posted
CNN is calling Biden a confirmed choice for VP citing two deeply entrenched Democratic (but unnamed) sources. Looks like Biden is it.
quote:As far as birth and choice go, I have to say - though I understand it is the law of the land - that I am mystified by the right to abort as an inalienable right we were endowed with by our creator, and that we must steer well clear around it. Of course, someone will point out that the creator is never mentioned in the constitution, but that is the declaration of independence. Whatever.
Part of why I almost never take abortion into account when I vote is that, while my own feelings on the subject are fixed, I have a hard time forcing those feelings on other people. I don't like abortion; I think using abortion as a means of birth control is a wretched practice that destoys life as a result of irresponsible decisions. I have no problem however with birth control methods, or with abortion if the life of the mother is in question. So while I don't like it, in a specific set of circumstances, I have a hard time saying that my point of view should be the law of the land. So I would rarely if ever vote for a candidate based on their position, but, I would take into consideration their REASONING for their positions or changes in positions when making my choice.
I doubt I'll ever get elected with a position like that. I'd probably piss EVERYONE off.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, Biden's wiki article says he has supported federalizing Iraq, which is something I proposed a couple of years ago. By proposed, I mean I posted about it on Ornery and then consulted my atlas of the middle east and realized Iraq doesn't break into 3 states so easily. But maybe it could work as 10 or something.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Don't get me wrong, before Great Britain played Cartographer over there, Iraq WAS three different countries, but it'd never work like that now. Most of the oil is in the north and south, and all the Sunnis in the middle would cry bloody murder and blow the crap out of their neighbors if that happened. The only other thing that'd make sense to me would be to try and merge southern Iraq with Kuwait, as it used to be before Iraq was formed, give Saudi Arabia the middle of Iraq, and let the north form a free Kurdistan. That let's the middle and bottom into countries with established governments, let's the middle benefit from Saudi oil wealth and benefits the Saudis by giving them very, VERY much needed labor to work those fields, and lets the north have what they've always wanted, which is more than tacit, but real independence.
I doubt that'd work either, but 3 or even 10 independent states would be even less likely to work either. It's just too messed up over there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard his name seriously thrown out there, and I've heard it might be a possible head fake, but if it is, it's the best in political history.
I mean, setting aside the easy stuff like feeding false information via surrogates, they got the Secret Service to go to his house. Besides...why bother? Just for fun?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yesterday the New York Times ran an opinion piece on why Biden would make the best VP. I don't know much about the man, but alot of the reasoning made sense.
Now to remedy some of my ignorance concerning Biden.
*goes off to sail the endless seas of teh intarwebs.*
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Joe Biden. He isn't going to lead the reform I want to see, but whereas I think Obama is weaselly; Biden is too proud for that nonsense.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda like that Biden is vocally critical of Obama. It seems like Republicans are viewing that as a weak point, but I think it emphasizes that Obama is willing to listen to criticism and see beyond personal loyalty. Of course, based on how often I vote for the loser, most of America does not agree with me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
man, I'm watching Obama introduce Biden, and he's really hammering home his working class origins. If he says "that scrappy kid from Scranton" one more time I'll be upset.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all come together during this Biden speech to play a drinking game using the word "literally."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biden is a baffling choice, from where I'm standing. I don't see how he's an asset. He's mainly known for speaking frankly, which is something that Obama already clearly decided was getting him into too much trouble. Is it Obama's intent to use Biden to say all the potentially offensive things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that what VP candidates are for? To be attack dogs so the presidential candidate can stay above the fray?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who hadn't seriously considered Biden until the past few weeks, I actually think he's a surprisingly savvy pick. Biden brings to the ticket some of the most extensive foreign policy experience in the Senate, and serious working class cred (IIRC, he's something like the 99th wealthiest senator). He's also extremely popular among older Americans, and due to his temperament and oratory style, will make for a very good attack dog as well.
More importantly, he blunts the effectiveness of the McCain campaign's most successful attacks so far. The McCain criticisms that have gotten the most traction are the ones about Obama's "celebrity" status, and his relative lack of foreign policy experience. Regarding the former, Biden is about as blue-collar as you can get in national politics, and unlike other recent "politicians you could have a beer with" (*cough* Bush *cough*), he actually came from humble origins. Regarding the latter, he's spent decades at the forefront of Senate foreign policy, and despite an unfortunate vote in favor of authorizing the war in Iraq, has spent the past five years as one of the Bush administration's most outspoken critics.
