Media Campaigns Hard for Obama

[mcsluggo]

the "libral bias of the media" is a fairly amorphous term that allows people to pick and choose on "evidence" and also to pick and choose on "ramifications"

The "mainstream" media that conservative critics like to rail about so much ... is indeed centered on the coasts, and particularly the north east coast. This does mean that the people that work there look/act/behave more like north east coast people than ozarks people or great plains people or gulf coast people or whatever. They are also are over-educated white-collar types, so they look/act/feel more like that than blue collar types. They also live in big cities, and think/act/behave like people living in big eastern cities more than small town middle-America.

These things are true. So if you are a blue collar worker in a small town far from the coasts (or any of the three) then the nytimes/washingtonpost and network news will not inherently seem to match your viewpoints on things. Aalthough, since your living room IS the battlegrounds for those networks...they will TRY to. But the inherent leanings are probably going to be a bit different... and to the extent that there are conservative interests, it will be Bill Buckley and Milton Friedman type conservative viewpoints more naturally than Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin types.

HOWEVER. this inherent positioning is one thing... the uuber whine-fest that has grown over recent years is another. The press is a highly competive industry that is financially being hammered by the onset of the intranet. They are profit maximizers, and their industry positioning and profitability is dependent upon basically 2 things, their credibility and their ability to unearth stories faster/better than their rivals. Even if you think that the media executives all would LIKE Obama to win... to think that they would be able to maintain a cartel of inhibiting anti-Obama stories is pure tin-hat looniness.

From the basic idea that the media is coast-centered, emergess the downright ridiculous shield of completely disregarding information that emerges from the "MSM" while simultaneusly completely devouring totally loony crackpot drivel that dribbles out from the edges from completely unvetted and un-accountable blogs and whatnot.

Conservative pundits gleefully use this issue like they hae a blank check on an infinite account... when in act they have a few nickels and pennies jingling around in their pockets

[u2sarajevo]

The NY Times Crossword puzzle is even getting in on the (non) campaigning for the ONE:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13888.html

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Here's the media continuing their non ()-campaign for Obama....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

That was a great op-ed. Thanks for posting it.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That was a great op-ed. Thanks for posting it.

So you think that the Reagan Republicans put us in our current financial "mess"?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So you think that the Reagan Republicans put us in our current financial "mess"?

No, I don't.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, I don't.

Me either, but that was one of the major premises of that op-ed. I don't think there's any doubt, however, that McCain's suggestion that both sides suspend campaigning was a calculated political maneuver, and a fairly corny one at that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So you think that the Reagan Republicans put us in our current financial "mess"?

all I can say is who authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act?

who was behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act?

yes, I believe it was the "reagan republicans".....

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

all I can say is who authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act?

who was behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act?

yes, I believe it was the "reagan republicans".....

1999 and 2000 Acts? Reagan?

Anyway, I suppose you're saying that deregulation got us into all of this mess. I say that we have plenty of regulations, but lack of oversight and enforcement had a lot more to do with it.

[Mavdog]

the question was not "did reagan put us in our...mess", the question was "did reagan republicans put us iin our....mess".

these bills were written by reagan republicans. phil gramm is a "reagan republican", right?

the lack of regulations on esoteric financial instruments such as aig wrote, the lack of regulations on non-bank entities such as countrywide, that is the basis for the mess imo.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the question was not "did reagan put us in our...mess", the question was "did reagan republicans put us iin our....mess".

these bills were written by reagan republicans. phil gramm is a "reagan republican", right?

Fair enough. I don't agree, but I see your point.

the lack of regulations on esoteric financial instruments such as aig wrote, the lack of regulations on non-bank entities such as countrywide, that is the basis for the mess imo.

As I understand it, the credit swaps and the like were a recently "invented" instrument that weren't widely used back in 1999-2000, and therefore the possible need to regulate them really wasn't known at the time. (I admit that I may be wrong about this.)

Was it a lack of regulations on Countrywide, or was it lack of enforcement of regulations? And are we to blame government entirely? Don't the predatory lenders and the *gasp* consumers who were honestly buying more than they could afford have some part in the blame?

