![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
McTosh
Anyone who thinks they know anything about US politics based on the coverage given by the US mainstream media should urgently read this article. Jamison Foser is always excellent in his media analysis, and nowhere more so than here.
One campaign is talking bilgewater (e.g., and from a long long list, Iran is accused of aiding Sunnis), and much of the mainstream media is basically stenographing this crap. The other campaign is trying to make this a proper debate about the future the US -- and the world -- should have. The first campaign is whingeing about unfair media treatment, despite the facts on the ground. The second is saying little on the subject.
See? I'm not biased. I'm not saying which campaign is which.
no subject
Allow me to sum up the difference between the two, from an "entertainment-based news media" perspective.
Obama is a dazzling, young, engergetic anomaly in the political world, who sincerely wants to fix this mess we (and the world) are in, and who even seems miraculously able to do so, all the while mobilizing support from all walks of life, even those who have never agreed on anything before.
McCain is an old brown shoe dipped in blood.
Which story would you prefer to cover?
no subject
I was saying to Pam this evening that, had McCain drawn 200,000 members of the Berlin public to a speech whose audience stretched halfway across the city, I'd have thought that was a newsworthy event: I'd have had no grumbles, even though I disagree with the man's politics and in general hope he rots in wherever his wife so obviously wants him to rot in, had the US media given this event wall-to-wall coverage: it'd have been a historic moment.
So where the fuck does the beef come from in the McLame campaign that some of the mainstream media have the courage to report this event?
Incidentally, in my NYT headlines e-mail today, the only directly referenced story was a "balance" piece carping about the "lack of substance" in Obama's speech. I'd have been unaware of the NYT's nonpartisan report had it not been that a phrase of Obama's made it to the "Quote of the Day" slot.
And that's the best of the US mainstream media -- the venue that's supposedly the least biased towards the Repugs. Is it any wonder that, for news on US domestic and foreign policy, I consult the Independent, Guardian and BBC, plus the Oz newspapers?
As you remarked, it took three whole fucking days for the NYT to notice the Mississippi oil spill. That sort of delay was permissible in the 18th century, when communications were slow; today it smacks of deliberate policy.
How the fuck did Americans throw away their freedom? Historically it's always been a bit of an illusion -- something politicians boasted about while the lynch mobs howled their pathetic but psychopathic howl -- but from a few decades ago, maybe about the time the Washington Post had the courage to go up against a corrupt Adminstration to expose the Watergate scandal and an extraordinarily corrupt President, it started becoming real: it was there for the grabbing. Since then, stupid fat white guys in SUVs have traded cheap prices at WalMart for that fleeting freedom.
no subject
I don't have a clue how Obama (or anyone) can dig the US out of debt, get the jobs back, provide health coverage for people, fix the schools, end the war, etc and etc. At least, he seems to WANT to fix things. I can't imagine how McCain will be able to win the presidency, but then, I was shocked by the fact that Dubya "won" the past two times.
no subject
"Americans threw away their freedom when business and govt leaders shipped American jobs to other countries and plowed us deep into debt."
Ah, yes, the glorious economic legacy of dear ol' Uncle Ronnie, that affable death-squad enabler.
no subject
no subject
"At least, he seems to WANT to fix things."
And at least he recognizes that things need to be fixed, as opposed to claiming that everything's basically hunky dory. That, I think, is his biggest strength of all.
no subject
The mainstream media exists, as it always has, to serve the interests of its owners. Those do not coincide with any great regularity, with those of the mass of the population.
no subject
"She's currently claiming that Obama attracted only 20,000 Berliners. Wonder why?"
Probably because she's very stupid. I imagine she's trying to claim it was the 200,000 figure came from the Obama camp. In fact it was the estimate of the German police.
Besides, you only have to look at the photos to see that this was a truly major crowd.
no subject
no subject
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/26/mccain-feeling-a-little-left-out/
Well, boo hoo.
You are right about the American media being completely useless. Time Magazine sometimes offers a worthwhile article, but mostly it's all a wasteland. One way to get accurate information is to watch Fox News, then just assume the opposite of evertyhing they say is true. This technique is surprisingly effective, though there are side effects, including, but not limited to: nausea, headaches, impotency, depression, despair, and fits of uncontrollable rage. Not really worth it.
I tend to get most of my news from comedians these days; Daily Show, Colbert Report, various youtube satires -- you can actually find some interesting truth kernels through these outlets. But yes, I should really get into the habit of watching the BBC.
You are completely right in your assessment of "freedom" in American. It's not just an illusion, it's a sales pitch. It's how they get the downtrodden and poor to vote against their own best interests again and again.
We love to delcare ourselves the "most free" country on earth, knowing full well that the nation was built on the back of slaves. In America;
Freedom = not currently enslaved or incarcerated.
