Bias in the Media, LOL

[Symmetry]

Is it so different? Or just the cover? The contents seem to be pretty Syria orientated. To be fair, I don't really bother with Time magazine that much anyway.

Well, the cover has inside what is called the "cover story", it's the main article in the magazine. Indeed, the US cover story is not the same as the other three international cover stories. However, the international cover story is included in the US edition, but buried deeper in the magazine.

Time does this all the time, as documented thusly-

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/2 ... E-Magazine

The most important world events given prominence in the international editions, but in the US those stories are put on the back burner and in their place of prominence is fluff.


Once the US media was separate, a check on the government often times and informing the US public of events of the world at large. Not so much any more as US media has become another arm of US propaganda.
How often have we seen people from other nationalities saying "you Americans, you only think about yourselves and know nothing of the rest of the world" and similar arguments along with the standard "travel beyond your borders some and learn more about the world".
Well, to those who say/think that, I give you the US media, so that one may understand the US centric thinking of so many US citizens. They are willfully kept in the dark as determined by US policy which the media is so willing to be a partner of peddling the propaganda and keeping the US public "on message" (or off message, depending on the circumstance) instead of actually giving a bigger picture. And then the public tricked into the Liberal vs Conservative/ Repoblian vs Demorat false dichotomy as "bias against my side" as every side can say that.

The truth is that there is bias in the media, obviously, and that bias is to keep America on the proper narrative. Truth is secondary and being informative is not needed unless it's part of whatever narrative is being peddled at the time.

But true enough, Time magazine is a rag, but Time Inc is a media conglomerate empire and that gives them a lot of control over information and how that information is disseminated.
And it's getting worse as recent Senate activities regarding setting conditions on what constitutes a journalist/news disseminator. The government will decide who is a journalist if they get their way and who is and isn't protected under freedom of the press. A very troubling thing indeed as a free press is very important to freedom, liberty and a just nation.

hmm...

The thing is that most people don't get their news from what you call "the US media", not really. There was a time when they did, and, ironically enough, the news was a bit less biased (note I did NOT say "unbiased"). Now we have multiple opinions in various news sources, but most of what people read is just entertainment.. or opinion. When its opinion, its opinion that mostly agrees with what they already thing, rather than other people's opinions or truly resourced and researched facts.

Part of the problem is that people think that bias is a bad thing. It's neither good nor bad in itself. Unbiased reporting is an unreachable goal, movement toward it and encouragement of it as an ideal is fine with me. I'm still ok with the idea of a journalist pursuing something he or she is passionate about. Better that than a robot.

[BigBallinStalin]

The tradeoff isn't between being passionate and being a robot.

The tradeoff is between being passionate and exercising proper reasoning. Also, these two are not mutually exclusive. One can objectively/scientifically analyze and explain a situation, and then arrive at some conclusion. The normative can deem that conclusion to be 'right' or 'wrong'. We use the normative every time in making policy recommendations (which the media often does).

The problem is making policy recommendations (i.e. using the normative) when the normative is completely unhinged from the positive/objective/scientific analysis. In other words, letting one's bias completely steer one's explanation and conclusion is not wise. Positive analysis requires controlling for one's bias while analyzing and explaining some phenomena. Journalists hardly exercise the positive, which is the problem.

[Symmetry]

The tradeoff isn't between being passionate and being a robot.

The tradeoff is between being passionate and exercising proper reasoning. Also, these two are not mutually exclusive. One can objectively/scientifically analyze and explain a situation, and then arrive at some conclusion. The normative can deem that conclusion to be 'right' or 'wrong'. We use the normative every time in making policy recommendations (which the media often does).

The problem is making policy recommendations (i.e. using the normative) when the normative is completely unhinged from the positive/objective/scientific analysis. In other words, letting one's bias completely steer one's explanation and conclusion is not wise. Positive analysis requires controlling for one's bias while analyzing and explaining some phenomena. Journalists hardly exercise the positive, which is the problem.

