the kind of tepid pandering that has become the hallmark of mainstream corporate media.

And misleading because the real problem is not the media favoring one candidate over another, but rather its utter failure to practice critical journalism. Turn on your television or radio, and it's 24/7 horserace political coverage, partisan shouting matches, and salacious crap. There is no effort to tell voters the difference between the candidates' rhetoric and reality, how their proclamations match their voting records, and what their policy proposals would actually do. While there were a few notable moments when news outlets actually did this during the campaign, they were few and far between.

Olbermann and Maddow's increased popularity is moving the range of debate on cable from center-right to left-right, but radio is still overwhelmingly right-wing, and the changes at MSNBC fall far short of a comprehensive, long-term solution to thecrisis of journalism. Newsroom layoffs mount across television, radio and newspapers, and omission has become the greatest threat. There is virtually no in-depth coverage and analysis on television of Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, the environment and the other critical issues facing working Americans. And despite the explosion of the Internet, 45% of American homes still have no high speed Internet, while some 65% of Americans still cite TV as their primary news source.

Charges of liberal bias continue to strike such fear in the hearts of corporate news editors and producers, that they continue obsessive contortions to present both sides of every debate -- not from a factual perspective, but from a partisan one. Even if one side of an argument is clearly true, today's Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson or Brian Williams - and even NPR and PBS - dare not say it (such as the economic bailout being a corrupt boondoggle for banking fatcats) and suffer the wrath of the right wing noise machine, and pressure from their corporate bosses. In today's media environment, the truth becomes irrelevant.

Take a walk through rural Ohio as I did this Election Day, and working-class voters are watching Fox, reading empty newspapers running on a bare-bones staff, and listening to radio's right-wing hate-fest. In today's media environment, we must face the fact that if not for the financial crisis and a disastrous GOP vice-presidential pick, this election might well have been McCain's.

So the incoming president is excellent on media policy, and his election allows media reform advocates to move from defense to offense. However, as Obama inherits a severe economic crisis, two wars, and myriad other problems, it will be too easy for media issues to get pushed down the to-do list. And the well-financed lobbyists from the phone, cable and broadcasting companies who supported Obama's candidacy are expecting a return on their investment. As well they should: if you look back at the history of Democratic presidents and media policy, there have been many disappointments, and cause for us to be as cautious as we are optimistic.

Here's a quick list of the top policy reforms to watch in 2009 for anyone who shares my disgust with news coverage, sky-high cable and phone bills, and the other maladies brought by a media system dominated by the likes of Comcast, Disney, AT&T, General Electric, Verizon, News Corporation and Time Warner:

Getting super-fast, open/neutral, affordable Internet to every home and business in America, urban and rural, rich and poor - Internet that will allow every website to be a television or radio network... a complete game changer.


Reversing consolidation of media ownership through tougher broadcast license requirements and incentives for more independent, diverse and local radio, television and print outlets.


Dramatically increasing funding for public media: for PBS and NPR, as well as community radio and television, and other noncommercial outlets. This includes policies that better protect public media from undue political pressures.
Now that the champagne has been put away, it's time to realize that while disastrous members of Bush & Co. are heading towards the exits, the disastrous members of mainstream media remain firmly in place. Ignore the problem at your - and the nation's - peril.