The American dream still exists, but most misinterpret its meaning or are too meek and fearful to try.
Everything about America's corporate driven reality discourages any attempt at the American dream. If you don't get in line with the rest of the corporate drones, you will not be able to afford healthcare for you and your family. Your credit score will be ruined, preventing you from buying a house. It's extortion.
Our national slogan might as well be:
The American Dream: I dare you to even try, motherfuckers!
The nation has been brainwashed to value convenience above all else. There is a great desire to avoid looking directly at whatever unpleasant truth that may interrupt our collective bovine complacency.
People don't want improvement, they want sameness. They don't mind if their basic human rights are slowly stripped from them, as long as it's done slowly enough that they hardly notice, and that it doesn't obviously interfere with their daily routines.
This country is standing on a precipice and doesn't seem to notice. It's fucking astounding.
no subject
"This country is standing on a precipice and doesn't seem to notice."
This amazes me, too. (See my second note in reply to sci_o_biscuits, above.) Even most of those who're desperate to see the back of Il Buce and despise his near-clone Il McBuce seem to think the current disaster is just, like, well, sort of a bump in the road: nothing too much to get worried about. There's no appreciation of the potentially historic -- or end-of-historic -- nature of the times we're living in. This may be the end for decades or centuries of the "democratic experiment" so far as the US is concerned. Of course, even that apprehension could be a trivium alongside what climate change may do to human civilization as a whole.
The biggest lesson of history is probably: There's no going back. There must have been imperial Romans who thought the Barbarians at the gate were nothing more than a temporary misfortune, easy enough to sort out, normal service will soon be resumed . . .
PS
"Since then, stupid fat white guys in SUVs have traded cheap prices at WalMart for that fleeting freedom."
And I write this as a stupid fat white guy myself. No SUV, though. No shopping in WalMart, either.
no subject
Why is it wrong for Obama to go to the Middle East and Europe ... and have the press cover it?
That's pretty even, if you ask me.
Besides, all those fundraisers Cindy McCain has held in London for the McCain campaign, what about those?
Whingers and whiners and big old babies these rethuggers.
Yeah, the NYTimes can't even remember there's a City Named New Orleans. Well, that's what the rest of Louisiana wants -- for the city of New Orleans to go away forever. Then their statecan be all rethugs and stuffs, and they won't ever have to consider those pesky poc and bohos and dems.
Love, C.
no subject
The taste of sour grapes is very noticeable.
no subject
Love, C.
no subject
"Because, of course, McCain had. Absolutely. Nothing. Whatsoever. To Do. With. It."
It was stupefying that most of the mainstream newsoid media fell for this nonsense. Would they have blamed McCain had there been a terrorist outrage while he was there? No, of course not: they'd have been idiots to do so. Yet letting him bask in the glory of the hostage release was an exactly similar non sequitur -- rather like, for that matter, crediting Raygun with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
no subject
no subject
"sometimes the hypocrisy is just too heavy to be borne"
It's stomach-turning, yet our highly paid punditocracy by and large appears not to be affected by it -- and appears not to be aware that a large slice of the US public is as nauseated by the hypocrisy as you or I. They seem not to have noticed that the choir they're preaching to left the room a while ago.
no subject
no subject
"The assumption is that nobody has a memory that lasts longer than a week."
The trouble is that 98% of the time this assumption is correct.
Remember Il Buce's claims to have invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in?
Complete crap, easily disproven, about events of just a few months earlier. Yet . . .
Likewise, a recent survey shows that 10% of the population think Obama's a Muslim. Huh? Under which rock have these 30 million people been?
no subject
What's ironic is that the same doltish 10% who think he's a Muslim are probably among those readiest to flay him for having the Reverend Wright as his pastor.
no subject
But consider this: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008072401
That's written by political scientists who have some idea of what they're talking about.
no subject
I for the most part don't know what I'm talking about, but their conclusions exactly echo my own.
no subject
no subject
What was notable in the primaries was that a hell of a lot more Dems than Repugs were voting in them -- twice as many, sometimes more like three times as many.
no subject
no subject
My own interpretation was that Dems were much more determined to vote, whereas a lot of Repugs, completely disillusioned with their own party, were unwilling to take part. They might not wish to vote Dem (and obviously in many of the primaries they couldn't), but they might very well stay at home rather than vote for Dubya Mk. 2.
no subject
no subject
no subject
No, he comes from a family that makes really, really, really bad Scotch whisky.
In Taiwan.
no subject
no subject
It's marketed in the US as McGnat's.
no subject
no subject
Or feasibly McInsain.
no subject
no subject
*sigh* And I was trying to keep this clean . . .
no subject
no subject
We have, it seems, recycled McBilge.
no subject
Oh, that's hilarious!
no subject