Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama

[Winstonm]

maybe you can be the new 'czar of intelligence and sanity'

 

That sounds too much like work. We progressives have the Maynard G. Krebs syndrome when it comes to the "W" word.

[hrothgar]

Absolutely. I watched that show with my son and Stewart's commentary was right on the mark in my view. The media coverage is absolutely unfair to Ron Paul.

 

Media: Just report what actually happens, please!

 

Ron Paul's showing in the Iowa straw pool was an event, however, it doesn't strike me as newsworthy in any way, shape, or form.

 

Ron Paul has run for president on multiple occasions; each time, demonstrating that he has a following that is an inch wide and a mile deep. Paul has consistently demonstrated that he can turn out his fans and he does great in events the reward having small numbers of very dedicated followers. However, he is a completely insignificant factor in actual elections.

 

Ron Paul placed well in Iowa

This morning, the sun rose in the East

 

Both of these are facts

Neither warrants excessive amounts of news coverage, because neither event is at all unexpected or surprising.

 

The reason that Bachman is getting significant amounts of coverage is that she is new.

Romney gets coverage because he's the front runner.

Paul doesn't get coverage because he demonstrated how inconsequential he is the last time around.

(He placed 6th in New Hampshire, for god's sake and didn't get a single delegate)

 

Who knows, maybe the tides are turning...

Maybe Paul will place decently is a real electoral contest...

 

I trust that if/when that happens, there might be a bit more coverage

[luke warm]

That sounds too much like work. We progressives have the Maynard G. Krebs syndrome when it comes to the "W" word.

good point...

[PassedOut]

Ron Paul's showing in the Iowa straw pool was an event, however, it doesn't strike me as newsworthy in any way, shape, or form.

I understand your points about Ron Paul, but the Iowa straw poll itself was the event and the media treated the whole event as newsworthy. The reporting should have been that Bachmann edged out Ron Paul and forced Tim Pawlenty out of the race.

 

One clip I found remarkable had a reporter being told that he should skip covering Ron Paul's speech and try to get a video of Sarah Palin getting off her bus. I think people have already seen that Palin can get off her bus unassisted, but lots of folks have no idea what Ron Paul's ideas are.

[hrothgar]

I understand your points about Ron Paul, but the Iowa straw poll itself was the event and the media treated the whole event as newsworthy. The reporting should have been that Bachmann edged out Ron Paul and forced Tim Pawlenty out of the race.

 

One clip I found remarkable had a reporter being told that he should skip covering Ron Paul's speech and try to get a video of Sarah Palin getting off her bus. I think people have already seen that Palin can get off her bus unassisted, but lots of folks have no idea what Ron Paul's ideas are.

 

I really don't worry too much about random anecdotes regarding individual reporters.

 

Yes, ***** happens

Yes, the amount of press coverage that Sarah Palin gets is ridiculous

For that matter, the amount of press coverage that Lady Gaga gets is even more silly

 

However, I don't think that the press is to blame that voters don't know Ron Paul's positions on topic XYZ...

 

Spend five minutes online and you can find enormous amounts of information about Ron Paul, ranging from Paul's own speeches to really good coverage on NPR, in the New York Review of Books, you name it.

 

TV news really isn't all that good a source of information...

[kenberg]

To repeat, I found the clip hilarious. I am one of the few people I know that doesn't think Jon Stewart is all that funny but this one was great. No need to treat it too seriously. But if I were to do so:

 

1. The opening shots of reporters each repeating the phrases of each other should embarrass them at least a bit. I recall when Mitt Romney's father was trying to get the nomination. I can't count high enough to tell you the number of times I heard "George Romney, the man who said he was brainwashed..." A faculty colleague once told me of a student who handed in a photocopy of someone else's homework. When asked, he explained that he was on a tight schedule.

 

2. I think, or at least hope, that both Sarah Palin and Lady Gaga are yesterday's news at best. Although I caught a bit of Gaga once and actually she has a decent voice. It's the firecrackers in the crotch that I could do without.

 

3. I think it wouldn't have taken excessive effort for the press corps to find someone who could summarize Ron Paul's ideas and discuss his history as a candidate. Hell, they could interview Richard.