[Mavdog]

there were derivative instruments that have been around for decades.

kg, there's blame all around. the lenders who didn't care about true underwriting because they pushed the paper out the door as soon as it closed. borrowers who convinced themselves they could afford a house that they really couldn't. mortgage brokers who falsified incomes to close the loan. borrowers who believed the rise in home prices would never end so they could always refinance the appreciation out.

I don't blame the government, with the deregulation brought by gramm's bill they were on the sidelines.

and I don't blame greenspan and the fed either. "cheap money" is not in itself the boogeyman.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there were derivative instruments that have been around for decades.

kg, there's blame all around. the lenders who didn't care about true underwriting because they pushed the paper out the door as soon as it closed. borrowers who convinced themselves they could afford a house that they really couldn't. mortgage brokers who falsified incomes to close the loan. borrowers who believed the rise in home prices would never end so they could always refinance the appreciation out.

I don't blame the government, with the deregulation brought by gramm's bill they were on the sidelines.

and I don't blame greenspan and the fed either. "cheap money" is not in itself the boogeyman.

I can agree with "blame all around."

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Nice machismo and all (the pissing in the mouth thing was a little bit over the top and bitter), but calling somebody a whiner or fisking certain lines in the article doesn't in any way detract from the truth of the overriding point of the article. I'm disappointed that educated and intelligent folks like you and Mavdog are trying to seriously debate it, to be honest.

It felt right writing about the pissing in the mouth at the time! .... but perhaps you are right, and it was over the top. <but still fun to type >

[Flacolaco]

From the AP

Here's a sampling of political comedy on late-night television from Tuesday night:

"Republicans are blaming Nancy Pelosi for the bailout not going through. And Democrats are blaming it on an incomplete proposal by the Republicans. John McCain is blaming Barack Obama. Barack Obama is blaming John McCain. And Sarah Palin is praying nobody asks her what's going on."
— Jay Leno, "Tonight" show


"The meltdown continues. Of course, I'm not talking about the economy, but John McCain's campaign."
— Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show"


"John McCain says that the federal aid to Wall Street shouldn't be called a ‘bailout,' but instead should be called a ‘rescue.' McCain also said that he's not ‘old,' he's ‘geezerific.'"
— Conan O'Brien, "Late Night"


"In an interview, Barack Obama forgot which wedding anniversary he celebrates this year. Michelle Obama just changed their slogan from ‘yes we can' to ‘yes you can ... sleep on the couch.'"
— Craig Ferguson, "Late Late Show"


"This unprecedented financial crisis is great news for President George Bush. Now this will be the president's legacy, and it will cover up all of the other things that were going to be his legacy."
— Stephen Colbert, "The Colbert Report"


"Everybody is a financial expert now. Even Sarah Palin has a bailout plan. It involves hiring Dog the Bounty Hunter."
— David Letterman, "Late Show"


"Earlier today, John McCain and Sarah Palin introduced their new ‘just say no' program. McCain told Sarah Palin, if a reporter asks you any questions, just saw ‘no.'"
— Leno, "Tonight" show


"If you think about it, Sarah Palin could actually end up being the best candidate. I mean, if the world really does collapse she's the only one who knows how to live off the land. A moose in every pot."
—Jimmy Kimmel, "Jimmy Kimmel Live"


"How about this — yesterday the stock market ... suffered its biggest one-day drop in history, 777 points. Whoa, I mean, that's straight down. Stock market dropped 777 points. And, I mean, I'm telling you, boy, it's a good thing John McCain blew me off to go save the economy."
— Letterman, "Late Show"

[rabbitproof]

Human nature is to take the path of least resistance and McCain and Palin are making themselves very easy material.

Basically, anybody but their hardcore supporters is having a good laugh at what they've said and done over the last 1-2 weeks.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Human nature is to take the path of least resistance and McCain and Palin are making themselves very easy material.

Basically, anybody but their hardcore supporters is having a good laugh at what they've said and done over the last 1-2 weeks.

right. not so Biden? not so Pelosi? not so Frank? not so Obama, even?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

right. not so Biden? not so Pelosi? not so Frank? not so Obama, even?

Not so, no.

When the three-ring circus is in town, folks don't pay much attention elsewhere.