First of all, you have no idea how many people voted for Bush simply because the found him likeable, either in 2000 or 2004. Secondly, even if everyone who voted for him did so due to likeability, and everyone who disaproves of him now would not vote for him again, that still doesn’t add up to “most”. Are you ready to admit that you were wrong now?
There’s nothing wrong with considering electability when voting in a primary. You just have to know what characteristics add up to “electability”, and libeability does seem to be one of those characteristics. We needn’t react as if it were the most important characteristic, but ignore it at your peril (as the Dems who voted for Kerry in the primary did in 2004). I never quite understood why the Dems dropped Dean like a used paper towel right around the Iowa caucus. Even though I thought he got the raw end of the deal about “the scream” from the press, it was pretty clear that he was already on the outs before that.
So are you denying my very straightforward account and calling me a liar, or are you saying that they weren’t manufacturing news? You weren’t very clear about that, you just called me a conspiracy theorist and used the word “cute” to make my ideas seem childish. The last time I checked, that was the ad-hominem fallacy and not a valid line of argument. Surely they taught you that in journalism school!
Your naiveté would be cute if it wasn’t so dangerous. Perhaps you cannot see the forest for the trees. Asking a journalist about his ethics is like asking a fox about who ought to be minding the henhouse. I’ll mind my hens without the aid of journalists, thanks.
Maybe I am walking the line here, but the word “useful idiot” comes to mind when I think of many journalists. Ever see the multi-million dollar Los Angeles “journalist” Paul Moyer during serious breaking news, working with no teleprompter? It’s almost embarrassing to watch him flounder, his co-anchors having to correct him constantly. It’s the reason I turn to channel 4 when the shit hits the fan! Pure entertainment. What is their slogan? “The team you trust”? Yah. As far as I can throw the newsvan.
As far as the incident I mentioned, I was already pretty cynical, and knew that a lot of this stuff went on, but that was the nail in the coffin. If they were being truthful, they would have said, “A bunch of people made protest signs today, we met them in front of the closest hotel, and they waved them in front of our cameras in protest for about 20 seconds, just long enough for the video we needed to show you. I guess you couldn’t call it a real protest, but they sure do love that Grey Davis, yes sireee bob! In other news…”
Until the day that happens, journalistic ethics my ass.
And actually, Marley, I think there were a couple of other fallacies in your very short post. You will forgive me if I don’t have all the latin, but you were arguing based on your own expertise instead of facts, argument based on opinion of a group instead of fact (an argument you didn’t support, so it was more of an assertion), so you had a “fallacy density” that is in the best journalistic tradition. You have done your trade proud.
Do you think I’m dumb enough to take the untenable position that everybody in the news business is honorable and ethical? I know there are liars and fakers, and people who are in it just for the personal glory. I’m saying that your views - ‘the media does everything in its power to promote an agenda’ and ‘takes its marching orders’ from Democratic leaders (or whoever) - are completely out of line with reality. By and large, there is no “the media.” Are there common interests and tendencies? Yes. And many of them are bad. But most news outlets are competing with each other. I hate when they act as if they’re one group, but you’ve definitely got an inaccurate and conspiracist viewpoint.
I can’t remember if they did or not; I learned my debate terms from the SDMB. Journalism school focused more on reporting than on debate terms, seeing as how reporters do not typically end up in debates.
Says the Republican who keeps telling the Democrats what to do. In any case, you have yet to ask a journalist about his ethics in this thread.
Oh, spare me the fallacy crap. What facts did you offer? “One time I saw a thing that I think was unethical?” You’ve made a bunch of comments that are not only fallacious, but ridiculous - and your defense was this one incident. That’s a fallacy on its own, actually, and what you’re saying is so laughable that it doesn’t deserve more thorough argument.
This Republican is telling Democrats what to do because he is pretty fed up with what the Republicans are doing these days and sees no viable alternative on the other side. It’s always crooks, nuts or fools on both sides, and sometimes a combination. God help us all.
Good journalism happens. I read the LA Times, much maligned by conservatives for having a liberal bias and injecting it into news content. They have in fact done this, and egregiously on occasion, but the paper is still worth reading. When they pull shenanigans they have even been known to print letters calling them on it.
I didn’t base my judgment of the big three TV outlets and certain major newspapers on this one incident. I didn’t even base it on a lifetime of watching and reading this junk, although I can provide examples: I remember when the Democrats lost big in congress and Dan Rather was stammering in obvious distress “What went wrong?” I was sitting there watching it. I could scarcely believe it. Then there was the incident that ended his and several other people’s careers that we all know about and needn’t rehash. This wasn’t some rouge news crew. This was Dan freakin’ Rather, EDITOR of the broadcast, successor to Walter Cronkite, who since his idolized tenure has stated that we need a one world government under socialism. He has called it the “only solution” to the strife of mankind.
No, I believe this because a friend was a campaign manager for a successful mayoral candidate in a major city (not to be too specific so I will say over two million in population in the United States, and he explained and showed me how they worked with the media to disseminate their political message. When James Carville needs to get out a message, he calls CBS. When Tony Snow needs to get out his message, he rings up his buddies at FOX. Do grow up.