I don't think you have to trade passion for reason. I don't see that as a necessary trade at all. Passion can be reasonable, after all.

A reasonable analysis would look at alternative models and see how they work, if you'll forgive me trying to tie this back in to my original point- that the US homicide rate is not really comparable to the UK rate of crimes involving knives.

Controlling for one's bias is totally fair, and again, I support it as an ideal. I don't see bias as necessarily a bad thing. You have your biases and I have mine. Dismissing something as "biased" is dumb if you don't outline why you consider the person to be particularly despicable. Say, for example, Ron Paul organizing hate groups as seeds for his Libertarian movement.

I totally have a bias against politicians who campaign on hatred of homosexuals, people with different skin colours. Pretending that he's not that man, that's tough, if you'll forgive the personal example.

So anyway, I got distracted. Bias ain't necessarily a bad thing, and mostly it's natural.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's clear away our misunderstanding by recalling that a trade-off does not occur in absolute amounts, but rather a trade-off occurs in only relative amounts. Imagine a continuum where "passion" is at the far left and "reason/positive science" is at the far right. If we move all the way to the right, we become robots. If we move all the way to the left, we become totally unreasonable, thus unintelligible, ideologues. I think we can both agree that somewhere in between these extremes is the 'right' (i.e. optimal) point.

• In the real world, no one is at either extreme--except for the 'extreme' cases of course. Many ideologues at least exercise some degree of reason; otherwise, they'd be batshit insane, thus completely unintelligible.

That's what I meant by my point on trade-offs. So, by insisting on "no bias" in the media, one does not insist that all journalists must be robots, and of course passion should play a role in journalism; otherwise, it would be boring.

However, the argument against "bias in the media" cannot solely rely on our continuum because the continuum is insufficient for explaining the process of 'journalistic production'. For example, a journalist--in the production of some writing, (a) observes something and explains it and then (b) gears that explanation toward their normative position. In other words, a journalist can (a) employ positive science, i.e. pure reasoning, in observing and explaining a phenomena, but the positive science is left at the threshold of "what must be done?" This asks for a policy recommendation, which is filled out by (b) one's normative position.

The problem occurs when a journalist fails to control for their bias during (a) the scientific phase, thereby distorting (b) their policy recommendation/slant. That's my concern: creating and spreading uninformed/distorted recommendations. This is when bias becomes a 'bad' thing.

• I think most people's concern is that even if (a) is being carried out in the proper way, they would still want the media to sync with their own normative position (b), which is silly.

[BigBallinStalin]

A reasonable analysis would look at alternative models and see how they work, if you'll forgive me trying to tie this back in to my original point- that the US homicide rate is not really comparable to the UK rate of crimes involving knives.

That requires a long post about the role of theory, hypotheses, and testing validity/soundness, so I'll ask questions:

Are you rejecting the use of cross-country comparisons?

Are you suggesting that the British use substitutes entirely different from the Americans and their use substitutes?

[Symmetry]

The tradeoff isn't between being passionate and being a robot.

The tradeoff is between being passionate and exercising proper reasoning. Also, these two are not mutually exclusive. One can objectively/scientifically analyze and explain a situation, and then arrive at some conclusion. The normative can deem that conclusion to be 'right' or 'wrong'. We use the normative every time in making policy recommendations (which the media often does).

The problem is making policy recommendations (i.e. using the normative) when the normative is completely unhinged from the positive/objective/scientific analysis. In other words, letting one's bias completely steer one's explanation and conclusion is not wise. Positive analysis requires controlling for one's bias while analyzing and explaining some phenomena. Journalists hardly exercise the positive, which is the problem.

I don't think you have to trade passion for reason. I don't see that as a necessary trade at all. Passion can be reasonable, after all.

A reasonable analysis would look at alternative models and see how they work, if you'll forgive me trying to tie this back in to my original point- that the US homicide rate is not really comparable to the UK rate of crimes involving knives.

