posted
To follow up what I was saying before about protests outside of Tehran; there are reports of violence at a university in Shiraz, and of mosque sit-ins in Tabriz and in northwest Iran.
Rumors on Twitter are saying that the Basiji are patrolling hospitals looking for protesters.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah....the video of the girl dying is heart breaking. I had to go take a walk afterwards. This has taken a turn for the worse.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
posted
Looking at footage of Saturday night in Tehran: Broken glass on the streets from smashed storefronts, burned out police outposts, and people screaming "Allahu akbar" from the rooftops into the dark night. You can't see any of them, but the words are distinct. Apparently they've been doing this for the past few nights, but reports are that this is the loudest it has yet been. I saw a video of it, you can't see a thing, but you can hear them all over the place and t IS loud. Basiji are smashing down the doors of the buildings where people are chanting on the rooftops, reportedly.
The girl who was killed in that graphic video is apparently refueling anger in a protest movement that many analysts were saying was beginning to slightly die down. Reports are that she is already becoming a rallying point, with her picture being printed and put on signs.
I did however see one analyst who, seemingly against the crowd of other analysts, said that she's positive nothing will come of this. The protest movement has no leaders like the Revolution 30 years ago head, or like any successful revolution really has, it's just happening out of nowhere. And the government has too many levers to pull in shutting them down. They've shut down cell phone networks, which kills text messaging, which has been the primary organizational tool. Add to that police power and a few other things, and they're just too strong. She, the analyst, thinks that what we're seeing is a wave of the future whose time has yet to come. I tend to agree, absent something big in the next few days. But that doesn't make it any less important.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe now we can dispense with the notion that Iran is any sort of 'democracy' of whatever geographical category?
Their government is also better, it appears, at suppressing dissent, than I would have expected and that I'd expected*, unfortunately. @#%#ing Ahmadinejad, Khomenei, & cronies. Maybe this sort of thing will at least drum up awareness and alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, because as we're seeing, it's not really the Iranian people we're dealing with when we deal with their government.
*I don't have a source for this. It's just that I can remember hearing, several times over recent years, that things in Iran weren't as bad as I thought, that its government wasn't as repressive as I thought.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did however see one analyst who, seemingly against the crowd of other analysts, said that she's positive nothing will come of this. The protest movement has no leaders like the Revolution 30 years ago head, or like any successful revolution really has, it's just happening out of nowhere. And the government has too many levers to pull in shutting them down. They've shut down cell phone networks, which kills text messaging, which has been the primary organizational tool. Add to that police power and a few other things, and they're just too strong. She, the analyst, thinks that what we're seeing is a wave of the future whose time has yet to come. I tend to agree, absent something big in the next few days. But that doesn't make it any less important.
It is amazing how much this revolution is looking like what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and though they began for different reasons, this revolution in Iran will probably go the same way. What that does mean is that, as Rakeesh wonders, we can classify Iran as something other than a democracy. Also, I just saw the video of the girl dying and that is simply tragic, but maybe she can be the rallying cry that the man who stood in front of the tanks in China failed to be.
I tend to agree with the analyst you mention Lyrhawn, but I think that something big *can* happen in the next few days. I think one of three things can bring about real and substantive change if they occur: the girl in the video becomes their Rosa Parks, Mousavi dies a martyr, or if Khatami can come back and rally the supporters against the the government. The people do need someone, anyone really, to step up and become the leader the people need them to be, otherwise I fear the same fate for all fail revolutions.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What that does mean is that, as Rakeesh wonders, we can classify Iran as something other than a democracy.
I'm wondering who ever actually classified the Islamic Republic of Iran as any sort of democracy in the first place. The hint that it's not is right there in its name, given the ease (or lack thereof) of not being Islamic in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What that does mean is that, as Rakeesh wonders, we can classify Iran as something other than a democracy.
I'm wondering who ever actually classified the Islamic Republic of Iran as any sort of democracy in the first place. The hint that it's not is right there in its name, given the ease (or lack thereof) of not being Islamic in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Oh that I have no idea. I do know that there are elections, that there are representatives of the people, and that a country that embraces religion is not necessarily un-democratic, which means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fairly accurately named by at least those standards.
Edit: Why is it that Obama seems to be on one level and everyone else on another? From his CBS interview this weekend:
quote: SMITH: People in this country say you haven't said enough, that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say?
THE PRESIDENT: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.