I've read a lot of stuff today about how the selection of Biden amounts to an admission of weakness by Obama, much as Kerry's selection of Edwards was viewed as an admission that the candidate was an aging patrician who needed someone young and sexy to appeal to the youth. Much of the liberal blogosphere is disappointed that Obama didn't go with a "reinforcing" VP pick (i.e. someone who "reinforces" his dominant narratives of change and Washington outsiderdom), such as Tim Kaine.
However, I think comparing Kerry/Edwards with Obama/Biden is somewhat missing the point. Selecting a reinforcing VP versus a "filling in the gaps" VP isn't an ideological decision- it's not like a reinforcing VP will always be better, or vice versa. Rather, a given situation will play better one way or the other. Kerry selecting Edwards was boneheaded because it addressed a problem that wasn't really there. Yes, Kerry was viewed as an old Massachusetts patrician, but it's not like the Bush/Cheney ticket had anything more to offer to young voters. Therefore, the young vote (which tends to lean idealistic and liberal on the issues) was with Kerry whether he picked Edwards or not.
Obama's selection of Biden, on the other hand, very directly confronts the main problem facing his campaign right now. McCain has been moving up in the polls because his attacks on Obama for being a Hollywood elitist and too inexperienced to successfully fix the Iraq situation, justified or not, have been resonating with the American public. Having Joe Biden at his side allows Obama to neatly counter both arguments, much as Obama's own speech on race during the primaries effectively countered Hillary's and the media's growing obsession with Reverend Wright.
Of course, only time will tell if this move ends up working how I expect it to. McCain does have the advantage in that he now has a week to find the best Republican VP candidate to counteract the Biden effect- not to mention that his party convention now knows the identities of both of their targets, whereas the Democrats still only know the one.
It's going to be an interesting few months. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
I've always liked Biden. I'm a little worried about how his next "gaffe" will be taken out of context, but not that much. I seriously doubt he'll have that significant of an impact on the outcome either way.
Edit: Oh my...McCain is actually using that clip from the Daily Show in one of his ads? Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: I think, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all come together during this Biden speech to play a drinking game using the word "literally."
Seriously! I kept yelling "YOU MEAN FIGURATIVELY!" at the TV. I mean, to literally move the planet in the wrong direction would involve some sort of massive rocket strapped onto the planet.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.
This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
If you're talking about the criticism of Fox news selectively excerpting, then you've got to be kidding. I'm sure there are MUCH more ridiculous criticisms of a news show out there
Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
The only thing ridiculous here is using the word "news" in relation to Fox News.
quote:Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
The line is exactly where you think it is: where bias begins. It's kind of like asking where the sky ends: it's easy, it's where the ground begins.
The problem with anything concerning the testimonial evidence of liberal or conservative blogs or news shows is that inherent bias plays a big role in what is presented as news. For instance, if a liberal says "I love America, but some people hate America", a conservative blog could excerpt the line and say "I...hate America". And thats the problem with what Fox News does, it's obvious bias toward the Republican party presents something that is neither entirely true nor accurately representative of what happens. Of course, it is the difference between politics and reality, something that the current administration and the one before it seemed to have difficulty grasping*, but more than that, it is how we use our paintbrush that creates the negative atmosphere and divisive sort of politics that turn so many off from cable news and politics.
That's why they say that "being President of this country is entirely about character." It is something that Obama needs to learn quickly too...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FOX News excerpted a joke from a bit about comparative medical histories of the two candidates to only play what they considered to be the funny bit, that mocking Obama.
I'd be curious to know how often they play Daily Show excerpts, and whether they ever use any that mock Republicans. And was this played on FOX News, where a reasonable expectation exists for unbiased reporting, or on a FOX news show that allows commentary, which can be as biased as it wants to be?
I wouldn't know myself, because I've long ago stopped watching any of them. I stick with a variety of news sources, try to read the original documents when I can, and utterly ignore TV commentators and opinion shows because frankly I've gotten sick of them. Everything is spin, everything is scorn, and playing to the emotions over reason is what gets the ratings. The heck with all of them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
ya but the Colbert Report and Daily Show Satirisize all that.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I kinda like that Biden is vocally critical of Obama. It seems like Republicans are viewing that as a weak point, but I think it emphasizes that Obama is willing to listen to criticism and see beyond personal loyalty. Of course, based on how often I vote for the loser, most of America does not agree with me.
