Incivility makes us tune out

[mudwhistle]

That is exactly what I mean.

We go from this.

Wasserman Schultz urges more civility after Giffords shooting - Sun Sentinel

To this.

Wasserman-Schultz stands by claim that GOP budget is a "death trap" for seniors - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

And idiots like Wonky here only see the call for civility, ignoring the attacks by the exact same people.

I read and reread Mr. Pundit's posts, and he is covering civility in America, not any particular issue such as the mean things that were said about people who had nothing to do with the shooting. I'm pretty certain Mr. Wonky delivered a fair and balanced couple of posts so far. That's as far from idiotic as it gets.

What happens on a thread should stay on that same thread. You wouldn't be carrying some baggage from elsewhere, would you?

We need civility, and we need it every day. I know it when I see it.

Wonky's posts have been exemplery for there civility. Unlike either Wingbag, or myself. Differance is, I recognize civility, Windbag just sees weakness.

Being able to recognize it and actually apply it are too different things.

Even the ugly are able to recognize beauty.

 

[MaggieMae]

There's a reason the media seemed disappointed about the New Hampshire debate. Not enough mud.

Some 85 percent of Americans think politics is becoming increasingly uncivil, and 74 percent think incivility in the 2012 presidential race will worsen. Some 35 percent blame the media for this, and 27 percent blame political party leaders.

In last week's Republican debate, the candidates were very civil to each other to the dismay of the media. But that may have been smart: A whopping 90 percent of Americans surveyed say "the way the candidate treats and deals with people he or she disagrees with" is of high importance to how they will cast their votes, and 88 percent say "the candidate's tone or level of civility" is of high importance.

Source

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

 

[Avatar4321]

There's a reason the media seemed disappointed about the New Hampshire debate. Not enough mud.


Source

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Why on earth were they questioning the rationale of invading Iraq during the early 90s?

 

[dblack]

Why on earth were they questioning the rationale of invading Iraq during the early 90s?

I think they were questioning whether they were actually a threat to us.

 

[MaggieMae]

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Why on earth were they questioning the rationale of invading Iraq during the early 90s?

Huh? In the 90's, sanctions were in place against Iraq and flyovers controlled. There was no need to invade. I'm talking about the mood of the nation to retaliate against any country in the vicinity of Afghanistan after the attacks of 911 if the administration convinced us (and MSM) it was necessary, and by the summer of 2003, people (and MSM) began scratching our collective heads by finally saying "Why Iraq"?? Especially since no WMD were found.

 

[MaggieMae]

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Why on earth were they questioning the rationale of invading Iraq during the early 90s?

Huh? In the 90's, sanctions were in place against Iraq and flyovers controlled. There was no need to invade. I'm talking about the mood of the nation to retaliate against any country in the vicinity of Afghanistan after the attacks of 911 if the administration convinced us (and MSM) it was necessary, and by the summer of 2003, people (and MSM) began scratching our collective heads by finally saying "Why Iraq"?? Especially since no WMD were found.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the food fights start on any thread, most especially when it is not in fun but intended to belittle or attack people, I withdraw. Such inciivility looks childish, stupid, and hateful to me.

When the yelling matches start on any radio or TV program so that everybody is talking over everybody, I change the channel. Such incivility looks and feels rude, ignorant, and boorish to me no matter who is doing it.

When links are supplied to sites specializing in incivility or intolerance of opposing points of view, I know the member posting the information doesn't have an independent thought in his/her head. Condoning, promoting, or accepting incivility is one means of practicing it.

Bullies and numbnuts enjoy incivility and engage in it for sport. Most, perhaps not all, intelligent people are put off by it. (And no, I'm not referring to the occasional tossed barb or insult or the thread 'roasts' in which all, including the subject, are having fun.)

I think one reason I felt sooooo good after the GOP New Hampshire debate is because there was complete civility even as differing points of view were expressed. It gave me hope that maybe the worm is turning and intelligent people can discuss issues and provide opinions without attempting to destroy somebody.

That for me would be a very good thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Why on earth were they questioning the rationale of invading Iraq during the early 90s?

Huh? In the 90's, sanctions were in place against Iraq and flyovers controlled. There was no need to invade. I'm talking about the mood of the nation to retaliate against any country in the vicinity of Afghanistan after the attacks of 911 if the administration convinced us (and MSM) it was necessary, and by the summer of 2003, people (and MSM) began scratching our collective heads by finally saying "Why Iraq"?? Especially since no WMD were found.

But the media had the liberal label nearly a decade before this.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

There's a reason the media seemed disappointed about the New Hampshire debate. Not enough mud.

Some 85 percent of Americans think politics is becoming increasingly uncivil, and 74 percent think incivility in the 2012 presidential race will worsen. Some 35 percent blame the media for this, and 27 percent blame political party leaders.

