The political gripe thread--from Strange Days

I dont see what's hard to understand. I would think the reference to watergate/nixon and the WaPo role* there would give you a hint.
I'm indicting the Post for what they didn't DO - for example- when the President began his long campaign on the ACA. And that they are strangely blind to his being in campaign mode ever since he assumed the presidency. Their late awarding of Pinocchios is a laugh, given previous pages full of excuses in WaPo. They made excuses until they were forced to admit it was just that.. Campaign sloganeering.
NOTHING that's happening now is a surprise to me. We elected him, but please don't go all "I didnt know.." when the facts come out.
Lots of people knew and pointed it out.**
Starting with Pelosi saying: "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Lots of laws passed are like that. But for a political leader to SAY that points out a real attitude problem.

* While you're at it, explain the marginalization of Bob Woodward when he now points out some 'Inconvenient Truths'. Stupid old Bob... he's gotten senile - or racist- if he says something Limbaugh might quote.
** And lots of us 'right wing haters' know that Senator Obama told the SEIU in 2004 that he was for 'Single Payer Health Care' but it couldn't happen all at once and implied it would happen in the mid-teens decade. What's your over/under on that, now?

Interesting how 'shit happens' and you dont really need a conspiracy, just some 'rules', huh?
It is what it IS... own it!
heh.

 

Ahhh, now I understand.

 

Reward us with a funny. It's old but timeless... nc-17 rated.
"Daddy , what is 'Politics'?"

 

Really!!

Nothing about sins of Omission v Commission? Nothing about the 'Fourth Estate' being the protector of a free society?

I can understand youngers seeing no difference {after all, even Wikipedia must think the term is quaint, they have no separate entry for it} but we grew up in an age where that was addressed in 'Civics' class in HS.
Goes with the 5 story facets of reporting: Who What Where, when, why. And sometimes how. Now NEWS USUALLY only includes the first four. If facts offend the writer's sense of propriety, the offensive part is relegated to the last paragraph.

Back before Journo was an offshoot of PoliSci, where hopeful reporters state they take J school 'to make a difference', the quaint custom was that reporters operated as 'investigtive muckrakers', not particularly caring whose ox was gored as long as they 'got the scoop' more better faster .. and usually.. most credibly.
If a reporter knew of some scandal and didnt at least try to report on it, they actually might have got fired.

In turn the old men founders like Jefferson and Franklin pointed out that a Free Press was essential to a free society. Not exactly a new concept.
The implication being that the masses relied on their press' free thought and abhorrence of corruption to help protect them from governmental tyranny

Here's a good 'Progressive site's' take on Free Press:

And kos isnt just blowing smoke, Markos joined with numerous conservative bloggers in resisting restrictions on internet speech under the guise of 'Internet Freedom'.
Quite a different concept from Journolist where reporters got to use collaboration in getting across their political points.

Of course that's a little dated cause it was a lot of work and shit. Why not cut to the chase and just get your talking points from MMFA or TPM!

Fair enough...but even then, it causes delays in the news cycle. And sometimes gets embarrassing if you're not on the same page.

Good example would have been Alec Baldwin's loose cannon insensitivity, toward the gay life. If his show only had any ratings. He shouldn't have been fired at all but it was an easy out on account of that.

Back to the subject, employing one wobbly conservative {Jen Rubin} in a mainstream paper, like WaPo, is not enough. People will NOT trust you.


As Glenn Reynolds wrote on the difference between news media and new media in 2004:

So now... when inconvenient truths are hyped on the net and you find nothing about it in your favorite media, you sorta get the idea that someone's covering something up. And you really dont trust them

 

Yeah.. that was great.

Never mind it was all about nothing. Great thing about the net. There are sites which digest and provide links to articles of interest.

And never addressing my core point, which was the role of the press. Which press now will continue to be more and more critical of people and issues they should have been looking at closely all along but did not.

 

heh....