Truthiness

[CrimsonWhite]

Personally, I think Colbert is hilarious. Anyone who actually took him seriously, needs to be slapped. I watched this thing on C-SPAN and didn't care that I was the only one laughing. They are jokes, nothing more.

 

[Annie]

"The Persian Version"?

Spin is as old as history - Baghdad Bob and Fox News - and for that matter Media Matters - are only recent phenomena.

You and Jillian have your own agendas, go for it. Note that many here are able to cross from 'conservative' sites to MSM to The Nation. Not seeing so much of that from y'all.

Can't speak for Bob, but I know that FOX never tried to hide the Murdoch connection. Can Media Matters say the same regarding Soros? Never mind, I know the answer.

 

[Diuretic]

You and Jillian have your own agendas, go for it. Note that many here are able to cross from 'conservative' sites to MSM to The Nation. Not seeing so much of that from y'all.

Can't speak for Bob, but I know that FOX never tried to hide the Murdoch connection. Can Media Matters say the same regarding Soros? Never mind, I know the answer.

I can't help you with Media Mattters but I'll dig around. As far as Fox goes well it's pedigree, if I can use that word, is obvious. Murdoch - the Dirty Digger as the Brits used to call him - has never covered his tracks, never had to, doesn't particulary care because he isn't so much driven by ideology as he is by the need to make money. Gaining political influence for Murdoch is only a means to an end, not an end of itself.

As for "crossing" sites - I'm not one to attack personally unless I get attacked first, then it's gloves off. I certainly don't see the point of bouncing someone simply because they express a different point of view to mine - whether it be face to face in the pub or in a forums. Anonymity is the refuge of a coward. None of us should be subjected to that sort of bullshit.

 

[Annie]

I can't help you with Media Mattters but I'll dig around. As far as Fox goes well it's pedigree, if I can use that word, is obvious. Murdoch - the Dirty Digger as the Brits used to call him - has never covered his tracks, never had to, doesn't particulary care because he isn't so much driven by ideology as he is by the need to make money. Gaining political influence for Murdoch is only a means to an end, not an end of itself.

As for "crossing" sites - I'm not one to attack personally unless I get attacked first, then it's gloves off. I certainly don't see the point of bouncing someone simply because they express a different point of view to mine - whether it be face to face in the pub or in a forums. Anonymity is the refuge of a coward. None of us should be subjected to that sort of bullshit.

Crossing what lines? I'm not sure where this all is coming from, but BOT the Media Matters thing I've been following from the inception.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think Colbert was out of touch at all. I think he was dead on. Might be that the rest of the media are out of touch because they're busy making kissy-face with the pres?

:blah2:

Puh-lease. The media making kissy-face with the Prez? Last time that took place was 92-2000. The MSM has been anything BUT friendly with Bush, and YOU know it.

 

[Gunny]

Apparently the Pope is still a Catholic and bears still don't use toilet paper . Interesting point about the mood of the Press Corps and one that would make a very interesting thread from which I suspect I could learn much.

I'm wondering though about your linkage of the MSM and the DNC. The DNC are in trouble for reasons of their own making. They failed to act as a loyal opposition and now even their traditional supporters are looking askance at them. The MSM - forgive me but I don't subscribe to the notion of a "liberal media" in the States, even the MSM is far too diverse to be labelled in that way. Having said that as a personal view the so-called Indy/Indie media doesn't impress me one iota. Opinion dressed up as fact, no thanks, I still believe that mainstream journalism, when it isn't cowering behind the sofa, can deliver.

As for the apparent ratings success of Fox, as has been attributed to H.L.Menken "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Anyone recommending STFU, I'm not American, I don't pay taxes, save it, it's been done before. By all means address my points and that way we can both learn.

Try some Basic Journalism 101. The media is inherently liberal. They'd have Top Secret and COSMIC classified information on page one if they could.

And of course it's the First Amendment that would allow them to do so, regardless the harm to the Nation, just so long as they got their sensationalism and/or the "hot scoop" first.

'bout as liberal as it gets.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I watched that live on C-Span. The lack of laughter during Colbert's routine was amazing.

Where does it say the president was ticked?

I watched it too, and there were alot of people squirming in their chairs, not because Colbert wasn't funny, but rather because he dragged forth unpleasant truths which they would rather not hear and held them up for all to see.

As for Dubbyuh's anger, you only needed to watch the ripple of his jaw muscles every time he gritted his teeth. He was pissed.

 

[Diuretic]

Crossing what lines? I'm not sure where this all is coming from, but BOT the Media Matters thing I've been following from the inception.

No worries - I will do some digging around just to satisfy my own curiousity.

 

[Annie]

I watched it too, and there were alot of people squirming in their chairs, not because Colbert wasn't funny, but rather because he dragged forth unpleasant truths which they would rather not hear and held them up for all to see.

As for Dubbyuh's anger, you only needed to watch the ripple of his jaw muscles every time he gritted his teeth. He was pissed.

Actually, I think it had more to do with 'common courtesy'. This event is supposed to skewer the President and the Press. The 'twin deal' did that. The Colbert thing would have been appropriate in another venue, but not in that time and place.

 

[Gunny]

I watched it too, and there were alot of people squirming in their chairs, not because Colbert wasn't funny, but rather because he dragged forth unpleasant truths which they would rather not hear and held them up for all to see.

As for Dubbyuh's anger, you only needed to watch the ripple of his jaw muscles every time he gritted his teeth. He was pissed.

Perhaps, as suggested, it wasn't the proper forum? Whatever happened to having a sense of decorum with you lefties? It's all about the shock value anymore.