Controlling for one's bias is totally fair, and again, I support it as an ideal. I don't see bias as necessarily a bad thing. You have your biases and I have mine. Dismissing something as "biased" is dumb if you don't outline why you consider the person to be particularly despicable. Say, for example, Ron Paul organizing hate groups as seeds for his Libertarian movement.

I totally have a bias against politicians who campaign on hatred of homosexuals, people with different skin colours. Pretending that he's not that man, that's tough, if you'll forgive the personal example.

So anyway, I got distracted. Bias ain't necessarily a bad thing, and mostly it's natural.

Let's clear away our misunderstanding by recalling that a trade-off does not occur in absolute amounts, but rather a trade-off occurs in only relative amounts. Imagine a continuum where "passion" is at the far left and "reason/positive science" is at the far right. If we move all the way to the right, we become robots. If we move all the way to the left, we become totally unreasonable, thus unintelligible, ideologues. I think we can both agree that somewhere in between these extremes is the 'right' (i.e. optimal) point.

• In the real world, no one is at either extreme--except for the 'extreme' cases of course. Many ideologues at least exercise some degree of reason; otherwise, they'd be batshit insane, thus completely unintelligible.

That's what I meant by my point on trade-offs. So, by insisting on "no bias" in the media, one does not insist that all journalists must be robots, and of course passion should play a role in journalism; otherwise, it would be boring.

However, the argument against "bias in the media" cannot solely rely on our continuum because the continuum is insufficient for explaining the process of 'journalistic production'. For example, a journalist--in the production of some writing, (a) observes something and explains it and then (b) gears that explanation toward their normative position. In other words, a journalist can (a) employ positive science, i.e. pure reasoning, in observing and explaining a phenomena, but the positive science is left at the threshold of "what must be done?" This asks for a policy recommendation, which is filled out by (b) one's normative position.

The problem occurs when a journalist fails to control for their bias during (a) the scientific phase, thereby distorting (b) their policy recommendation/slant. That's my concern: creating and spreading uninformed/distorted recommendations. I think most people's concern is that even if (a) is being carried out in the proper way, they would still want the media to sync with their own normative position (b), which is silly.[/quote]

Welcome to the world. People have biases. Recognize them, sure, but don't go for an unrealistic ideal of an unbiased news source. Journalists aren't scientists.

[Symmetry]

A reasonable analysis would look at alternative models and see how they work, if you'll forgive me trying to tie this back in to my original point- that the US homicide rate is not really comparable to the UK rate of crimes involving knives.

That requires a long post about the role of theory, hypotheses, and testing validity/soundness, so I'll ask questions:

Are you rejecting the use of cross-country comparisons?

Are you suggesting that the British use substitutes entirely different from the Americans and their use substitutes?

No, not at all- if anything I invite valid use of other models more than most. I simply point out that comparing knife crime rates in the UK to homicide rates by gun in the US is dumb, and I would hope that you would support that.

What's your point?

[Symmetry]

Let's clear away our misunderstanding by recalling that a trade-off does not occur in absolute amounts, but rather a trade-off occurs in only relative amounts. Imagine a continuum where "passion" is at the far left and "reason/positive science" is at the far right. If we move all the way to the right, we become robots. If we move all the way to the left, we become totally unreasonable, thus unintelligible, ideologues. I think we can both agree that somewhere in between these extremes is the 'right' (i.e. optimal) point.

• In the real world, no one is at either extreme--except for the 'extreme' cases of course. Many ideologues at least exercise some degree of reason; otherwise, they'd be batshit insane, thus completely unintelligible.

That's what I meant by my point on trade-offs. So, by insisting on "no bias" in the media, one does not insist that all journalists must be robots, and of course passion should play a role in journalism; otherwise, it would be boring.

However, the argument against "bias in the media" cannot solely rely on our continuum because the continuum is insufficient for explaining the process of 'journalistic production'. For example, a journalist--in the production of some writing, (a) observes something and explains it and then (b) gears that explanation toward their normative position. In other words, a journalist can (a) employ positive science, i.e. pure reasoning, in observing and explaining a phenomena, but the positive science is left at the threshold of "what must be done?" This asks for a policy recommendation, which is filled out by (b) one's normative position.