In last week's Republican debate, the candidates were very civil to each other to the dismay of the media. But that may have been smart: A whopping 90 percent of Americans surveyed say "the way the candidate treats and deals with people he or she disagrees with" is of high importance to how they will cast their votes, and 88 percent say "the candidate's tone or level of civility" is of high importance.

Source

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's.

What do you mean by "depended on?" And depended on how strongly? Where's your proof?

The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

Nobody is fooled by the lame 30-year-old attempts to label the media as liberal. We all know that it's got plenty of outlets for all partisan flavors these days. Besides, the media never cared about liberalism - only about making more money by getting bigger audiences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's a reason the media seemed disappointed about the New Hampshire debate. Not enough mud.


Source

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Again I find people who think that history revolves around them.

I used to have discussions with friends about the liberal bias in the media back before the 1st Gulf War. There was a book written about it in 1980s.

The Media Elite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What does that do to your claim?

 

[MaggieMae]

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Again I find people who think that history revolves around them.

I used to have discussions with friends about the liberal bias in the media back before the 1st Gulf War. There was a book written about it in 1980s.

The Media Elite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What does that do to your claim?

Say whaaaaa??? From your Wiki entry:

Problems with the methodology included: a low sample size; poor randomization; the failure to include media owners, managers, or editors in the samples; the inadequate use of proper polling techniques; the use of biased questions; point of view assertions by the studies authors that arbitrarily qualified some things as conservative or liberal; the failure to adequately measure the general public's attitudes; and poor statistical analysis of the results.
...
Concerning political beliefs: 54 per cent of the journalists described their views as left of center, 29 per cent as "middle of the road," and only 17 per cent as right of center. The authors argue that this ratio of more than three liberal journalists for each conservative contrasts sharply with the distribution among the American public: every relevant poll conducted in the decade from 1975 to 1985 found conservatives outnumbering liberals in the electorate, often by a ratio of three to two or more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

Again I find people who think that history revolves around them.

I used to have discussions with friends about the liberal bias in the media back before the 1st Gulf War. There was a book written about it in 1980s.

The Media Elite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What does that do to your claim?

Say whaaaaa??? From your Wiki entry:

Problems with the methodology included: a low sample size; poor randomization; the failure to include media owners, managers, or editors in the samples; the inadequate use of proper polling techniques; the use of biased questions; point of view assertions by the studies authors that arbitrarily qualified some things as conservative or liberal; the failure to adequately measure the general public's attitudes; and poor statistical analysis of the results.
...
Concerning political beliefs: 54 per cent of the journalists described their views as left of center, 29 per cent as "middle of the road," and only 17 per cent as right of center. The authors argue that this ratio of more than three liberal journalists for each conservative contrasts sharply with the distribution among the American public: every relevant poll conducted in the decade from 1975 to 1985 found conservatives outnumbering liberals in the electorate, often by a ratio of three to two or more.

So?

You made the claim that no one called the media biased until 2003, I demonstrated that to be completely false. Instead of admitting you are wrong you try to deflect it with complaints about the methodology of the study.

I am not trying to say the book proved the media was biased. It does, however, prove that the accusation has been around for years longer than you claimed.

 

[Trajan]

There's a reason the media seemed disappointed about the New Hampshire debate. Not enough mud.


Source

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

uhm, I seem to remember it starting in on the presidential level with Bush I's "card carrying member of the aclu" schtick...

 

[Trajan]

There's a reason the media seemed disappointed about the New Hampshire debate. Not enough mud.


Source

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's.

What do you mean by "depended on?" And depended on how strongly? Where's your proof?

The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

Nobody is fooled by the lame 30-year-old attempts to label the media as liberal. We all know that it's got plenty of outlets for all partisan flavors these days. Besides, the media never cared about liberalism - only about making more money by getting bigger audiences.

uh huh.



the attitude was under way, well under way, way back...

say with oh, Walter Lippman?

snip-
To his mind, democratic ideals had deteriorated, voters were largely ignorant about issues and policies, they lacked the competence to participate in public life and cared little for participating in the political process. In Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann noted that the stability the government achieved during the patronage era of the 1800s was threatened by modern realities. He wrote that a “governing class” must rise to face the new challenges. He saw the public as Plato did: a great beast or a bewildered herd – floundering in the “chaos of local opinions."

encapsulated here;

# Public opinion is volatile, shifting erratically in response to the most recent developments. Mass beliefs early in the twentieth century were "too pacifist in peace and too bellicose in war, too neutralist or appeasing in negotiations or too intransigent"[7]
# Public opinion is incoherent, lacking an organized or a consistent structure to such an extent that the views of U.S. citizens could best be descried as "nonattitudes"[8]
# Public opinion is irrelevant to the policy-making process. Political leaders ignore public opinion because most Americans can neither "understand nor influence the very events upon which their lives and happiness are known to depend."


A bit twisted if you read into what has come there after, based on his views, but, I give him high marks for honesty.


Walter Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or for the opposing side, Mr. American Century himself, Henry Luce....

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's.

What do you mean by "depended on?" And depended on how strongly? Where's your proof?