What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universe." It's long but it bends towards justice.
posted
Hey, that's almost exactly what I said the other day. Obama and I are in mind meld. But seriously, he's nailed it directly on the head. People who want him to say more, and a lot of Congress for that matter, don't understand the role that public interference plays in something like this.
I think the American public is a victim of its own nationalistic rhetoric from the last couple decades. We've spent decades telling ourselves over and over that we're the champions of freedom and that we support it everywhere and anywhere at all times, and call ourselves the best examples of it. But the truth of the matter is that we aren't the best example of freedom, and supporting it in all places at all times isn't practical, feasible, or constructive in the real world.
But national politicians don't kiss babies and then shout "Barring any major mitigating factors that might make it unhelpful to do so, America supports freedom abroad! All hail timely support for freedom given a good set of circumstances!"
So now that we're in a situation that no one really understands and requires patience and deliberation before taking action, people are responding with the tools they have available. When all you're given is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and Americans just want to pound something flat right now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh that I have no idea. I do know that there are elections, that there are representatives of the people, and that a country that embraces religion is not necessarily un-democratic, which means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fairly accurately named by at least those standards.
The problematic part lies in how the IRI deals with dissent. That's a very, very key part of a democracy. In fact, you can't even really have a democracy without the ability to dissent publicly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh that I have no idea. I do know that there are elections, that there are representatives of the people, and that a country that embraces religion is not necessarily un-democratic, which means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fairly accurately named by at least those standards.
The problematic part lies in how the IRI deals with dissent. That's a very, very key part of a democracy. In fact, you can't even really have a democracy without the ability to dissent publicly.
Well, I think the people of Iran have the ability to dissent publicly, the problem lies in how far they want to take that dissent and whether the election was truly fair or not. The question is whether the representatives of the republic can perpetrate this fraud, get away with it, and abandon the rule of law of Iran because if they can, then Iran truly won't be democratic, even to the extent it was before. That's why I think this fight is so important, if the rulers of Iran can further force the forces of democracy to the side, they can become more extreme and brutal as they seek to maintain power, and that then becomes a problem for western/Iranian relations.
quote:So now that we're in a situation that no one really understands and requires patience and deliberation before taking action, people are responding with the tools they have available. When all you're given is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and Americans just want to pound something flat right now.
Yeah, it kind of reminds me of the campaign when everyone in the Democratic Party thought Obama should get angry over McCain/Palin, and yet, he met the situation with resolve and calm and won the day. If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Influential head of the parliament Ali Larijani airs his opinions. And they aren't very friendly. He's a known Ahmadinejad hater, though usually is supportive of Khamenei, though here he has several critical things to say about the government. Larijani also has important family members among the religious elite of Iran's leadership.
Despite the early morning calm today, reports from human rights groups say that there have been hundreds of cases of arrests of political, religions, intellectual and media figures in Iran.
There are loosely confirmed reports of a great many things from yesterday. There are widespread reports that Basiji spent much of yesterday scouring hospitals for people injured in the protests and arresting them in their hospital beds. The Basiji also reportedly lay in wait in alleyways behind the route that protesters were forced down when retreating from police, so they could ambush protesters. The Basiji are being painted as far more brutal than the police forces, who in many cases hesitated greatly before engaging protesters, in many cases ran, and in others pleaded with protesters to go home before they had to use force. There are also confirmed reports of clashes in Shiraz, Ishafan and Tabriz.
Iran's highest police officer has warned Moussavi that any more protests will be 'decisively confronted,' which many are taking as a call for escalation. He also blamed Moussavi for everything and said that the police were the victims. There are reports from Moussavi's camp that he has ordered his followers to go on a national strike if he is arrested, but that is unconfirmed as well.
I haven't seen word from anyone of planned protests today, but it's quite literally high noon in Tehran.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think the people of Iran have the ability to dissent publicly, the problem lies in how far they want to take that dissent and whether the election was truly fair or not.
Well, OK, let me qualify something then. When I said that you can't have a democracy without the ability to publicly dissent, I didn't mean that any ability to publicly dissent, however small, met that requirement.
Barring slander, libel, or airing of national security matters, in a democracy people should have unfettered ability to dissent publicly, either in their own physical voices, or in print. They don't have that in Iran. Not even close, and not just in this crisis either. Which is one reason why they never really were a democracy. They were representative, sort of, but that's not the same thing.
quote:...that then becomes a problem for western/Iranian relations.
It's not already?
quote:If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs...
Taken to extremes and applied to all cases, though, this advice doesn't work either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Maybe now we can dispense with the notion that Iran is any sort of 'democracy' of whatever geographical category?