The problem occurs when a journalist fails to control for their bias during (a) the scientific phase, thereby distorting (b) their policy recommendation/slant. That's my concern: creating and spreading uninformed/distorted recommendations. This is when bias becomes a 'bad' thing.

• I think most people's concern is that even if (a) is being carried out in the proper way, they would still want the media to sync with their own normative position (b), which is silly.

Why should journalism be science at all? I consider an aim toward objective reporting to be worthwhile, but I've said that above. Considering journalism to be subject to the scientific process seems merely like a different kind of dishonesty. One that requires every story have two sides that must be balanced, which is no science at all anyway.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not saying the entire journalistic production process is scientific. Only one aspect is: (a). By scientific, I mean positive (purely explanatory, non-normative), objective, etc. The other aspect is (b), the normative part.

If more journalists were striving to be objective (scientific, positive, etc.), then I'd expect more accurate reporting, which should be a desirable goal, right? If more journalists shifted away from being objective, then we'd get very biased reporting, which is not desirable, right? (You'd essentially get lies or propaganda).

Aren't we in agreement here?

[Symmetry]

I'm not saying the entire journalistic production process is scientific. Only one aspect is: (a). By scientific, I mean positive (purely explanatory, non-normative), objective, etc. The other aspect is (b), the normative part.

If more journalists were striving to be objective (scientific, positive, etc.), then I'd expect more accurate reporting, which should be a desirable goal, right? If more journalists shifted away from being objective, then we'd get very biased reporting, which is not desirable, right? (You'd essentially get lies or propaganda).

Aren't we in agreement here?

Not really. You seem a bit latched on to the idea of a "scientific" journalism. A term that is hella problematic, And then a "positive" journalism, I'm really unsure what that means.

As for the benefits of subjective journalism- I like a journalist who doesn't pretend to be your perfect objectivist.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, in regard to journalism, you tend toward the left side of the continuum; whereas, I tend toward the right. Okay then!

[Symmetry]

In other words, in regard to journalism, you tend toward the left side of the continuum; whereas, I tend toward the right. Okay then!

Meh, the right side, of late, and particularly with regards to US tv news, seems kinda poor. It seems like the right won an argument that it should be bias in favour of increasingly right wing views. Let's be fair here. "Bias" in this topic basically codes to anything slightly centrist or left of centre. "Media" here is some daft vague term that means whatever the person is watching on tv,

Am I close?

[Phatscotty]

In perhaps the most telling — and decisive — finding in the survey, 46 percent of Americans believe the media are too liberal as compared to the 13 percent who view the media as too conservative.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, in regard to journalism, you tend toward the left side of the continuum; whereas, I tend toward the right. Okay then!

Meh, the right side, of late, and particularly with regards to US tv news, seems kinda poor. It seems like the right won an argument that it should be bias in favour of increasingly right wing views. Let's be fair here. "Bias" in this topic basically codes to anything slightly centrist or left of centre. "Media" here is some daft vague term that means whatever the person is watching on tv,

Am I close?

As I said:

I think most people's concern is that even if (a) is being carried out in the proper way, they would still want the media to sync with their own normative position (b), which is silly.

You're talking about those people, and I agree that they're prevalent in this thread. However, this quote still applies to those on the left or right. It depends on how much each side* sways to the left side of the continuum (more passion, less reason).

*the left-wing v. right-wing dichotomy presents too simple of a view where nuances matter.

[Nobunaga]

In other words, in regard to journalism, you tend toward the left side of the continuum; whereas, I tend toward the right. Okay then!

Meh, the right side, of late, and particularly with regards to US tv news, seems kinda poor. It seems like the right won an argument that it should be bias in favour of increasingly right wing views. Let's be fair here. "Bias" in this topic basically codes to anything slightly centrist or left of centre. "Media" here is some daft vague term that means whatever the person is watching on tv,

Am I close?