Therefore, I don’t believe in the mythical “objective journalist”. All political journalism, from the left to the right is a form of propaganda that contains some truth and many lies and it is up to you to expose yourself to the widest variety and attempt to sort it out. Most people don’t bother, and that is why it is so effective. The LA Times is more notable sometimes for the stories they ignore than the ones they print.
And that’s the way it is, and has been for some time. “Goodnight, Chet”, or, again, in the words of the immortal David Brinkley, “What a load of crap!”
Carville and Snow, who both have or had gigs on major broadcast outlets, have contacts within the media? Say it ain’t so. The relationship between broadcast outlets and political commentators is pretty gross in general. Person X can be a commentator or alleged journalist while outright spinning, if not literally working, for a particular candidate. I have no idea what public interest station managers think it serves - if they’re lucky, it just fills airtime. And I guess the yelling is supposed to keep viewers from being bored.
Nor does any working journalist, although too many purported journalists are dispensing with the idea entirely. Sorry you haven’t debunked anything.
The point is, the goal of objective reporting was never an achievable one, and I wouldn’t call a journalist that dispensed with the fiction “purported”, I would call them honest. And this is so far off OP.
More to OP is that for the umpteenth time, I am sick that the focus is always exclusively on the handicapping and the damn polls at this stage, not the issues that are vital to our nation. Not one potential candidate has proffered a platform to debate, nor will they until the nomination is a lock.
Instead, as they always do, they will speak in vague terms about mom and apple pie and abortion and those durn video games and whatever else that is of no importance and that they think they can make an issue out of, that they think can raise an emotion for them or against their potential opponent in the slack jawed voter, all provided it is an issue they can easily abandon, and isn’t meaningful anyway. Both parties use crap like abortion and gay marriage and all the rest like this. This is called “lip service”.
Then when the nominations are done, the same old dubious proposals will be trotted out as platform, and the campaigns will roll in the mud in a race to the bottom, and we will hate them both and hold our nose once again, and they will retain the reins of power once again. Journalists of all stripes make it all too easy. It is not a watchdog media, it is a lap dog media. Lap it up folks.
Hey SDMB’r’s, howzabout we get some position papers and see a few debates from these yahoos before we line up? Thanks. The election is still TWO YEARS AWAY.
HW why do you consider Gore “insane”? Heck, once he came out of his post election funk he’s actually been quite likable.
But his time is past. He would have been a heck of a lot better than what we have, but he needs to move on. I don’t think he has the fire for another run anyway.
RTF HRC is not really after the same chunk as Obama. Although it is unclear on any particular day what chunk she is going for. To many liberals she is a neocon. To others an opportunist. To most she is without a message that they can believe. HRC is getting early survey leads because people know that name and many operatives feel that they owe her. Obama isn’t after the operative chunk, he would be after those who want someone they can identify with and who has a positive vision to articulate and the smarts to think on the fly. If he runs he’ll eat her alive. BTW, before Keyes there was Ryan. Sure, his campaign went down in viscous galumph over the Jeri Ryan sex club bit, but before that Ryan had played hard. Obama stood up well. There won’t be much to Swiftboat Obama on. Oh, he built a fence on adjoining property with someone who later turned out to be a crooked lobbiest. There’s that.
The problem with Kerry (and for that matter Gore) was simply that they were unable to articulate an inspiring vision. That left the space wide open for their image to be defined by others. Bush had a vision to articulate and given no other vision being placed up for sale a sizable chunk of America bought it.
And oh yes Edwards… one of the few Dem potentials that would make me vote for McCain or Guilianni. Yuck.
HW, what wait for position papers? What fun would that be?
Is their any chance of all of you conceding that a sane person could look at all the evidence gathered thus far on global warming and decide that it might be the most important thing they could do with their lives?
I understand you might not believe global warming is being driven by human endeavors but as most scientist do, maybe Gore is not insane. Can you possibly concede this?
We (Dopers) debate those vital issues in other threads all the time, Happy. Nothing wrong with having handicapping threads as well. As for the pols, you have to make allowances. They play the game to win – two years is forever in politics and what sells now might not sell in 2008. But if you really want a candidate who says clearly just what he stands for even at this early stage – sign on with Kucinich. (“Be careful what you wish for . . .”)
HW Hrumpf. First of all he didn’t dedicate himself to the cause of global warming until after the election yet you claim that is the reason you didn’t vote for him and instead “held your nose.” Secondly is, as noted, that dedication to a cause, even if you believe the dedication is for a cause unworthy, is hardly insanity. Or if it is then the world owes much to the insane. Disappointing. But I asked.
As to positions, yes Obama has taken some and they can be found, but then he is aware as anyone else that we do not vote based on position papers. We vote on whether or not we believe this candidate can lead us to where we believe we want to go.
I agree that he’d never win, but only because too many voters dislike liberals. I don’t know where you get that he doesn’t project strength. I have never heard a candidate speak with more courage in his convictions than Kucinich. Unless by “strength” you mean “saber rattling”, I don’t see that as something he lacks at all. I don’t consider saber rattling to be a sign of strength; quite the opposite, in fact.
Life is cruel, and he got dealt some bad genes. He looks like the kid who got beat up on the playground all the time. Now, it’s possible to overcome that handicap, but he hasn’t done anything that I can see towards that end.