The media

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hmm...IRex I think you've gotten a bit mixed up yourself...I thought you said we shouldn't go after people just because they look middle-eastern, and now you say we shouldn't go after them because of their religion? I think you might have stumbled on one of my points.

Mixed up? I was referring to your notion that we should only be focusing on Muslims. Clearly going after someone based on religion is a fallacy and an impossibility not to mention a real bad idea. Going after someone because they have tan skin is a bad idea too but for different reasons.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Mixed up? I was referring to your notion that we should only be focusing on Muslims. Clearly going after someone based on religion is a fallacy and an impossibility not to mention a real bad idea. Going after someone because they have tan skin is a bad idea too but for different reasons.

Ah, so I was the one mixed up
Ok, so we don't profile. What do we do?
We need a solution.

[Insidious Rex]

Short Term: We use technology to competently check everything and everyone going onto or into a plane (or train or bus or ship etc.) in a way that doesnt bring commerce to a grinding halt (which is as much a victory for the terrorists as blowing up an airplane). And we do this in a PROactive manner. Making everyone throw away their water bottles and after shave is a reactionary move. Not a proactive move. Clearly the need for technology to be our alley in our fight against terrorism is critical.

Long Term: Fundamentally alter our approach to the middle east (politically and socially) and tackle our oil dependency. Show the millions and millions of muslims who think we are an arrogant, greedy, duplicitous power hungry bully spewing a corrupt and dangerous culture of empty greed and materialism that we aren’t all that. That we are capable of change. This will not eliminate the crazies of course but it will undermine their support among the main stream middle eastern populations which we are doing our dardenst to strengthen with many of our policies over there. This will, of course, take a good 3 or 4 generations but its really the only way to do it. It cant be done overnight. But then enemies can become good friends in a matter of 20 or 30 years (ala Germany, Vietnam, etc.). Minds CAN fundamentally change. We just need to take the right approach and be consistent.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Short Term: We use technology to competently check everything and everyone going onto or into a plane (or train or bus or ship etc.) in a way that doesnt bring commerce to a grinding halt (which is as much a victory for the terrorists as blowing up an airplane). And we do this in a PROactive manner. Making everyone throw away their water bottles and after shave is a reactionary move. Not a proactive move. Clearly the need for technology to be our alley in our fight against terrorism is critical.

Long Term: Fundamentally alter our approach to the middle east (politically and socially) and tackle our oil dependency. Show the millions and millions of muslims who think we are an arrogant, greedy, duplicitous power hungry bully spewing a corrupt and dangerous culture of empty greed and materialism that we aren’t all that. That we are capable of change. This will not eliminate the crazies of course but it will undermine their support among the main stream middle eastern populations which we are doing our dardenst to strengthen with many of our policies over there. This will, of course, take a good 3 or 4 generations but its really the only way to do it. It cant be done overnight. But then enemies can become good friends in a matter of 20 or 30 years (ala Germany, Vietnam, etc.). Minds CAN fundamentally change. We just need to take the right approach and be consistent.

I agree with all that. Every bit.

[hectorberlioz]

To get back to the actual topic of this thread: The Tennessean, my state newspaper, recently published the names of political candidates that it is endorsing.

I see this as perhaps, honest? Or does the NYTimes do the same?

Honest or not, I wonder how this choice of candidates is done, do they all DEFINITELY agree, or is it like an election, whomever with however many...

I actually wonder why they find it necessary....

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

To get back to the actual topic of this thread: The Tennessean, my state newspaper, recently published the names of political candidates that it is endorsing.

I see this as perhaps, honest? Or does the NYTimes do the same?

Honest or not, I wonder how this choice of candidates is done, do they all DEFINITELY agree, or is it like an election, whomever with however many...

I actually wonder why they find it necessary....