As I said:

I think most people's concern is that even if (a) is being carried out in the proper way, they would still want the media to sync with their own normative position (b), which is silly.

You're talking about those people, and I agree that they're prevalent in this thread. ...

*the left-wing v. right-wing dichotomy presents too simple of a view where nuances matter.

No, that's not it. I am rather die-hard Libertarian/Constitutional conservative type, but I don't want news tailored to my attitudes.

I just want news.

Media's most commonly noticed sin is the slant they give to their stories, through choice of words used in description, and their choices for interviews and quotes. But far more common is the manner in which they simply ignore entire stories which would concern millions of Americans, or simply ignore portions that don't quite fit into the overall narrative.

I found this one real quick, just to cite an example:

Floyd Lee Corkins, the "man who planned a mass shooting at a conservative Christian lobbying group’s Washington headquarters in 2012 has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for the failed plot," the Associated Press reported shortly before noon Eastern Thursday. Yet nowhere in their four-paragraph story --(WashingtonPost.com) -- did the news wire note that Corkins admitted he was inspired by the website for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

If you are familiar with the the SPLC, you might see how this criminal's use of them as a resource to find people to kill runs counter to the liberal/statist narrative.

Many similar situations exist. Last month the local paper (mid-large city paper - probably about 1/2 a million readers) did a report on a panel of educators discussing the new common core curriculum, which was entirely favorable. Seeing how the vast majority of parents fail to even understand what common core is, this was their one experience to read about it. The panel's review was very positive. What the paper failed to mention was that two of the panelists had a very active lobbying role in getting the curriculum going in the state. That little tidbit of information (that people might have wanted to know) was somehow overlooked, and the truth of their statements (many false claims were made) were also not noticed by the reporter.

That's what I'm talking about. It's insidious.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, we agree. I'm always looking out for media (good media--as in scientific/positive analysis media)--which challenges my core beliefs. That's a interesting point about the 'sins of omission' (e.g. leaving out the SPLC bit).

Regarding that paper with the story on common core, of course that's borderline propaganda, but how did you know that two of the panelists were active lobbyists (basically) for that program? Was it from another news story?

[Nobunaga]

Yeah, we agree. I'm always looking out for media (good media--as in scientific/positive analysis media)--which challenges my core beliefs. That's a interesting point about the 'sins of omission' (e.g. leaving out the SPLC bit).

Regarding that paper with the story on common core, of course that's borderline propaganda, but how did you know that two of the panelists were active lobbyists (basically) for that program? Was it from another news story?

I'm doing a lot of research now on common core and how it came to happen in my state, without anybody (by "anybody", I mean parents) noticing.

There's a lot of data on-line (groups of people like me, trying to figure out what's going on) detailing where it came from, who paid how much to whom, how it was lobbied and who was involved, etc... That's where I read about the two panelists in question.

[BigBallinStalin]

Looks like y'all may have something worthy of publishing, either through news or potentially through academic channels.

[Nobunaga]

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

"Even for Speaker Boehner, who is a consummate dealmaker, what we have got now is a situation where the inmates are running the asylum. That the leadership realizes that they are running towards a cliff that they realize is politically damaging, economically damaging, there is very little upside. But if they don't give in to the demands of the 50 or so House radicals pushing this direction, they're afraid they may lose their positions."

Congress Like Bad Parents Who Let Kids Starve

"But it's like mommy and daddy are fighting over whether or not to buy a new car or a new couch and they decide, you know what, we can't figure it out so let's not feed the kids until we do. That's what it sounds like to the American people."

Americans Will Blame Tea Party for "Messing With Our Economy"

"I must say that many Americans will look to the Tea Party and blame the Tea Party once again for kind of like messing with our economy in a time that the economy's fragile and we shouldn't be messing with it in this way."

House GOP Holding the Economy "to Ransom"

"It's a frustration for most Americans that their government is essentially – and their economy is being held to ransom over this."