And it rings true to me. Given the republican mantra that reigned from about 2003-2006, where Bush administration spokespeople would shake their heads at public criticism and say: "we need to do a better job of explaining and convincing the public that Bush is right." Or there were those incredible little touches, like Michael Bolton saying on The daily Show: "President Bush has a duty to the people who voted for him." [Emphasis Mine]
It will make McCain look like a clown if he jumps on Biden's criticism of Obama, because it's obvious that Biden is meant to fill the gaps in Obama's campaign, with his critical eye included. Biden also seems like he's miles away from what the NY Times called "limousine democrats," like Al Gore, who can embarrass the party and give ammunition to republicans who want to call Obama an elitist.
He's also old enough so that he may be seen as a permanent adviser to Obama, rather than an absentee vice-president waiting to run for himself. And, in a strange way, he gives the mainstream media something to shoot at. They've been so careful with Obama on TV, attacking only people who were tangentially related to his campaign with repeated sound bites, it's contributed to the whole "messiah" aspect of Obama that could lead to a backlash. Biden has the potential of looking a little more human, as there are a few little quirky things for the press to trot out while they introduce him.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
If they were using it as evidence about what Stewart thinks, the two scenarios would be analogous. But they're picking one joke out of several to excerpt.
Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.
Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.
If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.
This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
I've seen worse.
The unfortunate part is that while this guy is being a watchdog and doing a thorough job of showing us what's going on with this clip, he misses the more basic underlying reason for its existence.
It just looks to me like ineptness on the part of the reporters, PAs, or whoever puts those "throw-to" segments together. The bit with one sheet of paper is easy to show, it's only a few seconds, and the fact that it isn't, out of context "funny," isn't something I'd expect a reporter to notice, considering what passes for humor with them.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that this kind of thing might happen in the specific because there is an overarching culture at FOX news that favors McCain and looks for inconsistency and weakness among liberals. Stewart making fun of Obama, while McCain goes unmentioned, does make Obama look a little ridiculous, and the fact that the joke, out of context again, isn't funny does also make Stewart look dumb.
That being said, these very ernest after-the-fact youtube dissections of 8 seconds of FOX news coverage, designed to imply that FOX is involved in some very clearly stated plan to support John McCain in specific ways by misquoting Jon Stewart make liberals look stupid too.
It's perfectly plausible that the culture of Fox News encourages this kind of petty quibling with the truth, but if that's the case, then we should deal with that problem on its own terms, rather than insisting that this is FOX's specific plan. Seeing a pattern of behavior that clearly demonstrates a non-objective viewpoint, I could be convinced that this specific incident wasn't the product of sheer incompetence, rather than sinister design (which, by the way, would be way too obvious right?).
I tend to believe it was a mix of the two though. Your villains can't be both diabolical AND asinine. That's movie stuff.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.
Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.
If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
I don't think the burden rests with Stewart to claim that he has a point beyond humor. The point in his segment was self-evident. He has a right to say what he wants on his show, and he has a right to claim that he has no responsibility to the public to be "fair and balanced." That doesn't mean that the news doesn't have a responsibility to him and to the public to report accurately what has been said. Fox is accountable, on principle, for how it portrays his statements whether or not he objects formally.
He may not really have much to object to in this case (it wouldn't be worth it), but look at the clip, and tell me if the version reported was an accurate representation of the facts. If you think it was, then you are willing to accept a lower standard of reporting than I am. I'm referring to the characterization of the joke, made by FOX news. It wasn't *untrue* but it was out of context, and I prefer not to be misled generally.
In this particular case I think your right, it isn't a big deal really, but I generally disagree with the above reasoning.
Edit: Actually what puts me off most about the thing in reflection is that they took a standard Jon Stewart double-take and acted like it was funny even though he's being doing the same joke for, what, 10 years? It's just like any news program to pick a tired horse, and then show the clip in such a way as to make it unfunny, and then to have some other PA write a description of the clip that is inaccurate. We should expect better. That and the news shouldn't try to be funny, because they suck at it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't mean that the news doesn't have a responsibility to him and to the public to report accurately what has been said. Fox is accountable, on principle, for how it portrays his statements whether or not he objects formally.
You absolutely missed my point here. Whether he objects or not is pretty much irrelevant, hence the subordination of that point with parentheses.
The point is that it's not a news show, and he's been aggressive in using that fact to defend his imbalance.
quote:but look at the clip, and tell me if the version reported was an accurate representation of the facts.
