Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[BLOG]Why do Republicans hate America?
I Read This
September 20, 2018, 04:28:31 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG]Why do Republicans hate America?  (Read 31691 times)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2008, 20:15:37 EDT »

I refuse to do so.

Honest journalism that strives for integrity is a true/false, either you strive to be honest or you do not.  If you do not, no matter by how far, you are not delivering the news and you are abandoning the fundemental principles of journalistic integrity.

Niether MSNBC nor Fox strives to be intergrity driven therefore neither one is a news channel.  They are opinion channels, and you can and should argue the leftist opinion channels are less obscurantist then the rightist ones, but in regards to calling them news they both fail on an Epic level because they're deliberately biased.

What your argument would hold you to is that we should say that a rapist is okay because he is not also a murderer.  No, this is not so.  A terrible plague upon society is just that and should be called as such.  They are not journalists, and it is dishonest when they present themselves as sources of news, the very fact that it is tolerated is deplorable.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2008, 20:55:27 EDT »

The comparison you make is unfair.  Murder and Rape are both major offenses.  A more fair comparison would be Murder to Shoplifting.  It doesn't mean that the shoplifter shouldn't be in trouble, but arguing that they are equally bad and deserve the same sentence is unreasonable.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2008, 21:43:21 EDT »

What your argument would hold you to is that we should say that a rapist is okay because he is not also a murderer.  No, this is not so.  A terrible plague upon society is just that and should be called as such.  They are not journalists, and it is dishonest when they present themselves as sources of news, the very fact that it is tolerated is deplorable.

Even if we're to use your comparison, rather than Wodan's, it's not that the rapist shouldn't be punished, it's that rape is not eqiuvalent to murder. A rapist might have inflicted deep psychological wounds that take a lifetime to deal with, but at least that lifetime is left to live. Thus, what the argument would hold Wodan to is this: rapists would be punished less than murderers.

Guess what? That's pretty much what already happens.

Now, let's go back to the situation under discussion. Clinton was libelled and slandered, vigorously, to the point where he was accused of major crimes that were entirely fictitious in nature. Bush has had exaggerations published about him, to the point where it looks like he's doing a worse job than he is. Maybe. There's an obvious answer to the question "which is worse?" While bigger claims are being made against Bush than were against Clinton, that's because there are worse things to claim about Bush than there ever were to claim against Clinton.

In short: I reject your false dichotomy.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Himatsu
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2008, 23:02:43 EDT »

I can see the anger coming from both sides without being blinded by partisan loyalty.

Oh, cut the crap already. Not belonging to one of the two major parties doesn't magically make you immune to bias.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2008, 23:19:32 EDT »

Med, I'm makign a deontological arguement rather then a utilitarian one.  As much as I hate Kant, when it comes to ethics in journalism I think he's spot on the money.

That being said, I agree with you in respect to the degrees to which they misrepresent, a point which I concede readily.  My issue is with the very idea that journalists should have political objectives in mind when they put together pieces of work.  Bias in inherant in the writing profession, and hell knows, can be much worse in Academia, but there is an understanding that if you -are- a partisan hack, word will get around, and you will be shunned.

What I object to is that we don't shun people like Maddow and attempt to actually be moral, we merely try to be less immoral.  This is a terrible ethcial trap in a two-party system because it means as long as we aren't as bad as the right we're good, and then we laud ourselves for being so moral and take offense when we are called hypocrites.

I'm the first to admit that when I wear my writing intellectually hat I try to be non-biased (although my work does show a lot of belief in universalism), and when I go out with the hatchetmen I become just as bad as any journalistic hack, but I know that doing so is wrong.  Fortunately for me, I do not have an fully functioning sense of guilt, but when people sneer with disgust at politics, we can't just blame the right, we helped build this house too.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2008, 00:49:32 EDT »

I have no problem with a news anchor who also doubles as a political commentator, so long as it is clearly indicated which pieces are commentary and which are news.  Similarly, there is no problem with a newspaper story writer who also writes editorials on the opinion section, so long as those opinions appear primarily in that section.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2008, 09:38:06 EDT »

Good times...
Logged
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2008, 10:25:17 EDT »

Which brings up the point: Maddow and Olbermann are commentators. MSNBC tried Olbermann as a news anchor but he couldn't cut the mustard so again he is a commentator.
Logged

Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2008, 11:12:57 EDT »

First post editted to include link to blog entry and proper tags.
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2008, 11:42:39 EDT »

Not to mention, as angry leftist as he is, many feel Olbermann doesn't really balance MSNBC's other aspects which are slanted to the right. 