Their government is also better, it appears, at suppressing dissent, than I would have expected and that I'd expected*, unfortunately. @#%#ing Ahmadinejad, Khomenei, & cronies. Maybe this sort of thing will at least drum up awareness and alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, because as we're seeing, it's not really the Iranian people we're dealing with when we deal with their government.
*I don't have a source for this. It's just that I can remember hearing, several times over recent years, that things in Iran weren't as bad as I thought, that its government wasn't as repressive as I thought.
I've read several tweets and Andrew Sullivan's site (anecdotes, of course) saying that only now do people feel like they are living in a police state.
I don't think Iran was as bad as reactionaries, or even the general public, in the US thought/think. It is definitely a different sort of democracy, and is definitely incompatible with American Democracy in some key ways, but it wasn't Saddam Hussein's level, or even Saudi Arabia's level, from what I understand.
I expect, even after this all works itself out, that Iran will remain an Islamic Democracy, though hopefully one where the two terms are more balanced.
quote:I've read several tweets and Andrew Sullivan's site (anecdotes, of course) saying that only now do people feel like they are living in a police state.
But it seems to me that the truth of the matter is, they were living in a police state before - it's not as though the government is different now, of course, which is the major point of contention after all - and simply weren't aware of it.
I'm only making this comparison because it comes easily to mind, not to take a shot at Iranians, but the animals (aside from the pigs) in Animal Farm thought they had things great before the very end of the story too, didn't they?
quote: I don't think Iran was as bad as reactionaries, or even the general public, in the US thought/think. It is definitely a different sort of democracy, and is definitely incompatible with American Democracy in some key ways, but it wasn't Saddam Hussein's level, or even Saudi Arabia's level, from what I understand.
Well, seeing as how I don't consider either Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein's Iraq any sort of democracies at all - Saudi Arabia systematically disenfranchises half its population, after all - I don't think comparing Iran to them and saying, "It's not that bad," does much to advance the notion that Iran was or is a democracy.
Certainly right now it's not a democracy by anyone's definition, right? In response to peaceful protests of an extremely questionable election (or are Iranians really so extraordinarily conscientious that they vote in 95% numbers?), the government at first ignored them and now responds with bloody crackdowns.
That's not democracy. It's a form of representative government after a fashion, but that's about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Numbers from Saturday vary as to dead, injured and arrested. Iran state TV claims that 13 were killed, with other press sources saying 19, and unconfirmed rumors pushing the number as high as 150. Almost 500 were arrested on charges of vandalism. The Guardian Council has admitted that more votes were cast in at least 50 cities than there were eligible voters, but in the same breath has also said that the results are fair and there was no fraud.
Hundreds of protesters are currently in the streets headed for a square to meet. Today was supposed to be a memorial for the girl that was so graphically killed in the video I was talking about yesterday. But no signs of a vigil are apparent. Police and Basiji warn that any attempts to stand up to them will be met with a strong response. If it really is just hundreds, then it would seem the fire of last week's thousands has indeed died out after Saturday's brutal confrontations. I think it's a quarter to eight in the evening there right now. If that many haven't turned out yet, they likely aren't going to.
It's possible we've seen the end of the large scale demonstrations, and that now begins years of turmoil below the surface just waiting to erupt again. Or perhaps they're waiting for something big to happen, it's impossible to say.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, our ability to take protests "to the street" is not exactly unfettered here. While, thank goodness, things don't reach that level of violence here anymore, people do still get arrested, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets and so forth for protesting. Kent State was not all that long ago and we were a democracy then.
I will say again that democracy does not always mean that people will choose they way we would choose. Iran has a long way to go before they are a free society and that free society may not be pro-Western.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, our ability to take protests "to the street" is not exactly unfettered here. While, thank goodness, things don't reach that level of violence here anymore, people do still get arrested, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets and so forth for protesting. Kent State was not all that long ago and we were a democracy then.
Actually, in my opinion, when that happened we weren't a democracy. One of the many reasons that was a rather disgusting blight for us, in fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where do you draw the line? People getting arrested? Violently arrested? Killed?
I'm just saying that democracy is not an either or condition. It is always (even here) a somewhat messy work in progress.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The first was my roommate. She basically said the situation was complicated. She didn't want to talk about it (I also think she didn't want to try explaining in English) and was avoiding the news because it was sad, and there was nothing she could do. Her family is from the east and not Tehran.