 

4. But of course Stewart is making a comedic point and he is selecting material to fit. I'm fine with that.

 

5. A Ron Paul supporter and his wife are coming over tomorrow. I think we are both under instructions from our wives not to discuss politics, but I really think I have to show him this clip.

[PassedOut]

I accept what Richard says about TV news. Aside from breaking events like 9/11 and major speeches carried live, I don't watch it (except when I happen to see clips like those on the Daily Show).

 

For many years I've had a bone to pick with both TV and newspapers concerning the wasting of peoples' time. At least with newspapers you can skip articles, and you can scan the first paragraph or two to see if a whole article is worth reading. Can't do that with TV news.

 

Aside from the inane repetitions like the George Romney "brainwashed" quote Ken mentioned, there is a repeating sequence of reporting on TV and in newspapers that I can't stand. The sequence goes this way:

 

#1. Story after story about what is going to happen.

#2. One story about what did happen.

#3. Story after story about why what was going to happen did not happen.

 

Years ago I first noticed this pattern in reports about elections outside of the US. Then it spread like a drug-resistant infection.

 

#1 and #3 are complete time-wasters; only #2 is worth the time to read.

 

The searchable web is, in my opinion, the only half-way decent source for news these days. But the downside is the understandable tendency to search for material that reinforces one's current views. Fortunately discussion boards exist in which posters articulate contrary views without hesitation!

[jonottawa]

At what exact point in time did America lose its collective mind?

 

December, 1998? When the greatest president of all time was impeached because of a couple of blowjobs? (I'd say 1998 was the year America peaked and it's been in decline ever since. (Come to think of it, me too.))

 

November, 2000? When a near-plurality of us cast votes for an alcoholic cheerleader, religious zealot, and failed businessman, because his father was a dishonest 1-term president once.

 

December, 2000? When the supreme court decided that to count all the votes in Florida would deprive Dubya of his civil rights?

 

September 11, 2001? When we decided that in order to beat the terrorists we had to become just like them?

 

And I agree about the media coverage of Ron Paul. Absolutely disgraceful. The media is the message problem.

[blackshoe]

One clip I found remarkable had a reporter being told that he should skip covering Ron Paul's speech and try to get a video of Sarah Palin getting off her bus. I think people have already seen that Palin can get off her bus unassisted, but lots of folks have no idea what Ron Paul's ideas are.

 

I don't know who the guy is who told that reporter that, but he clearly thinks Ron Paul is a non-entity. He's equally clearly no journalist. Frankly, if I were his boss, I'd fire him.

[PassedOut]

I don't know who the guy is who told that reporter that, but he clearly thinks Ron Paul is a non-entity. He's equally clearly no journalist. Frankly, if I were his boss, I'd fire him.

My impression was that the reporter's news director gave that direction. The only news director that I have known enforced the policies of management on his reporters even when he disagreed with those policies. I'd like to be wrong on this one, but I fear that's really where we are these days.

[Mbodell]

My impression was that the reporter's news director gave that direction. The only news director that I have known enforced the policies of management on his reporters even when he disagreed with those policies. I'd like to be wrong on this one, but I fear that's really where we are these days.

 

My impression is that it was the news anchor giving the instruction to the field reporter on the live news. It is pretty ridiculous. Not at all fair and balanced.

[Mbodell]

For many years I've had a bone to pick with both TV and newspapers concerning the wasting of peoples' time. At least with newspapers you can skip articles, and you can scan the first paragraph or two to see if a whole article is worth reading. Can't do that with TV news.

 

Aside from the inane repetitions like the George Romney "brainwashed" quote Ken mentioned, there is a repeating sequence of reporting on TV and in newspapers that I can't stand. The sequence goes this way:

 

#1. Story after story about what is going to happen.

#2. One story about what did happen.

#3. Story after story about why what was going to happen did not happen.

 

Years ago I first noticed this pattern in reports about elections outside of the US. Then it spread like a drug-resistant infection.

 

#1 and #3 are complete time-wasters; only #2 is worth the time to read.

 

That's annoying, but what is worse IMO is the pattern of:

 

#1. There is some issue in the news.

#2. To report on the issue in a fair and impartial way here are two people to represent both sides of the issue.