Supporting my previous - look at their choices of words here. These are not op-ed type personalities, but news anchors and commentators.

Not a one of them mentions that the budget has indeed been funded for everything, except Obamacare. Yet the GOP are the inmates, starving the children, and holding the economy to ransom (neutral, journalistic type phrase choices?). And Americans will blame the Tea Party again. (I didn't know they were blamed last time, at least by the American people as opposed to CNN newscasters).

...

[Symmetry]

In other words, in regard to journalism, you tend toward the left side of the continuum; whereas, I tend toward the right. Okay then!

Meh, the right side, of late, and particularly with regards to US tv news, seems kinda poor. It seems like the right won an argument that it should be bias in favour of increasingly right wing views. Let's be fair here. "Bias" in this topic basically codes to anything slightly centrist or left of centre. "Media" here is some daft vague term that means whatever the person is watching on tv,

Am I close?

As I said:

I think most people's concern is that even if (a) is being carried out in the proper way, they would still want the media to sync with their own normative position (b), which is silly.

You're talking about those people, and I agree that they're prevalent in this thread. However, this quote still applies to those on the left or right. It depends on how much each side* sways to the left side of the continuum (more passion, less reason).

*the left-wing v. right-wing dichotomy presents too simple of a view where nuances matter.

I don't think the passion vs reason dichotomy is particularly useful either, though. As if having one means you have less of the other. One of the reasons I like the New Yorker, for example, is that they publish a lot of well reasoned long form journalism, something that's impossible without a lot of passion.

[thegreekdog]

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

"Even for Speaker Boehner, who is a consummate dealmaker, what we have got now is a situation where the inmates are running the asylum. That the leadership realizes that they are running towards a cliff that they realize is politically damaging, economically damaging, there is very little upside. But if they don't give in to the demands of the 50 or so House radicals pushing this direction, they're afraid they may lose their positions."

Congress Like Bad Parents Who Let Kids Starve

"But it's like mommy and daddy are fighting over whether or not to buy a new car or a new couch and they decide, you know what, we can't figure it out so let's not feed the kids until we do. That's what it sounds like to the American people."

Americans Will Blame Tea Party for "Messing With Our Economy"

"I must say that many Americans will look to the Tea Party and blame the Tea Party once again for kind of like messing with our economy in a time that the economy's fragile and we shouldn't be messing with it in this way."

House GOP Holding the Economy "to Ransom"

"It's a frustration for most Americans that their government is essentially – and their economy is being held to ransom over this."

Supporting my previous - look at their choices of words here. These are not op-ed type personalities, but news anchors and commentators.

Not a one of them mentions that the budget has indeed been funded for everything, except Obamacare. Yet the GOP are the inmates, starving the children, and holding the economy to ransom (neutral, journalistic type phrase choices?). And Americans will blame the Tea Party again. (I didn't know they were blamed last time, at least by the American people as opposed to CNN newscasters).

...

I don't know... I'm kind of excited about getting to call myself a radical.

[Symmetry]

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

"Even for Speaker Boehner, who is a consummate dealmaker, what we have got now is a situation where the inmates are running the asylum. That the leadership realizes that they are running towards a cliff that they realize is politically damaging, economically damaging, there is very little upside. But if they don't give in to the demands of the 50 or so House radicals pushing this direction, they're afraid they may lose their positions."

Congress Like Bad Parents Who Let Kids Starve

"But it's like mommy and daddy are fighting over whether or not to buy a new car or a new couch and they decide, you know what, we can't figure it out so let's not feed the kids until we do. That's what it sounds like to the American people."

Americans Will Blame Tea Party for "Messing With Our Economy"

"I must say that many Americans will look to the Tea Party and blame the Tea Party once again for kind of like messing with our economy in a time that the economy's fragile and we shouldn't be messing with it in this way."

House GOP Holding the Economy "to Ransom"

"It's a frustration for most Americans that their government is essentially – and their economy is being held to ransom over this."