The bias in the media tends towards conservative, in the actual definition of the word (i.e. "cautious and resistant to change") and simply goes with whatever stereotype has worked best in the past.  It usually slants in favor of the republicans who "work the Ref" but the overwhelming bias they seek is either not reached or very quickly has a backlash. 

Of course, it does change, lately for the worse.  Fox News won a court case saying they are allowed to make up news.  Made-up news and manufactured controversies are profitable, so the media tends towards this new, proven method. 
Logged
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2008, 13:39:10 EDT »

Oh geez, I just remembered the perfect example that shows how candidates on the left can make statements as boneheaded and divisive as Palin did.

Barack Obama on rural Pennsylvanians: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Logged
Vayne
New Political Commentator
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2008, 14:40:57 EDT »

Oh geez, I just remembered the perfect example that shows how candidates on the left can make statements as boneheaded and divisive as Palin did.

Barack Obama on rural Pennsylvanians: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I don't mean to quibble over minor details here, but isn't there a large gap between stereotyping a single segment of a community around a few generally fairly commonly held values as Obama did there and basically lumping about half of a country together as being unpatriotic as Palin did? Which I think echoes the entire direction of the thread thus far actually; nobody (well, not *nobody*, but close enough) is saying that Democrats are completely immune to fanaticism or generalisation or even an us-vs-them mentality, but that it's far less prevalent than it is from the Republicans, and more importantly the Democratic campaign doesn't revolve strongly around provoking fanaticism, generalisations and us-vs-them, whereas the Republicans do.
Logged
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2008, 15:25:52 EDT »

Vayne: look back at the Howard Dean quote I posted on the first page. You'll see a huge us-vs-them mentality in that statement.
Logged
Vayne
New Political Commentator
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2008, 16:24:33 EDT »

Vayne: look back at the Howard Dean quote I posted on the first page. You'll see a huge us-vs-them mentality in that statement.

And as I said in my original post nobody, least of all myself, is saying that such a mentality is completely absent from the Democratic Party or its supporters. The difference, at least as I see it, is that while some Democrats openly hold this view (and likely more, maybe even all, hold it secretly) they don't make that attitude a key part of their platform the way that the Republican Party does. Granted Howard Dean is, as leader of the DNC, one of the highest-ranked Democrats there is, but he's not Obama and he's not Biden, and to my mind there is a huge difference between him making a statement like that and the Vice-Presidential Candidate making a statement like that, let alone actually *campaigning* on a statement like that, the way Palin has done and is continuing to do.
Logged
Blue Boy from Red Country
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2008, 18:14:19 EDT »


I refer you to a quote made by Howard Dean where he described the conflict between Democrats and Republicans as follows: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

I disagree with conservatives on a lot of issues, but I'm not going to label all of them as hostile or intolerant people just because of a few nutters. Also, I think that the reason so many of the fanatic republicans get excessive media coverage is because the statements they make are just so unbelievably stupid. But again, their retarded comments should not be applied to thinking that all republicans believe what the morons do.

I by no means meant to suggest that all or even most Republicans were bigotted or dualistic or that all Democrats were open-minded and fair. I only meant to suggest that there is a greater tendency among conservatives to adopt an attitude of moral superiority that is reinforced more by black-and-white thinking. My personal, albiet biased, observation is that haughty liberals tend to focus on how they are "right" instead of saying everyone else is "wrong", even if its implied.

Also, I do agree with Vayne; Democrats tend not to rely on character assaults and other antagonistic measure while campaign.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 18:22:00 EDT by Blue Boy from Red Country » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!