Be that as it may, I disagree with your assessment. There's a difference between unpleasant truth and B-O-R-I-N-G. I found the latter to fit far better than the former.

 

[Diuretic]

Try some Basic Journalism 101. The media is inherently liberal. They'd have Top Secret and COSMIC classified information on page one if they could.

And of course it's the First Amendment that would allow them to do so, regardless the harm to the Nation, just so long as they got their sensationalism and/or the "hot scoop" first.

'bout as liberal as it gets.

Don't faint - I agree with some of your points. Not with the "liberal" bit but with the tendency of any media organisation to put its interests above anything else. You're right, the First Amendment completely screws the chance of your government to issue notices that the UK govt does and that my govt does when it comes to suppression of information. I don't know if that's a good thing. I think on balance you are luckier and I mean "you". You have a guaranteed restriction on your government's right to muzzle free speech, I live in a country where there is only an "implied" right to free speech. I prefer your situation frankly.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Perhaps, as suggested, it wasn't the proper forum? Whatever happened to having a sense of decorum with you lefties? It's all about the shock value anymore.

Be that as it may, I disagree with your assessment. There's a difference between unpleasant truth and B-O-R-I-N-G. I found the latter to fit far better than the former.

Come on, that's not a fair assesment. This was the perfect forum for Colbert's satire. It was funny as hell. This was the same forum that President Bush used to joke about not finding WMD's. I haven't met a single GI that enjoyed that joke, but jokes are jokes and life goes on.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Be that as it may, I disagree with your assessment. There's a difference between unpleasant truth and B-O-R-I-N-G. I found the latter to fit far better than the former.

Then you weren't really paying attention.

 

[dmp]

I enjoyed it pretty funny..witty...

Jillian - you take stuff too seriously.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I enjoyed it pretty funny..witty...

Jillian - you take stuff too seriously.

I don't think it's just Jillian...

 

[Dr Grump]

Bully and OTF nailed it. I also think the lack of laughing was due to being embarrassed for Bush and how it all was hitting home...I laughed out aloud...

 

[musicman]

I'm wondering though about your linkage of the MSM and the DNC. The DNC are in trouble for reasons of their own making. They failed to act as a loyal opposition and now even their traditional supporters are looking askance at them. The MSM - forgive me but I don't subscribe to the notion of a "liberal media" in the States, even the MSM is far too diverse to be labelled in that way.

That's fair enough, Diuretic. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, judging by these and other comments in your post, I would venture to guess that you are a student of only the quite recent history of American media. It wasn't so long ago that all of television news - and a hefty chunk of print media, as well - were dominated by an exclusively liberal mindset (radio wasn't much of a factor, and the Internet - of course - did not yet exist).

The result was not pretty. As a wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - and it certainly held true in this case. Arrogance ruled the day. The once-honorable profession of journalism was reduced to agenda-driven whoredom. You could always tell when a reporter was lying; his lips were moving. And, it was always the same message: "Republicans bad - Democrats good".

Of course, there will always be the lazy, the gullible, and the apathetic - for whom such a scenario suffices. But, much of America rejoiced when competition from talk radio, the blogosphere, and Fox smashed the mainstream monopoly on the dissemination of information - bringing competition and accountability, and afflicting the comfortable elite to whom we now refer as the MSM/DNC. They continue on, of course - oblivious to the changing world around them. But, they are dinosaurs.

I believe that journalism, discourse, and the American people are the winners here.

As for the apparent ratings success of Fox, as has been attributed to H.L.Menken "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

An entirely subjective assessment - but one to which you are nonetheless entitled.

Anyone recommending STFU, I'm not American, I don't pay taxes, save it, it's been done before.

You'll never hear anything like that from me. A belated welcome to the board!

 

[musicman]

Diuretic:

Point of order: I believe Mencken's quote addressed the taste of the American public - not our intelligence. That Bill Clinton was elected - twice - is a searing enough indictment of the latter, Lord knows.

 

[Dr Grump]

As for the apparent ratings success of Fox.

Compared to other channels, they hardly rate at all. Neither do CNN....

 

[Diuretic]

That's fair enough, Diuretic. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, judging by these and other comments in your post, I would venture to guess that you are a student of only the quite recent history of American media. It wasn't so long ago that all of television news - and a hefty chunk of print media, as well - were dominated by an exclusively liberal mindset (radio wasn't much of a factor, and the Internet - of course - did not yet exist).

The result was not pretty. As a wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - and it certainly held true in this case. Arrogance ruled the day. The once-honorable profession of journalism was reduced to agenda-driven whoredom. You could always tell when a reporter was lying; his lips were moving. And, it was always the same message: "Republicans bad - Democrats good".

Of course, there will always be the lazy, the gullible, and the apathetic - for whom such a scenario suffices. But, much of America rejoiced when competition from talk radio, the blogosphere, and Fox smashed the mainstream monopoly on the dissemination of information - bringing competition and accountability, and afflicting the comfortable elite to whom we now refer as the MSM/DNC. They continue on, of course - oblivious to the changing world around them. But, they are dinosaurs.

I believe that journalism, discourse, and the American people are the winners here.



An entirely subjective assessment - but one to which you are nonetheless entitled.



You'll never hear anything like that from me. A belated welcome to the board!

Thanks musicman - and thanks for your instructive comments. Yes, you are quite right, a very late student of American media (but I did see Citizen Kane many years ago and that was instructive) - it certainly has changed in the twenty-something years since I first visited the States. Points taken.