What facts? He made a series of jokes, based on some facts. Fox reported one of the jokes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The JOKES are the facts, in this case. They reported on a joke, and they reported inaccurately on that joke. Stewart himself is irrelevant to the situation, as is the style of his show- they just did a poor job of representing what was said- that's what I'm saying.
Edit: inaccurately is too strong a word. Poorly, misleadingly maybe. Ineptly.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I've said very clearly that *I felt* that they misrepresented the joke they aired. The video explains this. The bit shown was the punchline of the larger joke- the news program concealed that fact.
I know you understand what I am saying, and it's ok to disagree with me. Just please don't tell me that you don't get the fact that what was aired was only part of the larger joke, and that airing the one part without the other, while framing it as "Stewart pokes fun at Obama," is different than picking one of two separate but equivalent jokes. Just please, grant me that small courtesy of recognizing that the greater joke might be seen, by some, as something that doesn't exactly stand up to editing very well. That is all that I now wish to express. That is all I now care about, that you recognize this possibility.
Second thoughts, I don't actually care what you think, I don't know why I said that. You remind me more and more of a Bushey talking about a "time horizon" instead of a "timeline," and why that makes all the difference in the world while people kill each other.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You remind me more and more of a Bushey talking about a "time horizon" instead of a "timeline," and why that makes all the difference in the world while people kill each other.
I see. I disagree about proper joke excerpting protocol, and I'm a "Bushey talking about a 'time horizon' instead of a 'timeline.'"
I don't know which possibility is scarier: That you actually think that - which means you are prone to making ridiculous extrapolations about what other people think - or that you're just saying that to score cheap points.
Either way, it's ridiculous.
quote:Dag, I've said very clearly that *I felt* that they misrepresented the joke they aired.
Really? Can you quote the part where you used the word "feel" or something equivalent? Because you said "they reported inaccurately on that joke" and later changed "inaccurate" to "poorly, misleading."
It's one thing to say that's what you meant. But you certainly didn't it "say very clearly," with or without the emphasis on "I felt."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the fact that you disagree doesn't make you a Bushey, but the manner in which you choose to disagree reminds me of a Bushey- so what you think has nothing really to do with it. You should read my carefully.
I don't know which possibility is scarier, that you actually thought I said that, which means you are prone to making ridiculous extrapolations about what other people are saying, or that you are just saying that because you love to argue with people over nothing really at all.
Either way. Ridiculous.
As for the other thing, it's all over my previous posts, that in my opinion the reporting sucked. That's very very clear. That was my point. That was my only really salient point, that in all of this, there is a reporter with talent somewhere, out of a job, and that's too bad.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: You know what, never mind. This is just the usual crap. You want to know why Fox News is popular? Because lots of people like to categorize people who disagree with them in the same way you did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think Fox news is popular because a lot of people are idiots. Now, I am categorizing them, that's true, but it's such a broad demographic.
One thing I didn't really try to do was associate you with that demographic, which you're trying to do with me. So that's nice. Also weird, because I'm the one criticizing them, and you were the one defending them for their awful reporting. Now I fit right in with them, sure.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, thinking that this was not-bad-reporting on the part of Fox is... idiotic. Or partisan. Its not objective in any way, since the tagline was Stewart Makes Fun of Obama. The only possible way to interpret stewart's joke as making fun of obama is to lie.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not the only way *possible.* They could just be kind of inept, which is what I am thinking. Maybe the sinister kind of inept, like the lesser henchmen of a true mastermind?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
See, I think this more likely to be a lie than what Fox did.
quote: thinking that this was not-bad-reporting on the part of Fox is... idiotic. Or partisan. Its not objective in any way, since the tagline was Stewart Makes Fun of Obama. The only possible way to interpret stewart's joke as making fun of obama is to lie.
Oh, please. For the cheap seats:
STEWART WAS MAKING A JOKE! Obama's medical record is not one page. He was poking fun at both candidates. Fox picked one.
So I'm being idiotic or partisan, Paul? Seems there's as much evidence as partisanship going the other way, given how this is breaking down.
I am sick to hell of this cheap construct of an "argument" on this board: that the only possible way someone can believe X is Y. It's been happening a lot lately.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's perfectly acceptable, depending on the argument, to hold the position that the only acceptable or justified way to believe X is Y. Does it really bother you when people do this? I mean, you do it, too. We all do.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So I'm being idiotic or partisan, Paul? Seems there's as much evidence as partisanship going the other way, given how this is breaking down."