The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

Nobody is fooled by the lame 30-year-old attempts to label the media as liberal. We all know that it's got plenty of outlets for all partisan flavors these days. Besides, the media never cared about liberalism - only about making more money by getting bigger audiences.

uh huh.



the attitude was under way, well under way, way back...

say with oh, Walter Lippman?

snip-
To his mind, democratic ideals had deteriorated, voters were largely ignorant about issues and policies, they lacked the competence to participate in public life and cared little for participating in the political process. In Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann noted that the stability the government achieved during the patronage era of the 1800s was threatened by modern realities. He wrote that a “governing class” must rise to face the new challenges. He saw the public as Plato did: a great beast or a bewildered herd – floundering in the “chaos of local opinions."

encapsulated here;

# Public opinion is volatile, shifting erratically in response to the most recent developments. Mass beliefs early in the twentieth century were "too pacifist in peace and too bellicose in war, too neutralist or appeasing in negotiations or too intransigent"[7]
# Public opinion is incoherent, lacking an organized or a consistent structure to such an extent that the views of U.S. citizens could best be descried as "nonattitudes"[8]
# Public opinion is irrelevant to the policy-making process. Political leaders ignore public opinion because most Americans can neither "understand nor influence the very events upon which their lives and happiness are known to depend."


A bit twisted if you read into what has come there after, based on his views, but, I give him high marks for honesty.


Walter Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or for the opposing side, Mr. American Century himself, Henry Luce....

You missed the point.

I'm not claiming that the major media outlets were never biased in their presentations of the news. My remarks had to do only with what's happening TODAY. Biased media of all flavors is now readily available to everyone.

Edit add: Also, when biased stories WERE presented in the media, it had nothing to do with some Lippman-like "greater goal" and everything to do with ratings.

 

[Trajan]

wow, I misread this homily?

Nobody is fooled by the lame 30-year-old attempts to label the media as liberal. We all know that it's got plenty of outlets for all partisan flavors these days. Besides, the media never cared about liberalism - only about making more money by getting bigger audiences.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

wow, I misread this homily?

Nobody is fooled by the lame 30-year-old attempts to label the media as liberal. We all know that it's got plenty of outlets for all partisan flavors these days. Besides, the media never cared about liberalism - only about making more money by getting bigger audiences.

Considering that it has no relationship to Lippmann or Luce, I'd say yes.

 

[MaggieMae]

Again I find people who think that history revolves around them.

I used to have discussions with friends about the liberal bias in the media back before the 1st Gulf War. There was a book written about it in 1980s.

The Media Elite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What does that do to your claim?

Say whaaaaa??? From your Wiki entry:

Problems with the methodology included: a low sample size; poor randomization; the failure to include media owners, managers, or editors in the samples; the inadequate use of proper polling techniques; the use of biased questions; point of view assertions by the studies authors that arbitrarily qualified some things as conservative or liberal; the failure to adequately measure the general public's attitudes; and poor statistical analysis of the results.
...
Concerning political beliefs: 54 per cent of the journalists described their views as left of center, 29 per cent as "middle of the road," and only 17 per cent as right of center. The authors argue that this ratio of more than three liberal journalists for each conservative contrasts sharply with the distribution among the American public: every relevant poll conducted in the decade from 1975 to 1985 found conservatives outnumbering liberals in the electorate, often by a ratio of three to two or more.

So?

You made the claim that no one called the media biased until 2003, I demonstrated that to be completely false. Instead of admitting you are wrong you try to deflect it with complaints about the methodology of the study.

I am not trying to say the book proved the media was biased. It does, however, prove that the accusation has been around for years longer than you claimed.

All I know is I've been reading newspapers and watching network news for over 30 years, and never noticed it except in the opinion pages. And during that time I've been a Republican and a Democrat, depending on how well I thought the parties handled the issues of the day.

 

[MaggieMae]

You ain't got a clue or a place to put one wonkey. Americans have depended on the media for political balance since the Federalists were writing essays in the 1780's. The problem today is that the liberal media has become part of the administration. There are a hundred potential investigative media stories but the investigative reporters are busy playing golf while Washington burns.

The "liberal" label began when MSM began questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, so that would have been mid 2003.

uhm, I seem to remember it starting in on the presidential level with Bush I's "card carrying member of the aclu" schtick...

Never heard that. It seems to me an inaccurate stretch of someone's vivid imagination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Say whaaaaa??? From your Wiki entry:

So?

You made the claim that no one called the media biased until 2003, I demonstrated that to be completely false. Instead of admitting you are wrong you try to deflect it with complaints about the methodology of the study.

I am not trying to say the book proved the media was biased. It does, however, prove that the accusation has been around for years longer than you claimed.

All I know is I've been reading newspapers and watching network news for over 30 years, and never noticed it except in the opinion pages. And during that time I've been a Republican and a Democrat, depending on how well I thought the parties handled the issues of the day.

You should have paid more attention, the issue was around.