Printable View
You're right. He should have. Have the media uniformly given Obama softballs, or is it only the Gibson interview?
I don't think this single example demonstrates a press bias, however, as can be seen by the results of unfiltered airtime given to GOP over DEM.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809130005?f=h_top
As always, Bill Maher gets it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2OUJ8ZUTiI
Favorite quotes: "Why can't we all fall in love with her story!"
"Doesn't anyone in that party understand the concept of pulling out?"
Bill Maher was rude. Always thought he was funny but this time I felt it wasn't as tasteful.
Found this video by accident, thought it was kind of funny.
Click Here.
Yeah, but see, he agrees with kestra in that video so he is above reproach.Quote:
Originally posted by Jarkis
Bill Maher was rude. Always thought he was funny but this time I felt it wasn't as tasteful.
If you showed kestra one of the videos where Maher makes fun of people blaming 9/11 on George Bush (like he did one time on Hardball with Chris Matthews), suddenly kestra might agree Maher is rude.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Stand up comedians who decide they are experts on politics are always questionable. Maher is a smart guy, and a lot of the time he is very insightful. But now and then he gets the comedian thing going and feels like he has to be funny and shocking, and it goes down hill.
Comedians also love the convenient fall back excuse of "hey, I'm just a comedian making jokes" whenever they get proven wrong. See Jon Stewart for a great example of that.
I'm not familiar with that video, so I can't comment on it. I haven't seen every Bill Maher stand up bit, but I tend to like him more than dislike him. Just like in Shakespeare plays, it's the joker, or the fool who is able to see through all the bullshit and cut straight to the heart of the matter.Quote:
If you showed kestra one of the videos where Maher makes fun of people blaming 9/11 on George Bush (like he did one time on Hardball with Chris Matthews), suddenly kestra might agree Maher is rude.
As an aside, I'm also really looking forward to his Religulous movie.
I hope you don't have me in mind, though I'm not really accusing you do. I'm just employing the Bush Doctrine here where you MAY have me in mind, but you MAY not, so I might as well nip it in the bud.Quote:
Dalaena: I've seen that time and again, and we're seeing it now. Palin's lack of experience is somehow a huge limiting factor for her, while Obama's lack of experience means change for the nation. It's pretty silly in general.
In the argument between Ari and company and myself regarding Palin's experience: my accusations of lack of experience had nothing to do with Palin's vagina. I'm telling you this because I respect you, and I would be hurt if you thought such a deplorable thing about me. Though that is not to say that your thought is deplorable, but the implication of the thought, which may in-fact be true, is deplorable. But my mind simply doesn't work that way.
Wtf is a tanty?Quote:
Malacasta: Gak, sorry, baby had a tanty in the middle of that.
Hmmmmmmmmmm! It seems we've forgotten context once again (not that you repeatedly forget context, Blog, but alot of people sure do.) Obama's interview with Charlie Gibson occured 2 months ago. This was before Obama was even the official Democratic nominee (though presumptive) Whereas Sarah Palin's interview occured a few days ago - as we're less than 2 months away from election day. Now, call me silly (I won't take offense!) but when we're this close to election day, there's a lot less time to pander about glass-ceilings and such, and a greater need to get to the 'brass tacks' in this mutha. I know time is a pesky thing, but it sure is important.Quote:
Blog: You misunderstand, I think the questions asked of Palin are fair (except the one where she was apparently misquoted), but Obama should have gotten similar types of questions, and I have not heard or come up with a good argument why he didn't.
Other factors to consider: Palin has been insulated from the media and Palin hasn't really talked about any issues other than Energy - which has been mostly about drilling for oil in Alaska. Unless you consider her immature snickering about Obama's service as a community organizer to be a platform issue. I do not.
There you go, have a good argument, it's on me. No really, I insist.
In agreement. I may not agree with you that the "liberal media" was the causation for the ultra-conservative force that is Fox News: but I do believe the last 10 years of the extreme sensationalism in our media, on both the left and right, has done our country some irreparable harm. I would love to see it change.Quote:
Aristotle: The self labeled "Fourth Branch of Government" has died on the tree and needs to be pruned.