No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
They didn't lie. I'm not defending a lie. What, are you so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see that?* Or are you just so blazingly stupid that you don't think that holding a up a one-page medical report can be considered "having some fun with Barak Obama?"*
See, it doesn't take any actual effort to do that.
*Unlike Paul, I don't actually think that these are the only two possibilities. See, I can actually imagine that someone can think that something not actually critical of Obama is not "poking fun at" or "having fun with" Obama. I don't agree, and I've argued that case, but I can imagine it, and therefore see why someone who thinks that isn't being either partisan or idiotic. I wonder why Paul can't.
Check out classic SNL skits about how much Carter knows on a call in show for a good example of this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FOX (as well as other media) don't lie so much as "select" what truth they tell. If Candidate X has done 4 good things and 7 bad things and Candidate Y has done 12 good things and 2 bad things is it a lie to report specifically on the 4 good things about Candidate X and the two bad things about Candidate Y?
The facts they are reporting are true - as far as they go. The impression they give is not.
If some comedian pokes fun at both candidate, it is accurate to report that the comedian made fun of Candidate X and to repeat and amplify only that side of the story.
It is accurate, but it isn't honest.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
Hey, much more brazen than usual. Classy, Paul!
------
If it is accurate, then it is honest, by many standards of that word. When dishonesty comes in is when they say or imply that that's all there is to that candidate or figure or whoever they're covering.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
See, I think this more likely to be a lie than what Fox did.
At least you were able to capture the spirit of the out of context quote so nicely.
quote: I am sick to hell of this cheap construct of an "argument" on this board: that the only possible way someone can believe X is Y. It's been happening a lot lately.
or HAS IT???
Dag reports, nobody gets to decide.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, Dag observes and announces his observations. No one has even tried to state that this hasn't happened here. One person has said there's nothing wrong with it. You've made some strange comment about me reporting and you not being allowed to decide.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is accurate, but it isn't honest.
Well, is it accurate though? Drew Pinsky rails against things similar to what you mentioned. For instance, he'll point out on his talk show that a mainstream news article will be researched, say on a medical topic, and 9 doctors will give the same opinion, while one doctor, or more likely an advocacy group or an author will give a dissenting opinion, which is, to the medical community, WAY out of line, and the news story will feature the "two viewpoints" as if they share equal footing in the real world. He complains of this kind of thing happening in many news situations, where he'll be put up as side A of discussion against a side B that is essentially in outer space on the topic, and the news will treat them as if they're equals, making it "fair and balanced."
He also rails mightily against inaccurate news reporting, regarding perscription medication studies. A single study will demonstrate a single possible danger of a widespread, lifesaving medication, and fail to have any perspective either on the meaning of said study, or on the fact that their inaccurate reporting of it will potentially endanger the thousands of people who take the drug. For instance, a recent study showed that Statin was unpromising as a treatment for, I think, intracardial valve disease, and so the news reported that the study showed it had no effect on coronary heart disease, which is the drugs MAIN application, its effect having been proven in many studies. The news services didn't understand the difference, and so some of Drew's patients called his office to ask if they should stop taking the drug, which was helping to save their lives.
And in all that, the media has no real responsibility to the people it hurts with its casual dissemination of inaccuracies.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You've made some strange comment about me reporting and you not being allowed to decide.
Well, I know who to go to if I need to know if something's funny, from now on. Thank you Dag. You do this board a service. I don't know what it is, but hey.
Edit:
quote: Dag observes and announces his observations.
OH thaaaaattttsss what you do here. Well then. Ok.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They didn't lie. I'm not defending a lie."
They absolutely did, and you absolutely are.* There is no honest way to view the joke Stewart was making as "Jon Stewart Pokes fun at Obama's Medical Record." It is a factually inaccurate assessment of what was happening, and I don't give media outlets the benefit of the doubt for lying vs not when they make factual inaccuracies of this sort, because they have a responsibility for factual accuracy.
There might be alternatives other then idiocy, or partisanship... but they aren't any prettier.
*Of course, I'm not surprised. One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives. I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys realize that you are just arguing at each other at this point right? Nothing is actually going to get done because the argument isn't even about the facts anymore anyway, it's about the people and how bad they are.
Kinda indicative of all of our politics these days, don't you guys think? Two sides yelling at each other, not about the issues, not about how to best help people or about how to do the right thing, but about how much the other side sucks.
It's too bad too because it is people like us that will be the only people who can really make a difference in this world. That is if we can ever get out of our damn way...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