Supporting my previous - look at their choices of words here. These are not op-ed type personalities, but news anchors and commentators.

Not a one of them mentions that the budget has indeed been funded for everything, except Obamacare. Yet the GOP are the inmates, starving the children, and holding the economy to ransom (neutral, journalistic type phrase choices?). And Americans will blame the Tea Party again. (I didn't know they were blamed last time, at least by the American people as opposed to CNN newscasters).

...

I don't know... I'm kind of excited about getting to call myself a radical.

Your reaction to the government recognizing gay marriage- that no marriage should be recognized anymore, seemed kind of radical to me.

[thegreekdog]

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

"Even for Speaker Boehner, who is a consummate dealmaker, what we have got now is a situation where the inmates are running the asylum. That the leadership realizes that they are running towards a cliff that they realize is politically damaging, economically damaging, there is very little upside. But if they don't give in to the demands of the 50 or so House radicals pushing this direction, they're afraid they may lose their positions."

Congress Like Bad Parents Who Let Kids Starve

"But it's like mommy and daddy are fighting over whether or not to buy a new car or a new couch and they decide, you know what, we can't figure it out so let's not feed the kids until we do. That's what it sounds like to the American people."

Americans Will Blame Tea Party for "Messing With Our Economy"

"I must say that many Americans will look to the Tea Party and blame the Tea Party once again for kind of like messing with our economy in a time that the economy's fragile and we shouldn't be messing with it in this way."

House GOP Holding the Economy "to Ransom"

"It's a frustration for most Americans that their government is essentially – and their economy is being held to ransom over this."

Supporting my previous - look at their choices of words here. These are not op-ed type personalities, but news anchors and commentators.

Not a one of them mentions that the budget has indeed been funded for everything, except Obamacare. Yet the GOP are the inmates, starving the children, and holding the economy to ransom (neutral, journalistic type phrase choices?). And Americans will blame the Tea Party again. (I didn't know they were blamed last time, at least by the American people as opposed to CNN newscasters).

...

I don't know... I'm kind of excited about getting to call myself a radical.

Your reaction to the government recognizing gay marriage- that no marriage should be recognized anymore, seemed kind of radical to me.

Nice! Thanks dude!

[Symmetry]

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

"Even for Speaker Boehner, who is a consummate dealmaker, what we have got now is a situation where the inmates are running the asylum. That the leadership realizes that they are running towards a cliff that they realize is politically damaging, economically damaging, there is very little upside. But if they don't give in to the demands of the 50 or so House radicals pushing this direction, they're afraid they may lose their positions."

Congress Like Bad Parents Who Let Kids Starve

"But it's like mommy and daddy are fighting over whether or not to buy a new car or a new couch and they decide, you know what, we can't figure it out so let's not feed the kids until we do. That's what it sounds like to the American people."

Americans Will Blame Tea Party for "Messing With Our Economy"

"I must say that many Americans will look to the Tea Party and blame the Tea Party once again for kind of like messing with our economy in a time that the economy's fragile and we shouldn't be messing with it in this way."

House GOP Holding the Economy "to Ransom"

"It's a frustration for most Americans that their government is essentially – and their economy is being held to ransom over this."

Supporting my previous - look at their choices of words here. These are not op-ed type personalities, but news anchors and commentators.

Not a one of them mentions that the budget has indeed been funded for everything, except Obamacare. Yet the GOP are the inmates, starving the children, and holding the economy to ransom (neutral, journalistic type phrase choices?). And Americans will blame the Tea Party again. (I didn't know they were blamed last time, at least by the American people as opposed to CNN newscasters).

...

I don't know... I'm kind of excited about getting to call myself a radical.

Your reaction to the government recognizing gay marriage- that no marriage should be recognized anymore, seemed kind of radical to me.

Nice! Thanks dude!

You're welcome.

[Nobunaga]

This is an good read. Seymour Hersh is the hard-working, old style journalist who won the Pulitzer for breaking the story on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'Pathetic' American media

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media- ... ican-media

...