It's also sad to watch real truth be obfuscated by extreme bias or sensationalism. The whole thing is cheapened, and the "fourth branch" leaves us to suffer as a result.
I think our country is struggling to understand the importance of heart. *Sigh*
I have to admit that media on both sides of the fence seemed to have gone retarded, and objectivity seems to be a quaint notion these days. I personally suspect it occurred after the once war cheer leading media suffered a 'mea culpa' after it was obvious WMDs weren't going to be found in Iraq. Seems now they're going in the complete opposite direction in order to save their hides or something.Quote:
It's also sad to watch real truth be obfuscated by extreme bias or sensationalism. The whole thing is cheapened, and the "fourth branch" leaves us to suffer as a result.
Well. The media isn't entirely to blame. They found something that sells, and they sold the crap out of it. The problem comes when editorial news shows are taken more litterally than they ever should be. And, actually, a bigger problem comes when people think that they can start treating others the way some of the 'anchors' or 'journalists' in these shows do.
I've seen the worst of it. I've been denegrated, insulted, harrassed and even assaulted by expressing my disdain for people like Bill O'Reilly. I'll admit that I generally bitch more about the right-wing spin artists, but as far as I've noticed: they've been far more aggressive and offensive. But I've never implied that the left-wing spin artists are somehow less responsible or less damaging.
In a very recent conversation with a FRIEND of all people, I expressed my disdain for Bill, and my FRIEND of all people, immediately launched into the same script I always hear, which is probably part of the O'Reilly doctrine, where I'm inventing a reality I want to believe because I'm some communist, liberal cock sucker (not verbatim). I'm not even going to bother explaining how I'm neither a communist nor a cocksucker and barely qualify as a liberal because I shouldn't have to do that more than twice an election cycle.
My point is: this shit is infiltrating our homes and altering our attitudes. As I mentioned in my previous post: truth is being lost along the way. This is very bad. But I can't blame the media entirely, they did what business does: find a market, and fucking sell it. Well done. The problem is that people buy it, and they're tools for doing so.
As a result, politics is no longer something that neighbors debate over a spot of tea - it's something they leave flaming bags of poo on eachother's doorstep for. And again, truth is cheapened or lost along the way.
People become that way because they don't hold themselves accountable for the state of the country, but rather the officials they elected. It becomes the In-Thing to make politicians into more than they should be. The 24 hour news networks went the way of the 24 hour Music Television (MTV). Commercialization of politics is what's pushing the election process. Malacasta thinks I'm being sexist in my McCain/Milf posts. I am. Not because I've decided it's funny. It's because, and let's face it, Sarah Palin was chosen above any and all other competition because -THIS- election was going to be the one where either a black man or a woman was going to be elected. To have a chance the Republicans had to have their own Non-old white guy. So they chose a woman. An incredibly attractive woman at that. Unlike Hillary she's actually pleasant to look at. She's palatable. She was chosen BECAUSE as a female politician, her very appearance doesn't turn people away. Obama's wife was an attractive woman and that caught a lot of people's eye. The republicans one-upped that and made the potential VP Stacie's Mom.
Is it sexist? Yes. Is it marketability in the political realm? Damn straight it is. I have no real idea about her ability to be a VP. In the end those kinds of things CAN NOT be known beforehand. As Ari has posted, often times experience means you're already bought.
The sheer size of our government lends to this trend. To be noticed you have to be a superstar.
Yeah. I agree that selecting Palin was pandering, and McCain's awful history just makes the GOP's howls of outrage every time they sniff sexism even more unpalatable.Quote:
Originally posted by Gromgor
Malacasta thinks I'm being sexist in my McCain/Milf posts. I am. Not because I've decided it's funny. It's because, and let's face it, Sarah Palin was chosen above any and all other competition because -THIS- election was going to be the one where either a black man or a woman was going to be elected. To have a chance the Republicans had to have their own Non-old white guy. So they chose a woman. An incredibly attractive woman at that.
HOWEVER, that doesn't absolve sexist attacks against Palin, whether they come from the left OR the right.