#3. The news reporters/anchors do not report facts and just give the two people a soap box and don't correct them. On the "good" shows the hosts facilitate discussions. On the "bad" shows the hosts facilitate shouting matches.

 

Nobody cares if one of the people is actually representing the facts or the mainstream scientific community and the other is a lunatic. Nobody notices if both people ignore a large segment of the population because they are unrepresented by the usual D-R split. Nobody cares if the issue is actually complex and has more than two sides.

 

Report the facts. Don't let people get away with lies, distorted and misleading statements, or other propaganda.

[blackshoe]

My impression is that it was the news anchor giving the instruction to the field reporter on the live news. It is pretty ridiculous. Not at all fair and balanced.

 

Exactly. Note that the same guy appears elsewhere in the video, interviewing and/or doing the "anchor" thing.

[PassedOut]

Exactly. Note that the same guy appears elsewhere in the video, interviewing and/or doing the "anchor" thing.

Yep. Looked at the video and you guys are right. Also right imo that it is appalling.

[Winstonm]

I accept what Richard says about TV news. Aside from breaking events like 9/11 and major speeches carried live, I don't watch it (except when I happen to see clips like those on the Daily Show).

 

For many years I've had a bone to pick with both TV and newspapers concerning the wasting of peoples' time. At least with newspapers you can skip articles, and you can scan the first paragraph or two to see if a whole article is worth reading. Can't do that with TV news.

 

Aside from the inane repetitions like the George Romney "brainwashed" quote Ken mentioned, there is a repeating sequence of reporting on TV and in newspapers that I can't stand. The sequence goes this way:

 

#1. Story after story about what is going to happen.

#2. One story about what did happen.

#3. Story after story about why what was going to happen did not happen.

 

Years ago I first noticed this pattern in reports about elections outside of the US. Then it spread like a drug-resistant infection.

 

#1 and #3 are complete time-wasters; only #2 is worth the time to read.

 

The searchable web is, in my opinion, the only half-way decent source for news these days. But the downside is the understandable tendency to search for material that reinforces one's current views. Fortunately discussion boards exist in which posters articulate contrary views without hesitation!

 

Actually, this isn't the biggest concern to me. Glenn Greenwald has written extensively about and documented a much more troubling aspect of American journalism in that for the most part the "journalists" have become stenographers who simply repeat what some "so and so" on the inside had to say, and, of course, these insiders are always anonymous. It then follows this pattern:

 

1. Some un-named source gives an unchallenged, one-sided view which is reported as news.

2. Other news organizations retell the story, citing the initial unverified story as their source.

3. With enough retelling, the unverified, unchallenged, one-sided claim becomes accepted as "news".

[PassedOut]

That's annoying, but what is worse IMO is the pattern of:

 

#1. There is some issue in the news.

#2. To report on the issue in a fair and impartial way here are two people to represent both sides of the issue.

#3. The news reporters/anchors do not report facts and just give the two people a soap box and don't correct them. On the "good" shows the hosts facilitate discussions. On the "bad" shows the hosts facilitate shouting matches.

Report the facts. Don't let people get away with lies, distorted and misleading statements, or other propaganda.

I have heard of programs like that. Searching my memory way back, isn't that where one of the soapbox people finally says to the other, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."? Or is that a no-no these days?

[kenberg]

That's annoying, but what is worse IMO is the pattern of:

 

#1. There is some issue in the news.

#2. To report on the issue in a fair and impartial way here are two people to represent both sides of the issue.

#3. The news reporters/anchors do not report facts and just give the two people a soap box and don't correct them. On the "good" shows the hosts facilitate discussions. On the "bad" shows the hosts facilitate shouting matches.

 

Nobody cares if one of the people is actually representing the facts or the mainstream scientific community and the other is a lunatic. Nobody notices if both people ignore a large segment of the population because they are unrepresented by the usual D-R split. Nobody cares if the issue is actually complex and has more than two sides.

 

Report the facts. Don't let people get away with lies, distorted and misleading statements, or other propaganda.

 

 

There was an instance of this many years ago that I often wish I had kept the reference for.

