Hyperbole doesn’t help your cause, pantom.
It is what it is.
There is no skepticism at all in their approach to the Administration. I don’t catch their news programs too often, but I’m always shocked when I do because the propaganda is so utterly blatant.
They’re a house organ of the state, and will be until a Democrat is elected to the White House, at which time I expect they’ll revert to being a house organ of the RNC.
Neither of these fit the description of a news organization.
Being old enough, I just want to agree with several others here: The 1960s were much stranger than today. No decade in our history ended (1974) so completely differently than it began (1963). The landscape was completely changed.
As a matter of fact, the 1970s were also very strange, when everthing felt completely rudderless.
Ah, but if those networks are also toeing the Administration line, then the matter gets more complicated, doesn’t it? Just look at the coverage of the Iraq war back in March for examples – compare how many times the major American networks breathlessly reported every half-baked rumor of WMD discoveries and mobile chemical labs, with how many times they reported retractions and corrections once those “discoveries” turned out to be false.
(Hell, just go back to Bush’s press conference from two days ago, where he repeatedly equated Saddam Hussein asa terrorist threat to the US – and none of the reporters present called him on it…)
I asked my dad the OP’s question. He recounted being ordered (as a teenager) to don his Nat’l Guard uniform, hoist his rifle, and guard Little Rock’s Central High School against the threat of… (scary music here), Negroes. He was actually told to keep them out of the school (this was in 1957).
Is this one of the “stranger” periods in history? He sez not even close.
pullin
On a wider scale, I think you could argue what’s strange about this peroid is you have a single dominant power. Culturally, Economically, Militarily, The US is most powerful entity we’ve ever seen on this planet. There is no one even remotely close.
Sure it’s been that way for a while but these things take a while to sink in. Certainly I think it’s a lot more obvious now than it was under Clinton.
Being the absolute top dog with no real competitors, but some real nasty enemies and the rest of the worlds attention on you all the time must be pretty tough. I imagine coming to terms with that as a nation might lead to a pretty strange atmosphere.
As strange as previous eras? Maybe not, but strange nonetheless.
That doesn’t mean they’re toeing the Administration line – it only means that they’re sensationalistic. “We found weapons of mass destruction!” is gonna grab your attention a lot more than “Oops, we didn’t find weapons of mass destruction.”
These are the same news agencies that gleefully reported that “Cell phones cause cancer!” while hardly ever reporting the follow-up “Oops, it looks like cell phones probably don’t cause cancer.” They’re just doing the same thing with the WMD discoveries.
The Nixon years were ended by an unsuccessful attempt to use the federal govenment to nulify an upcoming election.
The G.W.Bush years started because of a successful nulification of an election.
That’s true to a degree, though IMO there’s still a lot of instances where the press simply parrots whatever they’re given by the Powers That Be, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy thereof. Again, check the transcript of Bush’s “We caught Saddam” press conference, where he continued to equate Iraq and al Qaeda, even though it’s long been established that there is no such link.
I wouldn’t call the nullification of a re-recount in a close election the same thing as a nullification of the election itself.
As I recall, there were similar shenanigans surrounding the 1960 Presidential election between JFK and Nixon.
34-year-old chiming in here.
Definitely the strangest period in my life–I own a house, have a wife and a 20-month-old son, a kickback job (in Silicon Valley, no less), and I still don’t feel like I should be happy.
Why wouldn’t we all feel . . . dissociated? Alienated? Disoriented? In the last five years we’ve lived through a stunning period of prosperity, an information explosion, an economic collapse, the worst attack on our country in its history, Britney Spears, and a war which we started.
I mean, come on, people. We’re at war. We’re still mourning September 11–does anyone honestly think Iraq will get us past that, will be our V-J Day? Is there anything that will?
I’m going to fall asleep in front of the TV with my baby son on my chest. Wake me up when this nightmare is over.
No one, especially not the president, ever said it will.
I did check the transcript. This is President Bush’s only mention of al Qaeda:
Another hallmark of the times is that people are really, really touchy about lots of things.
(In other words, Walloon, did I even mention the president?)
As I recall, the shenanigans surrounding the 1960 election, pulled by Kennedy in Illinois and Johnson in Texas, were much more blatant than refusing to allow a recount of a recount. Money changed hands and ballot boxes disappeared in 1960.
Was that the whole thing with Sam Giancana in Chicago? I remember hearing that the father of Gore’s lawyer in the recount days was part of that scam too.
Well, if Kennedy cheated, then I think we have the poster-boy for “cheaters never prosper.”
Forgot about Britney Spears, but you know, she was preceded by Cher and Madonna. Tough competition, in my book.
By RexDart: “Was that the whole thing with Sam Giancana in Chicago?”
That would be correct.
This brings to mind a joke of the times:
JFK and LBJ are going through a South Texas graveyard at night. JFK is holding a flashlight, and Johnson is writing down the names to stuff ballot boxes with.
Johnson pauses at an old grave marker and starts rubbing moss off, in order to read the name:
JFK: “C’mon, Lyndon, that guy’s been dead for 40 years.”
Johnson: “By God, I believe in equal rights and I’m gonna see that this guy gets to exercize his right to vote, just like everybody else in here!”
Yeah, but neither of those two ever kissed Madonna.
Err–wait . . .
Actually, I can bring up a serious complaint about Ms Spears: She’s a horrible, horrible singer. Even by the relaxed standards of pop divadom, she carries a tune like my grandma carries a piano.
I know, I know, don’t take this seriously, it’s just pop music, and bubblegum pop at that. There’s a long and inglorious history of music stars who got by solely on their looks. I understand that. And she’ll go away soon, just like her restaurant “Nyla”.
But she’s here. And she is so screechingly bad, it’s as if the powers that be aren’t even bothering to hide their contempt for the music-buying public, which is eager to lap up the drivel spoonfed to them while ignoring the sounds of laughter directed at them.
That’s kind of a theme here, that rjung touched on: that the public has lost all sense of skepticism. That the art of discernment, of evaluation, has become lost. That it’s just easier to take the path of least resistance because the messages, the media, the sheer volume of all things broadcast at us has become so overwhelming that critical thinking requires too much energy. That we can do no better than to lie in our Big Mac-induced torpor and meekly accept it all, as if we were drinking from a firehose without stopping to say, “This water tastes like SHIT, and I shall close my mouth at this time.”
We’ve had strange times before, caused by transient political conditions (Viet Nam, Watergate, the Cold War). I submit that these times are different; they’ve been caused by a permanent change in our society–the overabundance of information, if you will. I, for one, am struggling to get my bearings. I’d say that I should turn off the TV, and the computer, but as fate has it I’m the computer administrator for a retail TV chain. O, the irony.
That’s one hell of a rant there to spring from Britney Spears . . . yeah, I think I should go home now.