All that is required of the Tennessean following the early August primary election is that the candidate be a Democrat. It has to my knowledge (over 40 years of obervation) never, ever supported a Republican. The paper does endorse candidates during the primary season as well, and generally selects the farthest Left-leaning of the bunch. And yes, the New York Times does the same. Most American newspapers endorse favored candidates chosen by either the editors or the publishers. Many newspapers in the United States print "sample ballots," a page or half-page that shows what the ballot looks like, so that voters can see it before they enter the polling place. I don't know if they still do it, but I remember when I was a boy, the Tennessean used to print an "X" in the boxes of the candidates they supported on the sample ballot they published.

If you want to see something funny about Tennessee elections, read this post, this post, and this one in BillHobbs.com. "Funny," unfortunately, in the least desirable context of the word.

[hectorberlioz]

Hello fellow Tenneasean! (I thought I was the only one! )

I'm guessing their support for Bob Corker is the first time they've ever endorsed a Rep for senate?

[Butterbeer]

sort of the free-market press than the free press heh?

[Alcuin]

I think you are remembering the Sunday Tennessean, July 23, 2006, in an editorial entitled, “Corker in GOP primary”, “This page endorses Bob Corker in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat.” That is an endorsement for the primary, not the general election.

I found the endorsement on Corker’s website using Google.

[hectorberlioz]

So does that mean they're endorsing Ford jr.?...I'll have to look and see. I haven't read the paper in days...

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So does that mean they're endorsing Ford jr.?...I'll have to look and see. I haven't read the paper in days...

Well, if they haven’t said anything, it means they’ve not endorse anyone yet.

By the way, if you read the July 23 endorsement of Corker, I think you’ll find that they also endorsed Ford in the Democratic primary.

But I see nothing that says the paper has endorsed a candidate for the general election yet.

Again, almost every newspaper in the country will endorse candidates, local, statewide, and national. Broadcast stations, like radio and television stations, cannot make explicit endorsements in the United States because they are using radio frequencies licensed to them by the government. But it is an Anglo-American tradition for the print media to endorse candidates. This is one of the things newspapers do.

No one should expect a newspaper to be objective when reporting domestic politics.

[hectorberlioz]

It does seem rather biased...

BTW, How many senators does Tenn have? I only know of two positions.

[The Gaffer]

Doesn't each state have two?

It's interesting that these papers are explicitly endorsing one candidate or another. At least it's honest and out in the open. The usual approach is for them to pretend to be "fair and balanced" but then be totally biased.

Anyway, how much do people think it matters? The media would like us to believe that they have the power to influence elections (e.g. The Sun claims to have defeated both Labour/Kinnock in the UK in 1992 and Tories/Major in 1997), but do they?

[Jonathan]

Media as a whole has a tremendous power but single newspapers like The Sun? I don't know.

[Butterbeer]

mmm .. but in that case it wasn't just the sun but the whole murdoch empire ..

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

mmm .. but in that case it wasn't just the sun but the whole murdoch empire ..

Indeed, and over here it would be ALL of the other papers that the NYTimes company owns, and Gannet. Thats huge.

BTW, Gaffer ...alas, you knew better than I did . Sheesh, catch up with the times, Hector...

Anyone else hear about poor Kyra Philips at CNN?

[hectorberlioz]

Aha! Aha!

This morning on NPR: NPR London Correspondent Ron Gifford says that a lot of people he has asked about racial profiling (in London etc), say that they support it, "after all, it isn't the chinise grandmothers who have been perpetrating these things..."

Goes to show there are real people in England, despite the BBC, and despite NPR.

[The Gaffer]

NPR?

So that would be a scientific sample then?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

NPR?

So that would be a scientific sample then?

A sample, admittedly...but then, what else do we get? The important thing is that it shone through the media...despite all the bias.

I mean, the NPR guy, when he heard that was like "MhhhHmm!"...NPR is not FOX...it's more like CNN for radio, except you don't have to see the people you get annoyed at

I listen to it regularly

[Huorn]

One of the things that irritates me about the media is what it does to public figures. It is called a "Media Anal Exam". They dig out whatever dirt they can find on a person they don't like, be it a liberal or a conservative. The media can be ruthless to liberal and conservative alike. It cuts both ways. The media's big downfall is sensationalism. What shocks, what sells papers, or attracts viewers: This is what drives the big media machine.