![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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
Date: 2008-07-26 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-26 11:32 pm (UTC)"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
Date: 2008-07-26 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-26 11:42 pm (UTC)"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
Date: 2008-07-26 11:44 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2008-07-26 11:47 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2008-07-27 12:11 am (UTC)I for the most part don't know what I'm talking about, but their conclusions exactly echo my own.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 01:12 am (UTC)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
Date: 2008-07-27 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 01:34 am (UTC)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
Date: 2008-07-27 01:53 am (UTC)