 

The subject was capital punishment. A radio host had two guests presenting their analyses of the benefits, if any, to society. Each one had his/her statistics, often from the same data, with wildly different statistical summaries. One would say, for example, that there was a 50% reduction in crime and the other would say that it was 2 or 3 %. The host just let them scream on, as if it were "You say to-may-toe, I say to-mah-toe" and just no way to decide who was slinging it. Probably both. Obviously the numbers represented very different calculations from the same data, and a few pointed questions could have cleared things up For example, 50% of what? 3% of what? Citing percentages without saying what they are a percentage of should be, perhaps, a capital offense.

 

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly that just getting two points of view, "and now we will hear from the pro-alien abduction camp", is not serious journalism.

[helene_t]

I am not sure if I like the idea of journalists "just reporting the facts". I suppose it's a journalist's task to identify reliable sources, but sometimes sources of similar reliability will contradict each other, and the journalist may not be able to present an unbiased and qualified verdict.

 

So it can be justified to present opposing views. But of course it is ridiculous to leave it by "one expert says it's a 2% reduction and the other says it's 50%". In such cases it should be investigated what those percentages really mean and which sources they are build on. There was a case where one survey sponsored by Danish labour unions showed that 80% of Danes were in favour of employee-representatives in boards of directors while a survey sponsored by the federation of danish industries showed that 80% were against. But I think that was a little unusual. Normally, if different authorities quote vastly different percentages it is because they use different denominators, or something like that. If a drug reduces the risk of heart attack from 2% to 1% then the manufacturer might call it a 50% reduction while your health insurance company might call it a 1% reduction. And both will be right and both will be referring to the same statistics. And it's the journalist's task to make sure that nobody is left with the impression that the manufacturer and the insurance company contradict each other.

[Winstonm]

I think I have discovered Perry's stategy: to become so outlandish and spew so much nonsense that it becomes impossible for South Park to statirize him.

[hrothgar]

I think I have discovered Perry's stategy: to become so outlandish and spew so much nonsense that it becomes impossible for South Park to statirize him.

 

Dude...

 

Matt and Trey were about to satirize Saddam Hussein....

 

I hate Perry as much as nay other Democrat does, but he has a long way to go before he reaches Saddam's level of insanity

[Winstonm]

Dude...

 

Matt and Trey were about to satirize Saddam Hussein....

 

I hate Perry as much as nay other Democrat does, but he has a long way to go before he reaches Saddam's level of insanity

 

Richard,

 

To be fair, I said it was his strategy - I didn't say he had completed it. ;)

[jonottawa]

I hate Perry as much as nay other Democrat does, but he has a long way to go before he reaches Saddam's level of insanity

 

Source?

 

If harshly 'expunging' rebellious elements within your country makes one insane, then surely Abraham Lincoln is at the top of the list.

 

As dictators go, Saddam Hussein was better than most. Iraq was the most prosperous and secular country in the region before the war criminal Dubya invaded.

[jonottawa]

As for the thread topic, while Perry is the current frontrunner, he is not an odds-on favorite at this point. It's really a 2-man (Perry-Romney) race, but if one insists upon calling it a 3-man race, then the 3 are: Perry-Romney-rest of the field, with each having about a 1/3 chance.

[ggwhiz]

 

A radio host had two guests presenting their analyses of the benefits, if any, to society. Each one had his/her statistics, often from the same data, with wildly different statistical summaries.

 

A Red Sox pitcher (can't remember who) went into contract negotiations years ago and his agent produced stats that showed him as the 2nd best pitcher in the league. Management produced a chart that showed him as the 7th best pitcher on the team.

 

Our newsbites in Canada come from mostly 3 different sources and it is still woefully inadequate for "informed" journalism and only slightly less polarizing. Any moderator correcting the facts would have to be a genius.

[blackshoe]

I am not sure if I like the idea of journalists "just reporting the facts". I suppose it's a journalist's task to identify reliable sources, but sometimes sources of similar reliability will contradict each other, and the journalist may not be able to present an unbiased and qualified verdict.

 

I don't think it's a journalist's job to present verdicts. It's his job to present information — verifiable (and varified) facts wherever possible, opinions (clearly so marked) otherwise. It's also the journalist's job to ask questions in clarification of anything dubious or confusing, particularly in a face to face interview. It's the viewer's/readers job to decide on a verdict.