Last night I was watching CNN, and my roommate came out and said she didn't want to see that stuff on the TV (or me watching it) so I switched it to Family Guy as she left and she called over her shoulder that that wasn't the president on TV (they were showing Ahmadinejad when they came out). When she came back about a half hour later, she made a comment to tell me to tell everyone that nobody voted for Ahmadinejad.
I realized I knew where she was coming from. After Virginia Tech, people were discussing and debating the killer, and what had happened and what could be done. Well, a high school acquaintance of mine was among those murdered, and I found the people discussing the situation were concerned, but their concern was academic. From the standpoint of grief such discussion is painful and callous (even if the participants take their ideas very seriously), and I realized I had once felt that way too. Ironically, I had started following all of this so I knew what was going on in her home.
However, I had also talked to someone else, someone I had met earlier that day helping out a brunch. She's Iranian/Canadian and up until Tuesday was in Iran. She joked of having voted in two elections and neither of them came out the way she voted. She was willing to explain a lot of stuff and answer my questions (while putting off phoning home to ask for the latest). Here's what I learned:
1. She underscored how sketchy it was for Ahmadinejad to win. He won equal amounts of the votes in the hometowns of some of his opponents as he did in other places. Ethnicity has mattered historically in elections, and the idea that certain towns were suddenly not so rasicist is laughable and impossible. Ahdmadinehad is also very much a Shi'ite, and says things that offend Sunnis every time that he goes on the air. He just wouldn't win in towns with large Sunni populations. Period. Also, one of the candidates who was not Mousavi ran against Ahmadinejad in the last election and was #3. He got 5 million votes last time and this time fewer votes than ballots marked as invalid or blank. Anyway, any reasonable doubts I had about this election being shady are removed.
2. She said there were two million people on the streets of Tehran protesting. She voted in Tehran, and while they don't do exit polls, she didn't know of anyone who voted for Ahmadinejad. So to vote, you have to put in the candidates number, and people were asking each other in line what number to put, and there were cries of "44" (Mousavi's number) and "44 is the only number you need to know".
3. In Iran with state-controlled media, the rumors are generally the true. If someone says "it's rumored" you believe it.
4. Okay. We're all watching these protests to see if the people are going to overthrow the government. Admit it. We (Americans) love watching history live on TV and we love it even more when it goes our way. So I asked about revolution and she said no, not right now. The people just aren't organized enough to do it. She said her parents were involved in/supported the revolution in the 70s, even though they were in Canada at the time. She said that the idea for revolution really started in '72 and what happened in '79 was the result of organization and planning for several years. She thinks what has happened these past few weeks is the spark for the organization that will now need to take place.
5. She suspects the protests will go on protesting for two weeks. People will probably not walk away disillusioned from nothing happening, but get quietly planning.
6. She said good has come out of this because people have thought of the ruling class as very unified. Now, it's more clear which politicians are competent or incompetent. You can tell these people apart.
7. I also asked what news sources were good. She said BBC Farsi, so we asked which ones that we could read were good. She said the BBC, NPR (surprisingly to her) and I think a blog.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been reading Al-Jazeera English, but they don't have nearly as much as CNN does. The BBC has historical ties to the area, so it's no surprise they'd have better coverage. NPR has stringers in the area too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where do you draw the line? People getting arrested? Violently arrested? Killed?
I'm just saying that democracy is not an either or condition. It is always (even here) a somewhat messy work in progress.
As a general rule of thumb I'd draw the line at 'killed', since arrests and violent arrests can be a more local sort of problem, but when soldiers are killing people, that changes the equation dramatically-just to me, you understand.
And while it is a somewhat messy work in progress, I think the separation between democracy and not is a range of a line, not a completely subjective and functionally endless hazy area.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've pulled up Twitter and #IranElection. The feeds are coming in by the hundreds. They range from Iranians giving testimonials to Iranian Government bots saying "Its all a US plot." There are tips for first aid, and tips on Twitter feeding that the Iran Govt can't catch.
Its compelling to read. Its sad, and hopeful, and just impressive on so many levels.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Mousavi was approved to run, so he's not really that radically different, but he's better for a few reasons.
Ahmadinejad is a blatant liar and pretty much lies every time he goes on TV. Mousavi is not so anti-women either. He "lets" his wife tag along with him on a lot of his stuff (my roommate has pointed out that that word let is a bit insulting, but it's a heck of a lot better than now).
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Yes. Mousavi was approved to run, so he's not really that radically different, but he's better for a few reasons.
