web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "Media"

What a bold, courageous and serious idea!  (via DougJ):

Said Andrew Sullivan of the plan: "While I may disagree with the proposal to turn old people into food, at least this finally got the CONVERSATION STARTED!"

I was reading an interesting Economist article today on the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger when I came across a sentence that really left me scratching my head:

“The suspicion is that Mr Obama, desperate both to build some broken fences with big business and to make progress on connecting every American home to the internet, will give in.”

Can I just ask everyone a simple question?  What quantifiable measure shows that has Obama done anything to hurt “big business” during his time in office? I mean, seriously

For why I’m so nonplussed, dig this inconvenient block of facts from Glenzilla:

Since Obama was inaugurated, the Dow Jones has increased more than 50% — from 8,000 to more than 12,000; the wealthiest recieved a massive tax cut; the top marginal tax rate was three times less than during the Eisenhower years and substantially lower than during the Reagan years; income and wealth inequality are so vast and rising that it is easily at Third World levels; meanwhile, “the share of U.S. taxes paid by corporations has fallen from 30 percent of federal revenue in the 1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.”  During this same time period, the unemployment rate has increased from 7.7% to 8.9%; millions of Americans have had their homes foreclosed; and the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by many millions, the largest number since the statistic has been recorded.  Can you smell Obama’s radical egalitarianism and Marxist anti-business hatred yet?

The only thing that explains to my satisfaction this whole “Anti-Business Obama” zombie meme is the apparently stellar ability of the Republican mind control apparatus to implant complete fabrications in the minds of both the media establishment and its viewers.  Any other ideas?  WTF?

Posted without comment:


Metavirus filed this under: , ,  

Fire BAD! Partisanship GOOD!

Remember our general disgust with Evan Bayh back in January when he decided to (surprise!) become a lobbyist after leaving Congress?

Well sir, it gets worse:

Today, the former senator who decried “strident partisanship” and “unyielding ideology” will be paid by a ridiculous cable news outlet that exists to spew “strident partisanship” and “unyielding ideology.”

Fox News officially announced on Monday afternoon that former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh is becoming a contributor to the network.

Michael Clemente, the network’s senior vice president for news, announced the move in a statement. He said that “Senator Bayh’s decades of experience in the political arena and his participation in key decisions in Washington will lend a valuable point of view to the entire Fox News lineup.”

“I’m pleased to offer analysis of public policy and politics to the millions of Americans who get their news from Fox,” Bayh said in the statement.

Howard Kurtz said it’s “good” for Fox News to hire “a prominent Democrat.” But that’s fundamentally at odds with what’s transpiring here — Fox News hires Democrats who can be reliably counted on to say unpleasant things about Democrats. Why do you think Doug Schoen is on Fox News all the time? Because of his charming smile or because he’s the “Democrat” who hates Democrats?

I realize that politics has always been a heaping portion of manure slathered onto a warm shit sandwich but did politicians ever try to do a better job of hiding their true nature as corrupt, duplicitous assholes?  I mean, at least give it some effort!

This article has some interesting information on television news. Here are the basic facts:

  1. Pretty much everyone is declining, but broadcast news is declining the least badly, losing only 3.4% of viewers last year.
  2. MSNBC only suffered a 5% drop. Could be higher once the aftereffects of Olbermann leaving are factored in.
  3. FOX News suffered a worse 11% drop, though admittedly they started quite a bit higher.
  4. CNN is basically screwed, and dropped 37% of its viewers. How they’ll even be able to stay in business much longer is unclear to me, though their strategy of “like FOX, but with less yelling and Eliot Spitzer” doesn’t seem like a winner to me.

NPR, of course, has been doing quite well. And the article notes that online news is exploding:

“In fact, online was the only medium that experienced audience growth in 2010, up 17 percent year-to-year. In a December survey, 41 percent of Americans cited the Internet as the place where they got ‘most of their news about national and international issues,’ up 17 percent from a year earlier, according to the report.”

This is something to keep in mind when assessing our current situation. At the moment, FOX News is riding high, and conservative talk radio is quite powerful and capable of guiding the dialogue. But it’s obviously not going to stay that way forever. In fact, things are changing as we speak.

(h/t: FrumForum)

Lev filed this under: ,  

“Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s (R) press office sends emails of news clippings that have recently included jokes about former Attorney General Janet Reno’s gender and the tsunami that hit Japan, Ben Smith reports.

‘The off-color jokes, circulated inside and outside of Barbour’s government office, underscore questions about whether the governor is ready for the intensity of scrutiny that will come with leaving the relatively forgiving world of Mississippi politics.'” — Political Wire

Look, let’s just dispense with this stuff. Barbour is exactly who we think he is. If the press is going to get outraged every time he tells an off-color joke or waxes nostalgic for the Mississippi during the days of his pappy, this is going to be a long year. With Barbour, we know exactly what we’re getting. The best thing for the media to do would be to either treat Barbour as a Mike Gravel-style joke candidate and mock him endlessly, or to just ignore him. He will go away if they do. (Personally, for myself, I choose Option A.)

Haley Barbour

I always thought the Wall Street Journal's artistic renderings of newsmakers were silly. This, more than most, is.

With that in mind, I’m not sure what the media’s doing with respect to Barbour. It seems clear to me that Barbour has little chance of getting the Republican nomination, let alone winning the White House. Barbour’s first-tier status seems entirely attributable to his having a hefty list of D.C. contacts. His national candidacy is a media-driven farce. The media does not ignore the negative tidbits about segregation and the like, but they don’t seem to persuade people like Smith to just ignore Barbour completely. The battle over Barbour’s candidacy seems to be taking place entirely within the media at this point–Democrats see him as about as much of a threat as Palin, and the polls suggest Republicans lack any interest in him. So, one might ask, where is this demand for Barbour-related news coming from? The only people who seem sincerely interested in Barbour info (I don’t count myself as sincerely interested) are people in the media, but the only stories that seem to get out there are ones that paint him in a terrible light. That’s right, even the only sector that’s remotely interested in the guy as a candidate is deeply ambivalent about him. I’m quite sure the rest of the country will follow their lead.

My heuristic for whether a candidate is serious is this: can you picture thousands of people spending days doing phone banks, knocking down doors and making big financial sacrifices to see that this person gets their party’s nomination to be president? So far as I can tell, in the South, those people are Palin and Huckabee, not Barbour. Barbour seems to me to be this year’s John Connally-style candidate, this year’s super-funded guy who just goes nowhere. Unless it’s The Donald instead.

I have to admit that I don’t understand this:
I do, however, want to state again, that I find the almost celebratory reactions by Americans on twitter to be odd. Not to be an old fart, but the fear of the unknown is just too much right now. While I’m all in favor of people being able to democratically choose their own future, I’m also cognizant that a lot of these people might choose to go with leadership that will make life very difficult for the United States. Like I said before, free societies mean societies that are free to hate us. We really don’t know what is going to happen, and that should be unsettling for everyone. For all we know, these repressive regimes might be replaced with even more repressive regimes with the veneer of Democracy. I just don’t know what is going to happen.
That’s John Cole, echoing Larison’s commentary on the matter. This is all true, and yet…does it really hurt to hope for an improvement in the Middle East? Understand, I want the government to assume the absolute worst is going to happen and plan for that. Always best to plan for the worst. But the other side of that coin is to hope for the best. Is that really objectionable? I prefer cautious optimism myself. Sure, worse people could take over. But things could also get better. Why not acknowledge the first while hoping for the second.
{ 1 comment }
Lev filed this under: ,  

Your Vintners