Ahmadinejad is a blatant liar and pretty much lies every time he goes on TV. Mousavi is not so anti-women either. He "lets" his wife tag along with him on a lot of his stuff (my roommate has pointed out that that word let is a bit insulting, but it's a heck of a lot better than now).
From everything I've read it was a huge deal that he had his wife with him during the campaigns. She actually campaigned alone for a short time, making her own campaign stops, and became a big part of his campaign. That's pretty big for Iranian politics and Iranian society.
Some of the stories coming out from women protesters are both impressive in shocking.
The Daily Show last night was pretty interesting. I didn't really believe it at first, but Jason Jones is, or was, actually in Iran. He interviewed three Iranian people of note, all of whom were arrested by the government. Then the son of one of them, obviously shaken, was on the Daily Show last night as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that. It was very powerful. I think that Jon Stewart handled it well. He backed off the sarcasm immediately and with reasonable grace when he saw that the son was not (for good reason) going there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Iranian soccer players who wore green bands in solidarity during the world cup have been banned from soccer for life.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I saw that. It was very powerful. I think that Jon Stewart handled it well. He backed off the sarcasm immediately and with reasonable grace when he saw that the son was not (for good reason) going there.
Yeah I saw that too. He tried a little joke and saw that it wasn't the time and immediately pivoted into serious mode. Classy. The crowd sensed the mood too.
Strider -
Damn, do you have a link to the story?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah I saw that too. He tried a little joke and saw that it wasn't the time and immediately pivoted into serious mode. Classy. The crowd sensed the mood too.
Now I'll have to watch it, because my reaction to these descriptions was first to think, "Wow, Jon Stewart was 'on'* with the son of a guy arrested in Iran?"
My reaction to that wouldn't be 'classy', that's for sure.
*On meaning in the classic Daily Show sarcasm/satire style, which is very enjoyable and often pretty compelling to me when talking about politics in general...much less so when you're actually face to face with someone in real peril, or with a loved one in such.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just watched a segment on the news where protesters were burning American and British flags in Tehran, and were not being stopped, and it occurred to me that broadcasting that to their own people might not have the intended effect they hope for, because now they might just have a better idea of some other ways in which they are being manipulated.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the interview with the son followed a pre-recorded segment with one of the "reporters" doing one of their usual "interviews" with the father. In the interview it was crystal clear that the father was a reasonable and nice guy and not at all the bogeyman we (a general "we") tend to think of when we think of Iranian clerics.
Then we find out he has been arrested and Stewart interviewed the son. He started to be sarcastic about what a "threat" the father is, but dropped that schtick instantly and was sympathetic to the clearly very worried son.
posted
Well, I feel better having seen it. To me, it seems like he was going the serious interviewer route initially, slipped a bit into Daily Show interviewer style, and (I'm guessing at his mindset here) realized it was a mistake and dropped it.
Just to be clear, I was never suggesting that the switch back to serious wasn't classy...just that the initial mistake could have been seriously unclassy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
And yet somehow they manage to be better informed:
posted
Yup, I've seen that statistic (though not the article you linked) too. It just hasn't borne out in my personal experience is all. It's ironic, though, that in a poll concerning the Daily Show they stack up the Daily Show against Letterman and Leno. I think that's the sort of polling the Daily Show itself would make fun of, heh.
Newspapers and the O'Reilly comparison are good, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I"m not sure the emphasis on Leno and Letterman is the poll so much as the CNN article pulling what CNN thought was interesting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not suggesting they were the emphasis-just that including them in the poll in the first place wasn't helpful.
I mean, what are Leno and Letterman watchers doing in a poll about which news media viewers are better informed?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe because Leno and Letterman are entertainment shows, just like the Daily Show has always claimed to be. I've heard John Stewart many, many times express disbelief that his show was every compared to actual news sources, such as newspapers or O'Reilly (in his case, "news").
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) examines a wide range of political attitudes about candidates, issues and the traits Americans want in a president. It also has a particular emphasis on the effects of media exposure through campaign commercials and news from radio, television and newspapers. Additionally, it measures the effects of other kinds of political communication, from conversations at home and on the job to various efforts by campaigns to influence potential voters.
I suppose Leno and Letterman with their topical monologues and interviews with politicians would be considered "other kinds of political communication" as much as The Daily Show or Colbert.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on subject, the twitter feeds keep bringing up Hamas.
Hamas is the Iranian backed terrorist group trying to become Palestine, and Jordan. Is there any other source saying that they are interfering with sympathetic protests elsewhere in the mid-east?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
